I was just reading an interesting article in Forbes about the philanthropy of billionaires and this quote from the article hit me over the head like a ton of grant proposals:
It's worth remembering that no philanthropist has solved a worldwide problem since Carnegie brought universal access for the poor to books via libraries (1883-1929), and Rockefeller used his billions to fund the research that would lead to the eradication of polio (1952).
Gates' ambition is on a similar scale. He wants to eradicate the 20 leading diseases in the world during his (or his wife's) lifetime.
I am excited about Gates' vision and I think he has the right pieces in place to accomplish that vision (lots of money, staff experts, and a results oriented funding model) but I am very concerned that his is one of the few foundations that has such a bold vision and a plan to accomplish it. Many foundations either lack the nerve to announce that they will solve a problem, these foundations use statements like "helping people in poverty" or "reducing disparities" or the foundations that have a vision like "ending homelessness" do not have the scale or partners needed to actually make that happen.
My question for you is why is it that the professionalization of philanthropy and the growth in wealth in the "developed" world has not led to a true global solution since polio?
3 comments:
Perhaps the problem is in part related to the sheer magnitude of many of the problems we as a society are facing, along with the inability to break down the larger problems into smaller more manageable issues. Bringing books to the poor, while daunting, was not ending poverty - it was helping people better themselves through knowledge, which would help reduce poverty. The Gates Foundation mission to eradicate some of the most troublesome diseases is grand, but manageable (with the appropriate team of experts etc.). They are not trying to end global strife, but merely trying to ease a part of it. Furthermore, the difference between Carnegie, Gates, and most other foundations is sheer size and recognition. Andrew Carnegie and Bill Gates could/can set lofty goals because they have/had the financial capital as well as the social capital. Many philanthropists simply don't have that kind of clout. Instead, they do the best they can, being reasonable about what they can achieve with the resources they have. Given these two points, what might you suggest the philanthropic world should do to motivate global solutions ? Would you suggest an X-prize of sorts? How do "smaller grant-makers" (in this case meaning under billions of dollars in assets)make that kind of change effectively? Finally, what would happen to the less universal problems that grant-makers ameliorate? Who will keep the arts in education alive in a community? What will happen to the budgets for after-school programs and animal shelters ? How do grant-makers balance a grand vision with manageable goals?
Mary,
I love your comment and you are completely right that Gates and Carnegie have access to assets that make the average philanthropist seem needy:) I think the size of the assets can dictate how large of a problem the foundation or individual philanthropist can undertake, but I don't think the size would completely dictate the results of the foundation. The post was about global solutions, which I think would be more attainable if the number of focused funders' collaboratives (with a very discrete objective) were increased. But, I also haven't seen enough examples of community level solutions. Why can't funders in smaller communities make sure that every child in a specific geographic area has access to a quality after school program or that every person leaving prison has job training and community re-entry services?
I wonder if community solutions (like your examples of after school programs, or prison-to-community reentry programs) are seemingly less attainable because foundations in a community don't talk to each other, come up with common goals, and strategize about how to attain those goals. Furthermore, the folks who would create these programs often don't have the training to do effective PR, media outreach, and development, along with launching a project. If nonprofit managers don't know how to do outreach, and can't talk to grant makers- is it reasonable to assume that a program can be created ? I know that community foundations and regional grant making organizations are supposed to foster these meetings/conversations (both amongst each other and with nonprofits) - but I'm not sure they really are. Perhaps, like the COF Summit is meant to bring together different types of grant makers for conversation and collaboration, regional grant makers need to encourage an agenda and a common set of goals (along with the appropriate government forces)similar to the millennium goals set by the UN? So I guess the question now becomes - how do we foster effective communication in order to set a clear set of needs within a community- and get grant makers to buy-in to that agenda? Should encouraging regional grant making umbrella organizations to promote these conversations and a unified agenda be a priority emphasized in the national philanthropy community? I can't help but think this will be a forum that will have to be approached from the younger folks involved in the philanthropic community- as it is a fundamental paradigm shift from the way grant making is approached now.
Post a Comment