Disclaimer: The ideas in this post may trigger some. If you are easily unsettled, stop reading.
Much philanthropy is terribly uninspiring, dreadfully ineffective, and fundamentally ego-driven. After a few seconds, that doesn't sound ridiculous at all. It is how we have constructed the philanthropic framework and postured the opportunity: redistribution without conditions while receiving a reduction in tax payable and recognition of doing good. Even if the doing good isn't done well or needed. When private foundations and individuals act instead of authorities honoring their obligations, it tips the political equation away from equity. Noblesse oblige can lift the reputation of a robber baron to a caring citizen.
I am not referring to acts of human kindness and demonstrations of interrelational caring. Charitable acts and the person-to-person scale are mostly honorable, and human-scale sharing and accountability bring all participants into a relationship. I have plenty of concerns about the charitable industrial complex, but that is a different post.
The abdication of responsibility for public good by public officials who have conceded that they are incapable or unwilling to make meaningful inroads leads to the legacy-controlled donor-driven tax-benefitting funds pouring dollars into pet projects that get signage and naming rights.
Everyone on the philanthropic spectrum must be held accountable for their actions, inactions, impacts, and consequences by all the other players. Authorities should evaluate the long-term changes that arise from a social net that traps the participants and/or a disengaged society that, as John McKnight warned, has become incapable of watching out for our neighbors. Are there more effective and expeditious ways to lift each other rather than layering funders, agencies and departments, and those living with a setback into a mediocre on-size-fits-all population level approach?
Funders who receive reputational and tax-related credits should be held responsible for how the funds are used and how agencies record and report success. Agencies need to show a community benefit analysis to validate the changes they are making, and recipients should be held accountable for accepting and using the opportunities offered. Redistributing financial resources is a small step toward a more equitable society. Still, if accountability is missing, we end up with hundreds of millions of dollars flowing through the complex without changing the problems we are trying to change..
I can hear the echo chamber wailing, "This is how we have always done it." You are right. Since Dickensian times, we have tried to solve an issue after it has become an infection rather than address its root causes because that seems laudable and easier.
The root of the problem lies in the common law structure of charity that flow from the Pemsel Decision of 1891. My ancestors were sacking castles in the late 19th C. We no longer do that but are trying to wrap new fish in old newspaper. When the House of Lords passed, the decision was likely revolutionary. But today, it is hard to imagine that most citizens and donors would understand how the advancement of education and the advancement of religion are acts of charity. That leaves the specific area of relief of poverty or the insanely vague purposes beneficial to the community as missions for registration and action.
It is time to rethink how and why we do philanthropy, why it offers a tax receipt, how it makes a difference, and what we could attempt to solve the issues once and for all.
As always, thanks for reading. Please leave a comment if you have thoughts, comments, or concerns. The next post will focus on a societal continuum: tolerate, accommodate, perpetuate.