Earlier this week, we formally announced that the program teaching funders, philanthropists, and grantmakers at NYU would henceforth be known as the Academy for Grantmaking and Funder Education. While we have proudly taught hundreds of individual funders and professionals in the field over the past 7 years, this new name will allow folks to find us and to more readily identify this focus of the Center for Philanthropy. It is a welcome development about which I am quite pleased.
At the luncheon announcing the Academy, the keynote speaker was Jack Rosenthal, the very respected and thoughtful head of the New York Times Foundation. His remarks, and those of a respondent from the non-profit field, Ariel Zwang of safehorizons, stimulated a very energetic and often impassioned conversation. These thoughts are in response to what seemed to be emerging “orthodoxies” about philanthropic behavior in the current financial free fall.
Idea #1: that philanthropy’s values are ego driven and not need driven. One speaker bemoaned was how much easier it is to raise $200 m for a museum than $1m for a soup kitchen.
Idea #2: that it is inherently wrong that only 5-10% of philanthropic giving is specifically targeted to serving the needs of the poor.
Idea #3: that funders don’t coordinate their work so that there is needless duplication and inefficiency in grantmaking.
Idea #4: that private philanthropy should step up to the plate to replace government cutbacks.
Idea #5: that funders are unhelpful to grantees in times of change, especially in providing appropriate technical assistance in arranging orderly and strategic cutbacks.
Each of these has a good deal of truth but taken together distort the appropriate and proper role of philanthropy. Especially at times when everyone has less to give or spend, we have to balance our response to short term needs with long term strategies, so these comments are meant to stand as correctives to the emerging pressures on funders. None of us should be insensitive to real human needs and unresponsive to profoundly challenging moments. But it is also important to remember that private philanthropy cannot and should not be expected to be the solution to major societal issues.
It is important to remember that in the face of hunger, we can all support soup kitchens and pantries. But all of that support pales in the face of what an expansion of the food stamp program can do. We are naïve to believe that our own private generosity can feed millions of people over months. Only a national system like the food stamp program can. Direct service funding for food, a perfectly fine thing to do, without a concomitant commitment to advocate for effective public policy, a necessary thing to do, is inefficient philanthropy.
Similarly, coordination of private funding during times of disaster was raised. Who can argue against the validity of better coordination among funders and service deliverers – especially at times of crisis. But, the question remains: whose ultimate responsibility should it be to respond to disasters? Shouldn’t the demand be to rebuild a credible FEMA? Shouldn’t the role of private philanthropy be to build beyond the role of what FEMA can provide – long term, targeted responses, not to replace short-term interventions, a proper government function.
One participant mentioned the extraordinary consolidation of wealth in endowments at places like Harvard. Isn’t there something wrong with such hoarding? Probably. But let us remember that even if university endowments were mandated to spend at the same rate as private foundations, it wouldn’t come close to replacing the cutbacks in Pell Grants – the single most significant source of support for higher education for the middle class.
What is at stake in this discourse, passionately and sympathetically raised among many thoughtful folks in the philanthropy world, who are wringing their proverbial hands in the face of a deteriorating social weal, is consideration of the appropriate role of private philanthropy. It is the feeling of this observer that only a system supported by the society as a whole [which we call government!] can provide a reliable safety net. Private philanthropy can supplement what government cannot afford or chooses not to provide, but it cannot replace it.
In normal times, private philanthropy should serve as society’s risk capital – to test, model, explore what is not yet proven or may be controversial. It must be allowed to do so in arts, education and other quality of life endeavors as well as in the human service sector.
In abnormal times such as these, it may well be argued that there are emergent human tragedies which need immediate attention. But even as private philanthropy may choose to step into the breach, its mandate must be to advocate for where long term funding should come from: as normalcy returns, government must assume its proper role – to protect the legitimate needs and rights of its citizens. It is surely appropriate for private philanthropy to redress suffering and need; it is at least as crucial for the independent philanthropic sector to advocate public policy which will place the primary responsibility for this where it properly belongs.
Subscribe To Wise Philanthropy
Posts
Comments
