Tuesday, December 29, 1998

Giving more, giving better next year

By Bonnie Erbe

You won’t hear much about it in the mainstream press or in normal conversation among the ranks of economic mere mortals like you and me. But in the upper echelons of the economic stratosphere there is a huge to and fro about how to “do” philanthropy and to do it bigger, better and more inventively in the next millennium.

We are one fat country when it comes to giving away our riches. The Economist magazine recently reported Americans gave away $143 billion in 1997 to non-profit organizations ($109 billion from “living” individuals, $13 billion apiece from foundations and bequests and $8 billion from corporate largesse.)

Think about it. That is more money than the gross national product of many developing nations. But we just gave it away.

The nonprofit sector is growing in size and importance not only in terms of the legions of needy it helps, but also as an increasingly vital piston in our economic engine. Philanthropic endeavors account for 8 percent of our GDP and employ nearly 10 percent of the American workforce, or more than federal and state governments combined.

We can thank a boisterous stock market and the Me Generation’s self-consumed approach to life for what some might term a “fixation” on where charitable giving should go from here. But much is being said and written about how philanthropy should be done differently from how the Robber Barons did it when they launched the “industry” of charitable giving early in this century.

Andrew Carnegie’s greatest gift (among many) to America was the creation and bankrolling of a phenomenal public library system. Bill Gates’ most-publicized gift to date of $100 million will go to inoculate impoverished children in developing nations. Somehow that does not strike one as nearly as inventive as Carnegie’s push for massive public education. Laudable, yes, but groundbreaking, no.

I won’t question your inability to sympathize with these folks. But believe it or not, there’s tremendous pressure on the Microsoft Millionaires, stock market scions and other Boomer or Gen-X donors to innovate.

Criticism from the Left says too much money goes to arts and culture (the local opera company) and not enough to fight poverty. Criticism from the Right shoots back that anti-poverty programs are too liberal and too ineffective. And besides, too much funding goes to high-paid foundation executives who abuse their power scandalously (witness the United Way scandal of several years back).

Philanthropists face the added pressure of being asked to do more while public sentiment rallies for government and politicians to do less. Are philanthropists supposed to replace taxpayers as deep pockets for public schools? Walter Annenberg’s foundation in Philadelphia thinks so. Are philanthropists supposed to step in where President Clinton failed in providing health insurance for every uninsured or under-insured American? The Kaiser Family Foundation might like to try.

For an indication of where giving is heading, The Foundation Center is the font of all one needs to know. Its most recent analysis of data on giving shows more donations than ever going to balloon bank accounts in the fields of health care, scientific research and education. But the trend toward targeted giving to minority groups is slightly down (perhaps because it is no longer politically correct to give by race, so donors are giving to anti-poverty efforts instead). Interesting stuff — but again, little indication of incredibly innovative thinking.

Perhaps the pressure to innovate is the seeking of change for the sake of change itself rather than for any tangible improvement. In other words, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Thanks to our tax code, we have the most bountiful collection of well-funded charitable organizations in the world. They are providing computers to Web-unsavvy schools, feeding and teaching impoverished youth, succoring indigent elderly, preserving open spaces, housing the homeless, taking in abused people and animals as well as a host of other desperately needed forms of help.

Carnegie said, “To die rich is to die disgraced.” He set an example which calls for little if any improvement. Navel contemplation is a waste of time when there is still so much to be done.

Bonnie Erbe is host of the PBS program “To the Contrary.” E-mail BonnieErbe@CompuServe.com.

Scripps Howard News Service