The paper draws on intensive interviews with 130 millionaires to explore the case for and against anonymous giving, to indicate a number of key findings about anonymous giving among the wealthy, and to describe the potential of anonymous giving to raise both the level of care and control in philanthropic relationships. The first two sections of the paper set out the case for and against anonymous giving, emphasising the instrumental and moral rationale by which the wealthy frame both sides of the issue. The third section discusses the tendencies inherent in anonymous giving toward enhancing moral stewardship and manipulation. In the conclusion, I discuss some conceptual distinctions derived from the analysis and speculate about the value of encouraging the non-wealthy to consider at least some measure of anonymous giving.

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the findings of a 24 country study of the legal restrictions on the freedom of non-profit and charitable organisations to engage in public policy campaigning. The countries are divided into those which organise the legal status of non-profit bodies around the concept of a charity, and those that do not. The central finding is that all and only charity law countries have constraints on campaigning which are specific to non-profit bodies. The paper reviews a number of possible explanations for this, at the level of jurisprudential rationales which might show that it is necessary or at least rational for only the charity law countries to have developed such restrictions. To varying degrees, all are found wanting. It is suggested that no explanation based on an ‘inner logic of the law’ will serve to explain the phenomenon, and that future research might concentrate on comparative political history rather than on jurisprudence.

Child care services are provided by profit-oriented businesses, not-for- profit agencies and governmental units. This paper compares goal priorities and operating characteristics of not-for-profit and for-profit child care centres in parts of Canada and the United States. Directors of 292 Pacific Northwest centres responded to a survey about their financial and non-financial operating objectives.

The relative rankings of objectives were similar for not-for-profit and for-profit centres, and for centres in both countries. Non-financial objectives were rated higher than financial objectives. Satisfying the developmental and educational needs of children was the single most important operating objective. Providing access to eligible children was the next most important objective, particularly for not-for-profit centres and for those with government-subsidised children. The remaining objectives, in order of importance, were minimising costs, maximising utilisation, maximising revenues and maximising profits. Profit maximisation was ranked low by both not-for-profit and for-profit respondents. Not-for-profit and for-profit centres exhibited differences on a number of operating characteristics, services provided and employee benefits. Such characteristics were found to be associated with auspices (not-for-profit or for-profit) and location (US or Canada).

Results suggest that centres operating under both auspices are capable of altruistic behaviour. Differences in motivation between organisational forms were very small. However, variations in operating characteristics and services suggest that the objectives are achieved in dissimilar ways.

Are there criteria that define non-profit organisation effectiveness? If the criteria can be identified, is it possible to use them in a comparative study to assess whether and in what way the use of the criteria may vary between nations? This study addresses both questions. The study uses the factorial survey method and is based on the social constructionist conception that effectiveness is created as an ongoing and sometimes contested outcome of a social judgement process. We illustrate the method with samples from the US and UK and compare the results. The results establish the value of the factorial survey method. Analyses show that both US and UK respondents use percentage expenditures on fund-raising, advocacy emphasis, change in financial surplus and unit cost of services as effectiveness criteria. There is evidence that voluntarism is a more important criterion in the US and that advocacy is more important in the UK.