Philanthropy: Powerful or Empowering?
posted on: Wednesday, June 06, 2012
By Christine Reeves
Each year, roughly 74,000 U.S.-based foundations give away approximately $45 billion, and the fraternity of funders —including Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Gates—who founded the largest foundations are some of the wealthiest people in the history of the world. So, philanthropy is no stranger to big numbers, big dollar signs, big names, and even bigger potential.
Therefore, perhaps it’s easy to focus on all that perceived bigness and forget how small philanthropy actually is. Philanthropy is eclipsed by the enormous problems our society faces. So, it is helpful when philanthropy chooses to focus less attention on foundations and more on the work others are doing with foundation grants. This begs a fundamental question: Has philanthropy prioritized growing the power of foundations, or partnering with nonprofits to empower communities? I recognize that this is a complicated question, and that it is not necessarily an either/or scenario. I even submit that it could be interpreted as a loaded question. However, I just want to emphasize that philanthropy can only have one top priority, and that top priority must be more than nominal.
Last week, I attended an interesting event at the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Engagement for a panel discussion on Inderjeet Parmar’s newest book, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. The panel consisted of the book’s author, Interjeet Paramer, professor of government at the University of Manchester; Thomas Asher, program director at the Social Science Research Council; Kathleen McCarthy, professor of American history at the Graduate Center of CUNY; and Patricia Rosenfield, Carnegie scholar at the Rockefeller Archives Center.
The issue of philanthropic power was one of the reoccurring points of interest during the discussion. It was compared and related to America’s military, foreign policy, academia and corporate power. The discussion on philanthropic power also included talk of bringing successful philanthropic initiatives to a greater scale. It was a very interesting event, but I had hoped that it would include a conversation about communities, not just about the foundations.
During this conversation, Rosenfield posed the question: What would Andrew Carnegie do today, almost 100 years after he founded Carnegie Corporation? Sure, it’s a neat question, but I hoped the conversation would eventually lead to some truly urgent and important questions such as: How can philanthropy be more responsive to disparities, diseases, hunger, discrimination, poverty and other urgent issues of our time? How can philanthropy, nonprofits and marginalized communities partner together to leverage philanthropy’s limited dollars? How can we shift the philanthropic power conversation away from the power of philanthropic institutions and towards empowering historically underrepresented populations or fostering equality of opportunity? How can we all better understand, attack and solve the important and urgent problems that disproportionately affect marginalized communities?
These are the questions that need to be at the forefront of philanthropy, and these questions require all the time, talented people and resources we can give them.
Philanthropic leadership cannot only be limited to using power for addressing problems.
Philanthropic leadership must also include partnering with empowered communities to (1) prioritize which problems should be addressed and (2) learn how to create the most positive, equitable, and long-term solutions possible. It is wonderful that many foundations and philanthropic experts are already doing this. Let’s just do more of it more often... and bring the people most affected by problems to the decision-making table while we're at it.
Christine Reeves is the field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).Labels: GCIP, HISP, marginalized communities, Philanthropy’s Promise, Philanthropy’s role in society
Each year, roughly 74,000 U.S.-based foundations give away approximately $45 billion, and the fraternity of funders —including Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Gates—who founded the largest foundations are some of the wealthiest people in the history of the world. So, philanthropy is no stranger to big numbers, big dollar signs, big names, and even bigger potential.
Therefore, perhaps it’s easy to focus on all that perceived bigness and forget how small philanthropy actually is. Philanthropy is eclipsed by the enormous problems our society faces. So, it is helpful when philanthropy chooses to focus less attention on foundations and more on the work others are doing with foundation grants. This begs a fundamental question: Has philanthropy prioritized growing the power of foundations, or partnering with nonprofits to empower communities? I recognize that this is a complicated question, and that it is not necessarily an either/or scenario. I even submit that it could be interpreted as a loaded question. However, I just want to emphasize that philanthropy can only have one top priority, and that top priority must be more than nominal.
Last week, I attended an interesting event at the Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Engagement for a panel discussion on Inderjeet Parmar’s newest book, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. The panel consisted of the book’s author, Interjeet Paramer, professor of government at the University of Manchester; Thomas Asher, program director at the Social Science Research Council; Kathleen McCarthy, professor of American history at the Graduate Center of CUNY; and Patricia Rosenfield, Carnegie scholar at the Rockefeller Archives Center.
The issue of philanthropic power was one of the reoccurring points of interest during the discussion. It was compared and related to America’s military, foreign policy, academia and corporate power. The discussion on philanthropic power also included talk of bringing successful philanthropic initiatives to a greater scale. It was a very interesting event, but I had hoped that it would include a conversation about communities, not just about the foundations.
During this conversation, Rosenfield posed the question: What would Andrew Carnegie do today, almost 100 years after he founded Carnegie Corporation? Sure, it’s a neat question, but I hoped the conversation would eventually lead to some truly urgent and important questions such as: How can philanthropy be more responsive to disparities, diseases, hunger, discrimination, poverty and other urgent issues of our time? How can philanthropy, nonprofits and marginalized communities partner together to leverage philanthropy’s limited dollars? How can we shift the philanthropic power conversation away from the power of philanthropic institutions and towards empowering historically underrepresented populations or fostering equality of opportunity? How can we all better understand, attack and solve the important and urgent problems that disproportionately affect marginalized communities?
These are the questions that need to be at the forefront of philanthropy, and these questions require all the time, talented people and resources we can give them.
Philanthropic leadership cannot only be limited to using power for addressing problems.
Philanthropic leadership must also include partnering with empowered communities to (1) prioritize which problems should be addressed and (2) learn how to create the most positive, equitable, and long-term solutions possible. It is wonderful that many foundations and philanthropic experts are already doing this. Let’s just do more of it more often... and bring the people most affected by problems to the decision-making table while we're at it.
Christine Reeves is the field associate at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).
Labels: GCIP, HISP, marginalized communities, Philanthropy’s Promise, Philanthropy’s role in society
posted by Christine Reeves at
4:00 AM
2 Comments:
Great article. I definitely think those are important questions to ask in philanthropy. This may be an inaccurate assessment but I've always viewed philanthropy as separate from empowerment and community building. They are related, of course, and you need the generosity of philanthropists to assist in the building and empowering of a community, but I'm curious how philanthropists and philanthropic organizations define themselves within the larger context of development and how wide the disconnect is between philanthropic power and empowering communities.
By
Tausha, at 11:08 AM
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate it. Yes, philanthropy is (or at least should be and can be) related to empowerment and community building. I would just make one slight change to what you suggested. I don't think philanthropist's "generosity" should assist in the building and empowering of a community... rather, building and empowering communities should be philanthropists' "responsibility and purpose." As for your very interesting question, I wish I had a succinct answer. However, the truth is that the disconnect between philanthropic power and empowering communities varies greatly from foundation to foundation. Some foundations, including the 116 foundations that joined NCRP's Philanthropy's Promise initiative (see philanthropyspromise.org for who signed on) make empowering communities their purpose. Other foundations do not see philanthropy that way. Sometimes it is helpful to see philanthropic values on a continuum. On one end, you have philanthropy as charity. (In this case, foundations work in a top-down, reactive, exclusive way. This can mean Haves giving to Have-Nots, based on what Haves predetermine as the problem and solution. This often leads to very short-term solutions that keep the Haves empowered and work within existing systems, even if those systems promote disparities or inequalities. Sometimes this can exacerbate and increase disparities in the long-term.) On the other end of the continuum, you have philanthropy as systems change/social change. (In this case, foundations work democratically, responsively, and proactively with people who are most affected by problems and only then develop long-term solutions that address root causes of the problems and alter systems, if those systems promote disparities and inequalities.) Again, it varies foundation to foundation, and since I described this as a continuum, there are a whole lot of values existing in between the two examples I gave. The last point that I'd like to make is that I hope more foundations focus on empower communities, not empowering foundations. One way to do this is to remember that the foundation-community relationship should be symbiotic. Yes, the foundations have money (which often equals power). However, foundations (unless they are an operating foundation) do not have the capacity/connections/expertise to carry out programs. So, foundations need nonprofit partners/communities as much as nonprofit parters/communities need foundations. Again, thanks for yoru post.
By
Christine Reeves, at 11:28 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Blog Home