By Andy Carroll, Exponent Philanthropy
Debates about philanthropy’s role have heated up since the 1980s, as the federal government cut taxes and support for many social programs, a series of recessions battered the economy, and economic hardship deepened and expanded.
In this era of scarcity, philanthropy has been pulled into a much higher profile. Demands come from lawmakers seeking private sector allies, nonprofits looking to fill gaps left by government cuts, next generation givers feeling a sense of urgency to make impact sooner, and community and issue activists striving to make philanthropy more responsive and accountable to public needs.
Here are three major debates in the field.
Should philanthropy focus on economic hardship and environmental crises?
Economic hardship and critical environmental problems are prompting many to appeal to foundations and donors to focus more on assisting lower income Americans, and addressing climate change.
Critics point out that only a small percentage of total charitable giving is directed at alleviating or preventing poverty. (The Foundation Center estimates that 15% of foundations spend as much as 25% of their giving on social justice work.) Some are calling on the federal government to promote and reward giving targeted to poverty and human welfare by offering an enhanced charitable deduction; others propose eliminating the deduction for certain nonprofits they perceive as primarily benefiting the interests of donors themselves, such as large universities; and others call for a renewed philanthropic ethic of social justice.
Those who oppose these efforts assert that citizens enjoy an inherent freedom to give as they choose, and that favoring certain programs over others violates this freedom. Yet others oppose any government influence on private giving; and still others claim that giving to all varieties of institutions—including large universities—does benefit the disadvantaged.
Thought leader Gara LaMarche sums up this debate in a recent issue of Democracy:
