Subscribe

About Bob

Bob serves as President and CEO of GuideStar and serves on the boards of Vision TV, Grameen Foundation USA, and the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. More...

About GuideStar

GuideStar gathers and publicizes information about nonprofits. We advocate that nonprofits share information openly and completely. Any nonprofit we track can update its report for free. More...

Archives

The Gang of 40: How More Important Than Who

What do you think of the efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett to urge their fellow billionaires to donate more to charity? So far, about 40 billionaires have responded positively, and I’ve seen one estimate that the amount pledged so far is approximately $600 billion.

I had several reporters call me last week, and I told them that I think this campaign is a big plus for the nonprofit sector. First, it increases public attention of the vital work the nonprofit sector provides and the need for financial support. More media attention about the importance of giving to charity should help heighten people’s awareness about their own giving habits. Warren Buffett was quoted as saying, "At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their wealth and how it will be used." Mayor Bloomberg said, "By giving, we inspire others to give of themselves, whether their money or their time."

Second, although many of these signatories are already major philanthropists, this effort should result in more money going to charitable causes. That’s a good thing, too.

I wish more attention had been paid to giving wisely. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has earned a well-deserved reputation for strategic thinking, deep due diligence, and careful monitoring of results and impact. When Warren Buffett announced several years ago that he was asking the Gates Foundation to manage his charitable giving, he said it was harder to give away money wisely with impact than to earn it. We haven’t heard much yet about making sure this increase in donations ends up sending more money to high-performing organizations that are carefully measuring what they do and how they do it. Maybe that will come later.

What type of activity the billionaires support isn’t as important to me as making sure the money is carefully spent and leveraged as much as possible. I hope we’ll see some instances of pooling of money to increase the impact even more. Some of the billionaires on the list are already major philanthropists and regularly make huge gifts to important institutions. Not every one likes that: Pablo Eisenberg commented in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Very wealthy individuals have [an] unbalanced record when it comes to philanthropy. They give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations, or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities."

Finally, Steven Pearlstein had a very thought-provoking column in last Friday’s Washington Post. He says the pledges remind him of the "hollowing out" of the middle class in America. He points out, "The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office show that in 2007, the top ‘quintile’—the 20 percent of the households at the top of the income ladder—took home 52 percent of the nation’s after-tax income, with the top 1 percent of households earning 17 percent. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that from 1979 to 2007, the average after-tax, inflation-adjusted income of households in the middle of the ladder increased 25 percent; for the top 1 percent, it rose 281 percent."

Pearlstein urges us to reconsider our public policies that help all Americans improve their economic status. "With its ‘giving pledge,’ the Gang of 40 has taken an important step in revitalizing America’s philanthropic institutions, but it will take much more to revive the virtuous cycle by which wealth begets opportunity which in turn begets more wealth. Whether at an individual company or in the country at large, it is the feeling that we are all in it together that creates the basis for a truly vibrant economy and just society. Trickle-down alone won’t cut it."

Although I’m thrilled that the Giving Pledge has billionaires making strides towards significant philanthropy, I encourage these individuals—and all donors—to give wisely. Research and evaluate the organizations that support your beloved causes. Ask nonprofits about their performance and their results. Ultimately, make sure your dollars are making a real and sustained difference. It is this kind of due diligence that can ensure the billions being donated are maximizing impact.

Bookmark and Share

Embracing Madness and Complexity

Back from a few days of travel with my family and an opportunity for a little rest, relaxation, and reflection. Now it’s back to digging out from last week and thinking about the year to come.

I’ve always resisted making formal New Year’s resolutions. It feels artificial and confining to me—too much like those who lurch from one diet to another or buy a gym membership and never quite make it. Those kind of resolutions usually don’t last very long because they’re not truly connected to our real beliefs. On the other hand, I’m a strong believer in setting personal and organizational goals and striving to the best of my ability to reach them—not just at the beginning of the year.

Sometimes setting goals can leave us with a false sense of control. Or become all consuming. I got to thinking about setting goals a week or so ago, when David Brooks of the New York Times had a column about President Obama’s governing style. One of the things that caught my attention was the fact that Brooks thinks Obama has learned how to "embrace the complexity."

Mark Whitaker from NBC offers a slightly different perspective in a piece in today’s Washington Post, "Lessons from Obama’s First Year." He makes this interesting observation: "Given all the rejection and dislocation in his youth, is it any wonder Obama became so invested in imposing order on his adult life? … In President Obama’s case, the highly organized defenses he developed as a result of his dysfunctional childhood many have left him ill-prepared to confront the more unruly forces of cynicism, egotism and self interest that hold sway in Washington, on Wall Street and on the world stage." Governing, Whitaker asserts, isn’t about creating order. Instead, "it’s about learning to love the madness of governing before you can master it."

In another article in today’s Post, Robert Samuelson reflects on his 40 years in journalism and how much it has changed during his career. Today, he says, "journalism is a jumble. … ‘The marketplace of ideas’ often resembles a demolition derby—victory goes to the most aggressive."

He has the same thought about our society: "Democracy is a messy, often shortsighted, unreasoned and selfish process. People have interests, beliefs and prejudices that, once firmly entrenched, are not easily dislodged—and certainly not by logic or evidence." Further, "good information does not inexorably lead to good government." Samuelson quotes Henry Rosovsky on this point: "Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts." Although "people do change their minds," Samuelson contends that "experience has more influence than argument."

So go ahead—set some goals. Trying hard is important and good for the character. We can all do better. I know I sure can. But don’t forget to love the madness of our world and embrace the complexity!

Bookmark and Share