philanthropy
Why Give? Because Your (College Nonprofit Entrepreneur) Friends Asked
Published November 07, 2009 @ 10:22PM PT
For the past week, there has been a great conversation over at Tactical Philanthropy about why people give. As a relatively wonky community, the answers to that question have involved a lot of great theories and a number of acronyms. I believe the single most important answer is that you give because your friends asked. And in the next 10 years, as the number of young people involved with or just a step away from social ventures increases, this is only going to become more important.
In a response to the conversation, Network for Good's Katya Andresen puts the reasons for giving in two big categories: personal return on investment (the feeling of having done good) and social return on investment (a dispassionate analysis of actually having achieved some social objective).
I would argue that most of the $200-some odd dollars of money donated to philanthropic causes by individual American citizens each year are donated with an implicit "outsourcing" of the social return on investment part of the equation.
Self-Less vs. Self-Aware Giving
Published November 04, 2009 @ 11:50AM PT
Is there such a thing as selfless charity? That's the question being debated in the comments on a great post on Tactical Philanthropy. Inspired by the new book "The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets a Business Plan," TP author Sean asked about motivations and why people give? While I don't believe there is such a thing as selfless giving, I do believe that giving can be much more self-aware - and in the process, much more fulfilling, sustainable, and effective.
This notion of selfless acts is fascinating not only from the standpoint of philanthropy but from economics, psychology, and faith as well. Economists might think of this from the standpoint of utility. If a $10 gift to charity gives you more valuable feelings than $10 spend on a CD, you're going to give to charity because we're utility maximizers.
That idea of maximizing utility brings up psychology - or more specifically the idea that reward is emotional and not necessarily monetary. Perhaps even more profound, emotional reward can come even at the expense what is psychically or financially good for us.
Kiva, Donor Idealism, and Why Most People Just Don't Care About "Investing in Nonprofits"
Published October 13, 2009 @ 01:31PM PT
There is a fierce conversation happening right now around the difference between the perception and reality of how a Kiva loan works. The debate has prompted some pretty excellent commentary, particularly from Sean at Tactical Philanthropy. Unfortunately, I also think it highlights a fundamental misperception about why average givers behave the way they do.
First, the background. A number of posts lately by the likes of microfinance experts David Roodman and Tim Ogden have pointed out that the story Kiva tells to lenders about its process is a little different than what's going on. People's perception is that a developing world entrepreneur comes to a microfinance institution (MFI), the MFI approves them and requires a Kiva loan, Kiva goes out and finds us, and we fund the loan. In reality, the MFI's make the loans and then give Kiva the information about the borrower, which goes on the website.
The interesting thing is that the criticism is not about the method that Kiva uses. There is basically 100% agreement that its the most efficient, responsible way to do it. The problem is with the communication, and whether what Kiva is promising is different than what they are delivering. Perhaps more importantly, the question is whether donors are naive, idealistic, and deluding themselves about what they should expect.
The problem, theoretically, is that donors want their dollars to go directly to "the problem" rather than to paying for the nonprofit intermediary. This is definitely a huge issue of narrative - one which has been dramatically exacerbated by nonprofits who, in the absence of good strategies for measuring their impact, have too often turned to measure of inputs like percentage spent on overhead as an indicator of quality.
Sean suggests that the answer is, in part, that the nonprofit field's narrative needs to undergo surgery and focus on "investing" in high impact organizations. He says, "I would argue it is simply a process of changing the narrative. Personally, I can think of nothing so satisfying as investing in an outstanding nonprofit and vesting them with the power to make tough decisions. I don’t need them to reinforce my misperceptions to gain joy from the gift, instead the joy in my giving comes from becoming a part of the community that gives rise to an outstanding organization that actually has an impact on the world."
I think this is exactly the way that people who consider themselves "donors" - family foundations, people using donor advised funds, big givers, etc - can and should behave. I think that these "engaged" donors are open to this sort of narrative shift.
Unfortunately, I also think that it is totally counter to the psychology of the average giver who doesn't consider themself a "donor." This is the group that makes up - by far - the largest part of philanthropic giving, and I think that however well intentioned it is to think that you can shift their narrative to "investing in great organizations," it just ain't gonna happen.
The question is about motivation. Why do people give? An economist would tell you that the value of the dollars they give is less than the value of the feeling they get from contributing to something good. I think that's exactly right, and the important piece is feeling.
The vast majority of small donations happen because of a feeling. Something in their guts twists and turns at the injustice of the world and they do something to resolve the feeling. Someone they love is pouring their heart into a cause and they have an opportunity to support that. It's not selfless - it's the opposite, but in a good way. It's a small act of sacrifice that, when taken as a part of a larger whole, actually makes people feel more connected to others.
These feelings are the things, I believe, which get most people to pull out their wallets and make donations. The tough reality is that they are not subject to the rational calculus of a grant making institution (or individual who behaves like one). They want to know that what they're donating to is real, and that their money is going to go where they think it will, and that it will actually have an impact, but all of that is prerequisite to the giving, not a compelling reason to give.
The hard truth of relying on individual donations is that nonprofits are, at the end of the day, mostly barriers to the emotional reward, which is almost always related to the notion that you are helping some other human being lead a happier, safer, healthier life.
The impulse to give is embedded deep in our social DNA. The imperative to charity is a part of every major religion not by chance but because of how we understand the connection between a commitment to a higher being (outside of ourselves) and a commitment to others (beyond ourselves).
Nonprofits almost always have to do a bit of bait and switch. They make you angry about a particular injustice, and then when you're at your most enflamed, they present themselves as the answer. This is of course fine, but it also highlights something about the psychology of individual givers. What gets them fired up is not an institutional structure, but real people experiencing a real problem, and the notion that they can have a hand in doing something better.
What's more, I think people are savvy. I've felt for a long time that the language of "investing in effective nonprofits," or "thinking about investment instead of donation" is more or less doomed to fail when it comes to the masses of crowdsourced givers - an increasingly important piece of the philanthropic pie. While it may be nice to have that "investment" framework to think about positive growth and change over time, it also feels like a bit of a semantic trick; a wolf in sheep's clothes that is, at the end of the day, just a different way to try to capture donor dollars for nonprofits. I know of a number of organizations - some of which I like very much - who are trying to apply this language to get more young people involved in nonprofit work. The normal response that I've seen is deep distrust of anything that focuses on a shift in language instead of a shift in action.
We all want to feel like we caused good to happen. I just don't think that the wide array of donors who fund most of American civil society will ever be particularly receptive to the message that no, it's actually just the professional class of organizations that create change, but we'll take your money to do it.
Is it a big problem? Yes. Is the need for donors to feel that emotional reward often a stumbling block for effective action on the ground? Probably. Is it a problem that is here for good? Almost definitely yes.
At the end of the day, I think that all we can do is help great organizations find better, more compelling philanthropic experiences.
(Photo: "Charity" by Sir J Boehm, 1874. Photo by mira66)
Dickens, Satire and "The Foundation"
Published August 27, 2009 @ 10:47PM PT
"Please sir, I want some more."
Following up on the new Canadian TV series "The Foundation," Philanthrocapitalism authors Matthew Bishop and Michael Green have compared the new satire to Charles Dickens' lampooning of the excesses of Victorian charity.
In this piece, they make two key points. The first is that the field should be excited that philanthropy feels relevant enough to satire. That's true. No one wants to make fun of something that's not culturally relevant.
The second is that satire is not a denial of importance of the subject of satire. Instead, in many cases it's about pointing out the hypocrisy of people's behavior, a different thing entirely. In the case of "The Foundation" is certainly appears to be less about a disbelief in the potential of philanthropy to do good, and far more about bringing to light - if in sometimes painful fashion - the undercurrent of social status hunting that can sometimes characterize participants in charity.
I think it's a useful framework. Satire has been society's way of keeping it's own feet to the fire since the genre was invented in the Mediterranean thousands of years ago. Our modern need for satire is demonstrated by our love for the Daily Show, Colbert Report, the Onion, and even after 14 seasons, South Park. Satire points out our bs, and in the process reminds us of what really matters.
Enjoy this clip from "Starvin Marvin," an episode from South Park's very first season that brutally lampoons the humanitarian international.
Philanthropy's Next Controversy, Coming to A TV Near You
Published August 25, 2009 @ 07:02PM PT
Michael Valmont-Selkirk, the new face of philanthropy?
If you thought the NBC series The Philanthropist made some waves, you ain't seen nothing yet.
This fall, the Canadian cable channel Showcase will debut "The Foundation," an extremely unfriendly skewering of a fictional philanthropist who runs the foundation begun by his death-bedridden tycoon father with all the cynical, corrupt aplomb you would expect from a TV anti-hero.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy's Give and Take blog wrote about the show this afternoon and it's already begun to make waves around the philanthropy Twittersphere, with Tactical Philanthropy's Sean Stannard-Stockton saying "OMG. If South Park re-did The Philanthropist. Appalling." and "Philanthrocapitalism" author Matthew Bishop writes "This may be a work of genius..."
So far, all we have is the trailer, which as you can see for yourself, isn't super kind in it's stereotyping of the field:
So what will brew up? Here are some of my predictions.
1. The people who are more inclined to like it or at least give it a pass will argue that it's the corrupt lead character, not the field of nonprofit work in general that is the subject of lampoon. They will say that while this guy is clearly a jerk, he's less and less the face of philanthropy. And at the end of the day, this is just a work of fiction.
2. People who inclined to be either offended or frustrated by the show will be less forgiving of a parody of a stereotype that they have been working to shift. They will recognize the power that media has to shape general cultural attitudes, and worry that a general tone in the conversation about philanthropy being in the shape of characters on The Philanthropist and The Foundation threatens to re-institutionalize a view of neo-colonial philanthropy.
3. There will be a lot of people who actually think that the character in the show strikes pretty close to home, and that the philanthropic pursuits of the ultra-wealthy who would use a last minute show of generosity as a salve for a questionable life is worthy of being ridiculed. They would point out the deep, rich undercurrent of critique that is essential to the health of philanthropy. Or they would just laugh, believing that charity is an out-dated, out-modded approach to changing the world.
So what do I think? A few things. First, it will only matter if it's funny and captivating. It has to be a good show before anyone in the general public will really pay attention. Second, it will only matter if enough people watch it (so far, the YouTube video below has a staggering ~330 views). Third, it will only matter if it becomes evidence of a larger meta-narrative that defines philanthropy in this sort of harsh light.
And that's the real rub of it. The general public's interaction with philanthropy tends tends to come in the form of the media that philanthropic organizations create about themselves, and the opportunities they provide people to get involved. There's something immensely rewarding about making a difference, which is why people like giving experiences (whether it's time or money) where they feel a part of something bigger than themselves.
So at the end of the day, the thing that will impact the general perception of philanthropy is it's efficacy and engagement. Does it solve problems? Does it demonstrate that the world is better for it being there? Does it use resources efficiently? Does it provide opportunities for it's staff to contribute their best talents and their volunteers and supporters to contribute their full range of assets? Is it honest and authentic? Is it actually making a dent?
More than any television show, this is what it's about. Brand matters, but the best way to be seen as good is to actually be good.
