Exposure to COVID-19 is associated with increased altruism, particularly at the local level.

Theory posits that situations of existential threat will enhance prosociality in general and particularly toward others perceived as belonging to the same group as the individual (parochial altruism). Yet, the global character of the COVID-19 pandemic may blur boundaries between ingroups and outgroups and engage altruism at a broader level. In an online experiment, participants from the U.S. and Italy chose whether to allocate a monetary bonus to a charity active in COVID-19 relief efforts at the local, national, or international level. The purpose was to address two important questions about charitable giving in this context: first, what influences the propensity to give, and second, how is charitable giving distributed across different levels of collective welfare? We found that personal exposure to COVID-19 increased donations relative to those not exposed, even as levels of environmental exposure (numbers of cases locally) had no effect. With respect to targets of giving, we found that donors predominantly benefitted the local level; donations toward country and world levels were half as large. Social identity was found to influence charity choice in both countries, although an experimental manipulation of identity salience did not have any direct effect.

Spatial and temporal patterns in Canadian COVID-19 crowdfunding campaigns.

Online charitable crowdfunding has become an increasingly prevalent way for Canadians to deal with costs that they would otherwise not be able to shoulder on their own. With the onset of COVID-19 and related lockdown measures, there is evidence of a surge in crowdfunding use relating to the pandemic. This study gathered, classified, and analysed Canadian crowdfunding campaigns created in response to COVID-19 from GoFundMe.com, a popular crowdfunding platform. Spatio-temporal analysis of classified campaigns allowed for observation of emergent trends in the distribution of pandemic-related need incidence and financial support throughout the pandemic. Campaigns raising money on behalf of established charities were the most common in the sample, and accounted for the greatest portion of funding raised, while campaigns for businesses made up a small proportion. Dense metropolitan areas accounted for the vast majority of campaign locations, and total sample funding was disproportionately raised by campaigners in Ontario and British Columbia.

Gamble for the needy! Does identifiability enhances donation?

To investigate how neediness and identifiability of a recipient influence the willingness of a donor to invest resources in charity-like lotteries we propose a new game, called 'need game'. Similar to the dictator game, the need game includes two players, one active player (the donor or dictator) and one passive player (the recipient). Both players require a minimum need (ND and NR), expressed in terms of points. The donor is endowed with KD points and must retain at least ND points, i.e., the need, with ND < KD, at the end of the game with n rounds. The recipient starts with KR points and must end the game with at least NR points, i.e., the need, with KR < NR < KD. The donor is asked to choose one of three different amounts from KD to place a bet on a lottery. If won, the gain is added to the endowment. If lost, the recipient receives the points. The recipient is paid only when his/her need threshold is obtained; likewise the donor gets paid only when his/her need threshold is maintained. The main focus here is on need of both players (ND = NR = 2, 200, and ND = NR = 0 serving as baseline control) and the identifiability of the recipient (no information, described by text and picture, and physical presence). We probe whether the amount invested by the donor depends on need and identifiability of the recipient. In addition, we include the framing of the game as gain or loss, different probabilities to win/lose, and different time limits as covariates. We found that each of these factors can play a role when investing in charity-like lotteries.

How does social information affect charitable giving?: Empathic concern promotes support for underdog recipient.

Charitable giving represents a unique cooperative characteristic of humans. In today's environment with social media, our charitable decisions seem to be influenced by social information such as a project's popularity. Here we report three experiments that examined people's reactions to social information about a charitable endeavor and their psychophysiological underpinnings. Participants were first solicited to make donations to either the Africa or Syria project of UNICEF. Then participants were provided an opportunity to learn social information (i.e., how much each project had raised from previous participants) and change their decision if desired. Contrary to expectation, participants who learned that their initial preferences were consistent with the majority of previous participants' choices exhibited a sizable tendency to switch to the less popular project in their final choices. This anti-conformity pattern was robust across the three experiments. Eye-tracking data (gaze bias and pupil dilation) indicated that these "Changers" were more physiologically aroused and formed more differential valuations between the two charity projects, compared to "Keepers" who retained their initial preferences after viewing the social information. These results suggest that social information about relative popularity may evoke empathic concern for the worse-off target, in line with the human tendency to avoid unequal distributions.

Predictive models for charitable giving using machine learning techniques.

Private giving represents more than three fourths of all U.S. charitable donations, about 2% of total Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Private giving is a significant factor in funding the nonprofit sector of the U.S. economy, which accounts for more than 10% of total GDP. Despite the abundance of data available through tax forms and other sources, it is unclear which factors influence private donation, and a reliable predictive mechanism remains elusive. This study aims to develop predictive models to accurately estimate future charitable giving based on a set of potentially influential factors. We have selected several factors, including unemployment rate, household income, poverty level, population, sex, age, ethnicity, education level, and number of vehicles per household. This study sheds light on the relationship between donation and these variables. We use Stepwise Regression to identify the most influential variables among the available variables, based on which predictive models are developed. Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) and machine learning techniques, including Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Support Vector Regression (SVR) are used to develop the predictive models. The results suggest that population, education level, and the amount of charitable giving in the previous year are the most significant, independent variables. We propose three predictive models (MLR, ANN, and SVR) and validate them using 10-fold cross-validation method, then evaluate the performance using 9 different measuring criteria. All three models are capable of predicting the amount of future donations in a given region with good accuracy. Based on the evaluation criteria, using a test data set, ANN outperforms SVR and MLR in predicting the amount of charitable giving in the following year.

Sources and Focus of Health Development Assistance, 1990-2014.

IMPORTANCE: The governments of high-income countries and private organizations provide billions of dollars to developing countries for health. This type of development assistance can have a critical role in ensuring that life-saving health interventions reach populations in need. OBJECTIVES: To identify the amount of development assistance that countries and organizations provided for health and to determine the health areas that received these funds. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Budget, revenue, and expenditure data on the primary agencies and organizations (n = 38) that provided resources to developing countries (n = 146-183, depending on the year) for health from 1990 through 2014 were collected. For each channel (the international agency or organization that directed the resources toward the implementing institution or government), the source and recipient of the development assistance were determined and redundant accounting of the same dollar, which occurs when channels transfer funds among each other, was removed. This research derived the flow of resources from source to intermediary channel to recipient. Development assistance for health (DAH) was divided into 11 mutually exclusive health focus areas, such that every dollar of development assistance was assigned only 1 health focus area. FINDINGS: Since 1990, $458.0 billion of development assistance has been provided to maintain or improve health in developing countries. The largest source of funding was the US government, which provided $143.1 billion between 1990 and 2014, including $12.4 billion in 2014. Of resources that originated with the US government, 70.6% were provided through US government agencies, and 41.0% were allocated for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS. The second largest source of development assistance for health was private philanthropic donors, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other private foundations, which provided $69.9 billion between 1990 and 2014, including $6.2 billion in 2014. These resources were provided primarily through private foundations and nongovernmental organizations and were allocated for a diverse set of health focus areas. Since 1990, 28.0% of all DAH was allocated for maternal health and newborn and child health; 23.2% for HIV/AIDS, 4.3% for malaria, 2.8% for tuberculosis, and 1.5% for noncommunicable diseases. Between 2000 and 2010, DAH increased 11.3% annually. However, since 2010, total DAH has not increased as substantially. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Funding for health in developing countries has increased substantially since 1990, with a focus on HIV/AIDS, maternal health, and newborn and child health. Funding from the US government has played a substantial role in this expansion. Funding for noncommunicable diseases has been limited. Understanding how funding patterns have changed across time and the priorities of sources of international funding across distinct channels, recipients, and health focus areas may help identify where funding gaps persist and where cost-effective interventions could save lives.

Charitable pharmacy services: Impact on patient-reported hospital use, medication access, and health status.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact that Charitable Pharmacy of Central Ohio (CPCO), a pharmacy providing free pharmacy services and medications, had on an indigent patient population by determining the change in patient-reported hospital use, ability to access medications, and perception of health status after receiving CPCO services. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with face-to-face interviews using a convenience sample. SETTING: Columbus, OH, in January to March 2013. PATIENTS: 206 English-speaking patients 18 years or older at CPCO. INTERVENTION: Free pharmacy services and medications provided by CPCO. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Number of patient-reported hospital visits before and after CPCO use. RESULTS: In the year before using CPCO, patients reported using the hospital a mean of 2.36 (median, 2.00) times per year versus 1.33 (median, 0.67) times per year after, a decrease of 1.03 hospital visits per year per patient. Before coming to CPCO, 41% of patients were able to have all of their prescribed medications filled; this rose to 85% after using CPCO. A total of 89% of patients reported that not only was their overall health was better, but they also had a better understanding of their medications and believed they were in more control of their own health since receiving CPCO services. CONCLUSION: A charitable pharmacy model has the potential to decrease health care costs and empower patients to be more in control of their health.

Compassion fade: affect and charity are greatest for a single child in need.

Charitable giving in 2013 exceeded $300 billion, but why do we respond to some life-saving causes while ignoring others? In our first two studies, we demonstrated that valuation of lives is associated with affective feelings (self-reported and psychophysiological) and that a decline in compassion may begin with the second endangered life. In Study 3, this fading of compassion was reversed by describing multiple lives in a more unitary fashion. Study 4 extended our findings to loss-frame scenarios. Our capacity to feel sympathy for people in need appears limited, and this form of compassion fatigue can lead to apathy and inaction, consistent with what is seen repeatedly in response to many large-scale human and environmental catastrophes.

Domestic and donor financing for tuberculosis care and control in low-income and middle-income countries: an analysis of trends, 2002-11, and requirements to meet 2015 targets.

BACKGROUND: Progress in tuberculosis control worldwide, including achievement of 2015 global targets, requires adequate financing sustained for many years. WHO began yearly monitoring of tuberculosis funding in 2002. We used data reported to WHO to analyse tuberculosis funding from governments and international donors (in real terms, constant 2011 US$) and associated progress in tuberculosis control in low-income and middle-income countries between 2002 and 2011. We then assessed funding needed to 2015 and how this funding could be mobilised. METHODS: We included low-income and middle-income countries that reported data about financing for tuberculosis to WHO and had at least three observations between 2002 and 2011. When data were missing for specific country-year combinations, we imputed the missing data. We aggregated country-specific results for eight country groups defined according to income level, political and economic profile, geography, and tuberculosis burden. We compared absolute changes in total funding with those in the total number of patients successfully treated and did cross-country comparisons of cost per successfully treated patient relative to gross domestic product. We estimated funding needs for tuberculosis care and control for all low-income and middle-income countries to 2015, and compared these needs with domestic funding that could be mobilised. FINDINGS: Total funding grew from $1·7 billion in 2002 to $4·4 billion in 2011. It was mostly spent on diagnosis and treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis. 43 million patients were successfully treated, usually for $100-500 per person in countries with high burdens of tuberculosis. Domestic funding rose from $1·5 billion to $3·9 billion per year, mostly in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), which collectively account for 45% of global cases, where national contributions accounted for more than 95% of yearly funding. Donor funding increased from $0·2 billion in 2002 to $0·5 billion in 2011, and accounted for a mean of 39% of funding in the 17 countries with the highest burdens (excluding BRICS) and a mean of 67% in low-income countries by 2011. BRICS and upper middle-income countries could mobilise almost all of their funding needs to 2015 from domestic sources. A full response to the tuberculosis epidemic to 2015, including investments to tackle multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, will require international donor funding of $1·6-2·3 billion each year. INTERPRETATION: Funding for tuberculosis control increased substantially between 2002 and 2011, resulting in impressive and cost-effective gains. The increasing self-sufficiency of many countries, including BRICS, which account for almost half the world's tuberculosis cases, is a success story for control of tuberculosis. Nonetheless, international donor funding remains crucial in many countries and more is needed to achieve 2015 targets. FUNDING: None.