On Philanthropy: The Coming Paradigm Shift in Philanthropy: It's Not About the Money
... We, I believe, are in the midst of a paradigmatic shift in philanthropy. The shift is not about money. It is about the entire structure of thinking and approach to problem-solving. ...
...Historically and largely still, philanthropy is about the transfer of money from the individual with it to the individuals without it. The currency behind the relationship is that of a gift: a voluntary transfer of value from giver to recipient without compensation. The gift is premised on resource redistribution to help those in need. The framework is the intersection of the individual with resources and his/her particular interests and the solicitation of a particular organization in that area of interest who needs (or wants) those resources. The individual philanthropist and the individual nonprofit are the units of analysis. The objective is support of the work of the nonprofit. The overall culture is one of gifting by donors to recipients; donors give money, recipients receive money. Demanding donors may require information in return for their money, but information is not embedded in the gifting relationship.
In essence the relationship and the culture are asymmetrical. The relationship is not one of mutuality of responsibility and accountability, but one of giver and receiver. The explanation for the relationship is the power of generosity hotwired into the American spirit; givers will give because they see need, and they will give as required to resolve need.
Since 1966, $5.5 trillion has changed hands on this basis. The number of public charities has increased by 200% in the last two decades; the inflation adjusted dollar value of philanthropy has increased by 104%.
But the anomalies in the paradigm are becoming clearer. With $5.5 trillion flowing to 8.5% of the U.S. economy, there are objects on the map that the paradigm cannot explain. Most nonprofits remain small and financially weak, regularly endangered by a turn of philanthropic fortunes. Fundamental social problems continue apace, showing little progress for the dollars spent. The portion of GDP or household income allocated to philanthropy has not risen much above 2.2% nor fallen much below 1.7% since records have been kept. Nonprofits are not growing apace with problems and philanthropy is not growing beyond a fixed portion of economic capacity. The anomaly is that we have growth without the progress that growth is supposed to create. In classic paradigm-shifting terms, we have an outcome other than that which we would expect.
New observers are seeing this anomaly and are shifting the paradigm. ...
...What is this new paradigm of philanthropy? What are its fundamental components and assumptions? What problems does it define as relevant to its endeavor? What is its worldview?
First, the new paradigm seeks solutions. ...
...Second, the loyalty in the new paradigm is not between the giver and the receiver (let us use these terms for now; they are amended below), the loyalty is to the problem. ...
...Third, the new paradigm does not think of resource transfer as a matter of gifts. The new paradigm uses an investment model, either in fact or by analogy. ...
...Fourth, the new paradigm seeks scale, because most problems cannot be demonstrably resolved except at scale. ...
...Fifth, because partnership is essential to scale, the new paradigm values mutuality of problem definition and program execution. ...
...Sixth, because it is focused on solutions, the new paradigm insists on an exit strategy. Engaged philanthropy is there to enable solutions that reach self-reliance. ...
...Historically and largely still, philanthropy is about the transfer of money from the individual with it to the individuals without it. The currency behind the relationship is that of a gift: a voluntary transfer of value from giver to recipient without compensation. The gift is premised on resource redistribution to help those in need. The framework is the intersection of the individual with resources and his/her particular interests and the solicitation of a particular organization in that area of interest who needs (or wants) those resources. The individual philanthropist and the individual nonprofit are the units of analysis. The objective is support of the work of the nonprofit. The overall culture is one of gifting by donors to recipients; donors give money, recipients receive money. Demanding donors may require information in return for their money, but information is not embedded in the gifting relationship.
In essence the relationship and the culture are asymmetrical. The relationship is not one of mutuality of responsibility and accountability, but one of giver and receiver. The explanation for the relationship is the power of generosity hotwired into the American spirit; givers will give because they see need, and they will give as required to resolve need.
Since 1966, $5.5 trillion has changed hands on this basis. The number of public charities has increased by 200% in the last two decades; the inflation adjusted dollar value of philanthropy has increased by 104%.
But the anomalies in the paradigm are becoming clearer. With $5.5 trillion flowing to 8.5% of the U.S. economy, there are objects on the map that the paradigm cannot explain. Most nonprofits remain small and financially weak, regularly endangered by a turn of philanthropic fortunes. Fundamental social problems continue apace, showing little progress for the dollars spent. The portion of GDP or household income allocated to philanthropy has not risen much above 2.2% nor fallen much below 1.7% since records have been kept. Nonprofits are not growing apace with problems and philanthropy is not growing beyond a fixed portion of economic capacity. The anomaly is that we have growth without the progress that growth is supposed to create. In classic paradigm-shifting terms, we have an outcome other than that which we would expect.
New observers are seeing this anomaly and are shifting the paradigm. ...
...What is this new paradigm of philanthropy? What are its fundamental components and assumptions? What problems does it define as relevant to its endeavor? What is its worldview?
First, the new paradigm seeks solutions. ...
...Second, the loyalty in the new paradigm is not between the giver and the receiver (let us use these terms for now; they are amended below), the loyalty is to the problem. ...
...Third, the new paradigm does not think of resource transfer as a matter of gifts. The new paradigm uses an investment model, either in fact or by analogy. ...
...Fourth, the new paradigm seeks scale, because most problems cannot be demonstrably resolved except at scale. ...
...Fifth, because partnership is essential to scale, the new paradigm values mutuality of problem definition and program execution. ...
...Sixth, because it is focused on solutions, the new paradigm insists on an exit strategy. Engaged philanthropy is there to enable solutions that reach self-reliance. ...
Closing line of essay: "Engaged philanthropy is there to enable solutions that reach self-reliance. ..."
When has "engaged philanthropy" not been a part of Western Christianity's philanthropy mandate?
If I give a spoon to someone in need and capable of using a spoon, I am also expecting that they use that spoon to feed himself, and whomever else with that spoon he can help.
Posted by: Curtis L. Dunn | Dec 30, 2008 at 03:03 PM