By Andy Carroll, Exponent Philanthropy

I regularly explore trends influencing philanthropy by spotlighting articles, reports, and essays in the media. I cast a wide net, venturing beyond philanthropy and traditional topics to consider a variety of ideas, innovations, debates, and critiques. Read previous posts in the series   

Philanthro-Shaming

Economists and historians compare our current age to the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century, an era of enormous fortunes when the gap between poor and wealthy was magnified. In a recent essay, Benjamin Soskis from George Mason University notices another similarity: during both eras, the public placed pressure on the wealthy to donate generously. Soskis goes on to assert that public pressure should not be about how much the wealthy give, but on how effective and relevant their philanthropy is. And, he says, “Philanthro-shaming” will not damage voluntary impulses of philanthropy. “If anything, appreciating that the public really does take their philanthropic commitments seriously should inspire more giving, and giving that is more closely attuned to the nation’s needs. But philanthro-shaming should be the beginning—and not the end—of a civil and engaged conversation about philanthropic means and ends.”

Giving Circles Popular With Minorities, Women, Younger Donors

New national surveys of American households offer insight into who participates in giving circles, groups of people who pool donations and give together. Based on these surveys, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that “Americans of African, Asian, and Hispanic descent participate in giving circles at much higher rates than whites: 21 percent for blacks versus 10 percent for white non-Jewish donors, for example.” Also, “among non-Jewish whites, women make up two-thirds of all giving-circle donors.” A leader of the Connected to Give research calls on nonprofit organizations to use the findings to uncover donor trends and engage giving circle participants as potential partners and board members.

Benefit Corporations Codify and Establish Themselves as a Field

NPR takes a look at “benefit corporations”—companies that seek a profit and also offer tangible benefit to society—and the growing infrastructure that supports them. A firm called B-Lab certifies companies devoted to communities and the environment by analyzing a company’s operations, policies, and relationships with labor and suppliers. Also, 27 states have created a legal status for benefit corporations; the legal protection ensures that “a shareholder can’t sue a benefit corporation for valuing the environment as much as profit.” Though some states don’t keep track of numbers yet, at least 750 benefit corporations are known to exist, and as many as nine states are considering establishing the legal framework. As an executive at B-Lab puts it, a benefit corporation is a way “to bake your morals and your missions into the DNA of your company.”

Nonprofit CEO Bucks Prevailing View on Overhead, Criticizes Ratings Systems

Fueling the debate about the value of assessing nonprofits according to the amount they spend on administration, the CEO of a fast-growing veterans group openly criticized ratings groups like Charity Navigator and Charity Watch. Says Steven Nardizzi, CEO of the Wounded Warrior Project, “Essentially what these groups are doing is passing judgment on decisions that were made by charity boards and staff on how to best fulfill their missions, meet the needs of their constituencies, and sustain their organizations over the long term.” Nonprofit professionals need to take back the narrative, he says. The Wounded Warrior Project ignored the ratings and made significant investments in fundraising operations. “It has grown revenue by about 65 percent each year since and is on track to bring in more than $300-million this year,” Nardizzi says.

Gaining Perspective on Our Challenging Times

Many in philanthropy talk of complexity now—the difficulty of making sense of the world, and of charting a way forward. The sober, challenged mood may be a reflection of a national state of uncertainty. In a July 4 essay in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd reflects on the lack of hope and optimism in America, and quotes a historian who reminds us that our founders and the historical heroes we so revere also faced tremendous ambiguity and moral dilemmas. Looking back, we tend to simplify the paths they took.

Dowd writes,

“We’re a little bit scared of our own shadow. And, sadly, we see ourselves as a people who can never understand one another. We’ve given up on the notion that we can cohere, even though the founders forged America by holding together people with deep differences… 

Walter Isaacson, head of the Aspen Institute and author of the best-selling Steve Jobs, agreed that ‘there’s a striking disconnect between the optimism and swagger of people in the innovative economy—from craft-beer makers to educational reformers to the Uber creators—and the impotence and shrunken stature of our governing institutions.’ 

Nathaniel Philbrick, the author of Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution, which depicts the Patriots, warts and all, warns against gilding the past…’From the beginning to the end, the Revolution was a messy work in progress. The people we hold up as paragons did not always act nobly but would then later be portrayed as always acting nobly. It reminds you of the dysfunction we’re in the middle of now…The more we can realize that we’re all making it up as we go along and somehow muddling through making ugly mistakes, the better. We’re not destined for greatness. We have to earn that greatness. What George Washington did right was to realize how much of what he thought was right was wrong.’”

Senior Program Director Andy Carroll writes resources, designs workshops, and facilitates seminars for funders. Andy also dedicates a significant portion of his time to managing our Leadership Initiative that defines, validates, nurtures, and celebrates the many ways philanthropists lead. Andy has 25 years of experience in nonprofit organizations, and he enjoys talking with funders about their questions, interests, passions, and plans for making a difference.