Traditional Philanthropy Passes the Torch to the New Philanthropy
Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University, points out that Mrs. Astor was a philanthropist in the mold of an older generation that endowed leading societal institutions, such as, in Mrs. Astor's case, the New York City Public Library and the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
On the other hand, Mr. Ubiņas, who rose from the "mean" streets of New York to attend Harvard Business School and become a successful businessman, is expected to bring practices that characterize what has been called the "new philanthropy," such as accountability, entrepreneurship, and hard-nosed practicality, to address some of the most intractable societal problems such as poverty, education, and third world diseases.
Will the new approach work? Professor Lenkowsky says that new leaders, such as Ubiņas and his predecessors Bill and Melinda Gates, will have a tough time overcoming the inertia of philanthropic institutions that have done things a certain way for so long. He also suggests that we not throw away the kind of philanthropy that indeed did result in moving individuals up the socio-economic ladder. Those museums, libraries and concert halls serve not only the elite but also set many poverty-stricken children dreaming about a better life.
What do you think? What are the characteristics of the "new philanthropy" and will it succeed or become a footnote in philanthropic history? Use the comment function below to tell us.
The reason the world’s second richest man (Warren Buffet) is endowing the foundation of the world’s first richest man (Bill Gates) with $30 billion of his personal fortune is because the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is run more like a business than a philanthropy.
Nonprofits that want to grow and succeed in the 21st century will need to:
* Be transparent with their finances
* Be accountable for their behavior
* Measure their outcomes and results
* Take full use of the internet to communicate their messages
* Brand themselves well
In short, they will need to act more like businesses than charities.
Larry Checco, author of Branding for Success: A Roadmap for Raising the Visibility and Value of Your Nonprofit Organization.
Being a Baby Boomer, I can certainly understand and relate to the morals and values I was brought up on. I believe there are many attributes about the old ways that need to be reborn in us all, especially the youth of today but, looking at the world today, a new approach is needed in order to relate. Due to the advancements over the years, less attention is given to heroes and role models. The message is to do this or that to become rich, instead of wealthy. The idea of staying on one job for 30 or so years is obsolete. Babies are born with their eyes open.
I reference these things because they are apparent and measurable. Everything is about the money and character is just a means to obtain it. If Mr. Ubinas can reach the people, then let him go for it but, keep the tradition going so that our young can see and learn from where they came.
After reading the article Larry Checco, I am inclined to point out one important fact I recognize in the difference between for-profit and non-profit and that is how each measure success.
In the business world, success is measured by the financial rewards. The more customers or clients, the more money.
In non-profit, success is measured by the good that has come from the effort put fourth. The success is based on those helped, regardless of how much it cost. The success comes from the joy felt when able to help others.
If Mr. Ubinas operates expecting financial gain from his efforts, I don’t believe he will succeed. Philanthropist give for good of man kind only expecting to see that their giving brings about the desired results. They don’t expect financial gain.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Ubinas combines the traditional way with the new. If he changes the purpose, it will no longer be Philanthropy!
I am new to this blog, but feel compelled to comment. I have worked for over 5 years in development in low income countries. I completely agree with a need for professionalisation and Larry Checco’s 5 points, all good things.
However, as Belinda rightly says, success in (development at least) does not necessarily depend on money. Those who give money and those who receive it are not necessarily wishing to make people rich. Rich doesn’t equal happy nor does it equate with what we hope for when we talk about development, or care for children, the elderly etc. So therefore, many business people come into the non-profit field with the idea that they have the answer.
Does anyone seriously believe that development(and other nonprofit) professionals have not thought, and indeed tried out business methods themselves before? Welcome to the world of 1980’s development.
Business leaders have two important things: money (power) and control over a large number of factors (it’s hard to have a successful business in a country without a rule of law). Those working in non-profit may have money, but cannot easily use it to exercise power.. For example, those working on livelihoods initiatives ( a favourite of businessmen entrepreneur donors) do not control large aspects of the market that make their work a success or a failure.
So, whilst I say well done to the Gates Foundation and others who try to engage with existing practice but improve it: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater!
I believe my original posting on this site has been somewhat misinterpreted.
In no way am I suggesting that nonprofits compromise their passion for their missions or co-opt their values or program strategies to appease business-oriented donors. On the contrary, it’s that very passion and focus on helping people that many of today’s donors are looking for in an organization.
What I’m suggesting is that many nonprofits need to upgrade and professionalize how they present themselves to external audiences if in fact they desire to pursue support from those who espouse this “new philanthropy”.
Apologies for misinterpretation – I still like your five points!