I've been mentally wrestling lately with the tension that appears to be growing in our country between democracy and philanthropy. (It's a fun mental exercise when one is pretending to nap in order to avoid an excess of familial love over the holidays.)
For those of you who are sticklers for semantics, in my mental arguments, I consider democracy in the purest form: one person, one vote. I also simply "philanthropy" to mean "charitable giving."
The Chase online giving debacle and the concept of "voting" for philanthropic decisions brought this question to a head for me. After announcing with great fanfare that they would provide a transparent way for Facebook users to determine how $4 million in corporate philanthropy would be disbursed, Chase took down their public scoreboard and reined in their process when the top vote-getters turned out to be causes that Chase found to be too controversial. The result has been some significant brand backlash for Chase.
But even if Chase hadn't chickened out, would this approach to giving really have been effective? What knowledge did the thousands or millions of voters bring to the process other than the know-how to click a button when asked?
For me, it underscores something that I've stated before: effective philanthropy is NOT a democratic undertaking. Instead, philanthropy is a very personal method of providing support to a cause or addressing an issue that resonates with the giver or givers. While I do believe that a variety of educated perspectives help strengthen understanding and result in better decision-making, I think opening that process to the masses simply makes it a free-for-all or popularity contest.
One of the best means that I've seen of combining a focused approach AND a variety of perspectives to make effective giving decisions takes place at the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Their grantmaking committees extend beyond the board of directors to include women of all races and from all economic strata. These women gather together several times over the course of the grantmaking process, attend site visits together, and have passionate, intense discussions about which organizations will have the greatest impact on Atlanta's most vulnerable women and children. It's a heart-wrenching process that I've been through more than once.
And there is never, ever, a single vote taken.
It's not a democracy. It's an educated, informed consensus. It leaves open questions and possibilities for the next go round, and engages its participants far beyond a simple "aye" or "nay." It's very hard work — and educating broader audiences about its effectiveness is even harder. But it beats a popularity contest any day.
For those of you who are sticklers for semantics, in my mental arguments, I consider democracy in the purest form: one person, one vote. I also simply "philanthropy" to mean "charitable giving."
The Chase online giving debacle and the concept of "voting" for philanthropic decisions brought this question to a head for me. After announcing with great fanfare that they would provide a transparent way for Facebook users to determine how $4 million in corporate philanthropy would be disbursed, Chase took down their public scoreboard and reined in their process when the top vote-getters turned out to be causes that Chase found to be too controversial. The result has been some significant brand backlash for Chase.
But even if Chase hadn't chickened out, would this approach to giving really have been effective? What knowledge did the thousands or millions of voters bring to the process other than the know-how to click a button when asked?
For me, it underscores something that I've stated before: effective philanthropy is NOT a democratic undertaking. Instead, philanthropy is a very personal method of providing support to a cause or addressing an issue that resonates with the giver or givers. While I do believe that a variety of educated perspectives help strengthen understanding and result in better decision-making, I think opening that process to the masses simply makes it a free-for-all or popularity contest.
One of the best means that I've seen of combining a focused approach AND a variety of perspectives to make effective giving decisions takes place at the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Their grantmaking committees extend beyond the board of directors to include women of all races and from all economic strata. These women gather together several times over the course of the grantmaking process, attend site visits together, and have passionate, intense discussions about which organizations will have the greatest impact on Atlanta's most vulnerable women and children. It's a heart-wrenching process that I've been through more than once.
And there is never, ever, a single vote taken.
It's not a democracy. It's an educated, informed consensus. It leaves open questions and possibilities for the next go round, and engages its participants far beyond a simple "aye" or "nay." It's very hard work — and educating broader audiences about its effectiveness is even harder. But it beats a popularity contest any day.
Powered by Compendium Blogware
Comments for Why Effective Philanthropy Isn't Democratic