Give and Take: Do Foundations Need Fixing?

November 10, 2009

Give and Take: Do Foundations Need Fixing?

The Wall Street Journal commentary about ways to fix philanthropy, by Pablo Eisenberg, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership (and a frequent Chronicle contributor), has stirred up emotions, both pro and con, notes Give and Take, The Chronicle’s roundup of the most interesting opinions about the nonprofit world.

Plus:

A call for Feed the Children’s founder to step aside.

Protest of the decision by Causes to stop working with MySpace.

Reflections on the second America’s Giving Challenge.

Why e-mail’s reign is far from ended.

Comments

Before reading Pablo Eisenberg’s recent commentary, I hadn’t realized how easy it apparently is to become a Senior Fellow with a decidedly junior intellect.

Of his 9 points, two make sense. It is reasonable to expect that many foundations could, and probably should, disburse more than 5% of their assets annually, and that there be more public accountability for any organizations that benefit from tax incentives.

But Pablo’s other criticisms presume that his values and priorities are universal, while, in fact they are controversial and even radical in many instances.

Two notions — nonprofit status for newspapers and foundation-funding for charity watchdogs — are downright boneheaded.

I could go on, but his dopey ideas don’t really merit further attention.

— Jeff Steele Nov 10, 05:09 PM #
I do believe the foundation world needs revamping, but don’t believe they should be forced. In my opinion foundations and donors are limited by what they know. Too often they sit behind their desks reading proposals, and have little direct touch with charities in at-risk communities. They also judge charities by one set of standards built for larger, more established and well-supported organizations.

Unfortunately, these donors have little knowledge of how to support smaller/less mature organizations, therefore have negative funding experiences and jump off too soon or don’t fund at all. It is rare that the trustees of these foundations represent diverse cultures, that include class and education. If you don’t have a large position or degree your experience is not respected by these organizations, no matter your race, sex, or ethnicity. Many times they exclude the people who can help take their funding to a level that really works (not just on paper). Why is it that each year donations increase but things just get worse?

It will take a few of us who have our feet firmly planted in both worlds to knock on doors, open them and educate foundations and wealthy donors on what the true needs are, especially in communities they hardly touch. They believe because they have hired a person from the corresponding race, sexually preference, ethnicity that these people will have the answer. Well they know no more than them and they are often clueless on how to find the talent to help them.

Education happens at all levels and degrees are just half of it. Education is for the things we don’t know, not just the things we want to know. We understand the cultural norms of a capitalistic society—we all aspire to be the “haves’. Most of us who dominate and succeed spend little time with and know little about the “have nots”, yet we make decisions about their destiny everyday.

But we are not intentionally arrogant, just uneducated, and poor education promises few results, as we know.

Some things take more time and effort. Reconstructing a value system for the elite is tough. They/we decide what they need to know and it is hard to get around that. Some things take time, persistence and a good case; it is that simple.

— Chandra Y. Anderson Nov 11, 07:25 AM #

Previous: Prospecting: Recession's Impact on Big Gifts in Britain
Next: Government and Politics Watch: White-House Visitors

Give and Take: Do Foundations Need Fixing?

Comments

Post a comment: