Give A Man A Fish...
After reading Chapters 1 and 11 of the textbook, I am particularly surprised that we have not created more reliable measurements of success for the grantmaking industry. Chapter 11 refers to this as as the "effectiveness" factor and it is one of four major doubts that critics of institutional philanthropy are beginning to have. While there seems to be very good records of the money amassed and distributed, no one can tell us how many problems have been solved through the assistance of institutional philanthropy (IP). I don't think most Americans have any idea of how money donated to foundations, charity federations, etc., is actually being used. We just trust those intermediaries to be good stewards of our donations.
This takes me to my second observation which is that sometimes it is more helpful to teach a man to fish as opposed to just giving him one and I think that the future of IP is headed in that direction. I think that those of us who make donations to various IP's would like to see our money used in a way that has a greater long-term impact, and I also believe that many people now would like to be involved with their giving (e.g., donor-advised funds and individually directed giving as stated in the textbook). In my opinion some of the most successful non-profit charities are those that involve the donors and recipients such as Habitat for Humanity (which isn't a foundation) but is a charity that needs no intermediary.
Chapter 11 really spells out for me that the tides of change are upon us in terms of how IP is going to be managed. And I think it is a change for the better.
This takes me to my second observation which is that sometimes it is more helpful to teach a man to fish as opposed to just giving him one and I think that the future of IP is headed in that direction. I think that those of us who make donations to various IP's would like to see our money used in a way that has a greater long-term impact, and I also believe that many people now would like to be involved with their giving (e.g., donor-advised funds and individually directed giving as stated in the textbook). In my opinion some of the most successful non-profit charities are those that involve the donors and recipients such as Habitat for Humanity (which isn't a foundation) but is a charity that needs no intermediary.
Chapter 11 really spells out for me that the tides of change are upon us in terms of how IP is going to be managed. And I think it is a change for the better.
posted by Anonymous @ 5:10 PM
2 Comments:
At 6:32 PM, August 27, 2006,
Richard said…
Foundations are very interesting creatures: some nice, fuzzy, and cute; others cold, mean, and insincere. By law, each year they are required to give away 5% of their endowment to different nonprofit organizations.
That sounds like a great plan, but keep in mind that foundations themselves are nonprofit organizations. Some count the money they use for their operating expenses or payment to the board of directors as part of that 5%.
That being said, those organizations are the minority--but it is still something we'll come back to when we talk about ethics.
I think Gina makes a very good observation here that there has been very little work done to evaluate the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations. But, the progress that has been made has been driven by foundations and corporate philanthropy.
As we'll read in Salamon, increasing nonprofits are turning to a more business-oriented approach to organizational management. It's no longer okay to say your mission is to help as many families, homeless, immigrants, puppies, etc. as possible. Foundations want to see how many people their grants reached. Corporations want to know how many people saw their logo at special events. Nonprofit organizations are having to become strategic in the development of programs and services by really thinking through their planning to create realistic and measurable goals and objectives, and I think that is a good thing. Especially as more and more people are holding all organizations more accountable for their actions and financial management.
At 3:09 PM, August 28, 2006,
Giselle said…
Speaking from experience, there are philantropies that do demand accountability from the organizations they award grants to. At my old job, we had to prepare large packets of information several times a year for the grants we received, documenting that we'd done exactly what we said we were going to with the money, the specific publics that we'd served, and so on and so forth. I figured this was standard operating procedure for philantropies, and that such accounting measures were required. I'm surprised to learn that it's not.
Regarding foundations, it'll be an interesting case study to watch the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation now that they've received the gift from Warren Buffett. I'm pretty sure they already had very rigid accountability & tracking measures in place, so I wonder if Buffett will require any more procedures and documentation.
Post a Comment
<< Home