Philanthropy's Role in Society: Promoting the Common Good
posted on: Thursday, October 29, 2009
by Julia Craig
In a the current issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Mark Rosenman, project director of Caring to Change, challenges foundations to be more thoughtful in their contributions to the common good. “How Even Great Foundations Can Do More for the Common Good” outlines the ways in which philanthropy can be more creative and achieve “more substantial and sustainable results.”
Caring to Change talked with more than 150 foundation and nonprofit staff members to gather ideas for increasing grantmaker impact. Rosenman writes that the results were clear: people in the sector agree that philanthropy “must do more for the common good.”
But what does this mean? Rosenman uses the example of the controversy that erupted when Leona Helmsly directed her foundation to spend its billions to care for dogs to help us understand. He suggests that a creative interpretation of this imperative would lead to more public positive outcomes than simply providing exclusively care for dogs. For example, providing support to organizations counseling people who are cruel to animals, and helping them to come to terms with dehumanizing aspects of their own lives would reduce the abuse of dogs. Addressing the reasons why lower-income people and minorities do not have access to veterinarian school would open opportunities for a new segment of the population, promoting the common good.
Rosenman’s suggestions for creativity and a strategic approach to ensure a foundation’s work is providing broad public benefits echoes targeted universalism. “Targeted universalism” holds that only by identifying explicitly those with the least wealth and opportunity as the beneficiaries can policies and programs that seek to improve the common good have the most impact.
In other words, grantmakers cannot rely on trickle-down general public programs, and while a rising tide may lift all boats, it also serves to maintain the status quo when it comes to structural inequalities. For more on this, please read previous blog posts on targeted universalism and the values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best.
Rosenman calls for collective action for the common good, writing, “The commitment to define and act on common-good values ought not to be seen as a theoretical exercise. Rather, it is a prudent decision that allows foundations to move beyond narrow interests and self-regard to realize a society in which all may prosper. In fact, it is precisely because of the common good that individuals may themselves be secure in society’s benefits and in their own accomplishments and rewards.” (Emphasis added).
How do you think philanthropy can best serve the common good? Do you think foundations with specific directives could be more creative in their execution of those directives? We’d love to hear what you think in the comments!
Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.Labels: Caring to Change, Philanthropy's role in society, targeted universalism
In a the current issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Mark Rosenman, project director of Caring to Change, challenges foundations to be more thoughtful in their contributions to the common good. “How Even Great Foundations Can Do More for the Common Good” outlines the ways in which philanthropy can be more creative and achieve “more substantial and sustainable results.”
Caring to Change talked with more than 150 foundation and nonprofit staff members to gather ideas for increasing grantmaker impact. Rosenman writes that the results were clear: people in the sector agree that philanthropy “must do more for the common good.”
But what does this mean? Rosenman uses the example of the controversy that erupted when Leona Helmsly directed her foundation to spend its billions to care for dogs to help us understand. He suggests that a creative interpretation of this imperative would lead to more public positive outcomes than simply providing exclusively care for dogs. For example, providing support to organizations counseling people who are cruel to animals, and helping them to come to terms with dehumanizing aspects of their own lives would reduce the abuse of dogs. Addressing the reasons why lower-income people and minorities do not have access to veterinarian school would open opportunities for a new segment of the population, promoting the common good.
Rosenman’s suggestions for creativity and a strategic approach to ensure a foundation’s work is providing broad public benefits echoes targeted universalism. “Targeted universalism” holds that only by identifying explicitly those with the least wealth and opportunity as the beneficiaries can policies and programs that seek to improve the common good have the most impact.
In other words, grantmakers cannot rely on trickle-down general public programs, and while a rising tide may lift all boats, it also serves to maintain the status quo when it comes to structural inequalities. For more on this, please read previous blog posts on targeted universalism and the values chapter of Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best.
Rosenman calls for collective action for the common good, writing, “The commitment to define and act on common-good values ought not to be seen as a theoretical exercise. Rather, it is a prudent decision that allows foundations to move beyond narrow interests and self-regard to realize a society in which all may prosper. In fact, it is precisely because of the common good that individuals may themselves be secure in society’s benefits and in their own accomplishments and rewards.” (Emphasis added).
How do you think philanthropy can best serve the common good? Do you think foundations with specific directives could be more creative in their execution of those directives? We’d love to hear what you think in the comments!
Julia Craig is research associate at NCRP.
Labels: Caring to Change, Philanthropy's role in society, targeted universalism
posted by Julia Craig at
4:16 PM
|
0 comments
links to this post
