So much more becomes possible when we (facilitators of philanthropy) focus a person’s attention on the kind of world they want to create — and what that says about who they are as a human being, what they stand for, even the meaning of their life.

And how different that is from expecting (often, even demanding) that people simply fall in line and fund the “needs” an organization has self-defined.

That traditional “fundraising” approach is the kiss of death to truly inspired acts of individual philanthropy.

Great column.

Excellent column, really frames the difference between individual and institutional philanthropy well.

I’d like to offer a couple observations, however, and pose a question.

First, on the relative weight of giving from individuals and giving from institutions, it is certainly true that over 80 cents of every dollar comes from an individual. What is less well understood, as you no doubt know, is that this understates the impact of institutional giving, in the following way. Most giving from individuals, as much as 2/3 or more, goes from donors to their congregations, or their schools. For higher wealth donors, particularly, donations also go to cultural institutions that provide services the donors themselves enjoy or benefit from (e.g., symphonies, museums, and so on). So in terms of “other-directed” giving, and certainly giving to support lower income or less advantaged communities, institutional donors play a disproportionately larger role, then (even allowing for the very important charitable work of congregations).

I agree that institutional donors, and specifically their board members and executives, do not have a right to approach their decisions from the point of view of their own self-identity or expression. As for carrying forward a donor’s intent, my (no doubt unpopular) contention is that foundation board members have a responsibility to take society’s needs (and justice, especially) into account.

About individual donors, from the standpoint of encouraging individuals to give, I completely agree that we should pay plenty of attention to their self-expression interests.

Once individuals have decided to engage in philanthropy, however, I think we need to be able to say more. As you rightly point out, focusing on effectiveness is not enough to motivate giving. Similarly, I would question whether, to be a good donor, it is enough for a donor’s giving to simply (1) meet her or his self-expression interests, and (2) be effective at pursuing the her or his goals.

I’m not exactly sure what that “something more” is that others might also accept. (I certainly have my own preference – advancing social justice (full disclosure: I am a member of the board of National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy).)

In recent remarks in Los Angeles, Paul Brest made two very interesting points (among many others). Paul argued that we can no more question a donor’s choice of interests than we can question anyone’s tastes, including our own, and he also said he believes that while society can have something to say about the means with which a donor pursues her/his/its mission, we should not attempt to prescribe the ends – the choice of ends should be left up to the donor.

In terms of law or regulation, Paul’s approach seems quite correct. I would not want legislators or lawyers getting involved in determining which donor interests and goals are best – rather, the law should only outline the boundaries of what is permissible (for purposes of tax exemption, compliance requirements for private foundations or public charities), and within those very broad outlines, leave well enough alone.

But, from a moral perspective, I think we can very well demand that donors consider the common good, a broader public interest, in designing their goals and strategies. I’m not completely sure how to square this with the liberty we want to preserve for donors. A possible solution is to demand that a donor engage questions of the common good, or social justice, in the course of choosing a form of giving that also meets their interest in self-expression. We can’t enforce that demand, but we can demand it nonetheless, and to do so is not asking donors to sacrifice or give something up. Helping donors think through these concerns is something good philanthropic advisors like yourself can do; perhaps it is even an indispensable part of helping them discover and meet their needs for self-expression. (As Rabindranath Tagore wrote, “I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted, and behold, service was a joy. “)

As you wrote, “[p]hilanthropy is an act of creation that gives form to humankind’s highest ideals.” In a future column, or perhaps in your live chat next Tuesday, I think we all could benefit from hearing your perspective on what responsibilities to the wider world, to our higher ideals, a donor must meet.

Thanks for this post – it has a lot of food for thought.

Marion Conway