Is Change the Outcome You Seek for Your Giving?

When you write a check or otherwise become engaged as a donor, it is probably most often because you are trying to make the world a better place. In other words, you seek social change. But what if you were to apply a political lens to your philanthropic goals? Would change be the goal of “liberals,” and “maintaining the status quo” the goal of “conservatives? "

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors’ (RPA) Peter Goldmark, director of the Climate and Air Program, states his position in a book (available on-line in PDF) called “Powerful and Innovative Ideas for Grantmakers, Investors and Nonprofits”:

In philanthropy, I would argue, our product is change. Generally speaking, people make grants because they believe some system or activity can be improved, not because they wish to keep things as they are.

But an interesting counter-argument is made by self-described conservative, Gerard Alexander, during a panel that critiqued on Peter Frumkin’s book, “Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy” at Hudson Institute’s Bradley Center:

Are we sure that conserving and not changing ought not to be a major goal of philanthropy…Sometimes change that occurs inevitably and relentlessly around us is a good thing, and we’re delighted, and we want to promote and hasten it. Speed it along. But there is no reason why change that’s on-going around us all the time has to be inherently good…So why not talk about conservation as a major goal of philanthropy?

Do you want to promote change or stasis in your giving? Does your perspective on the question align with your political beliefs? To what extent does your giving, more generally, align with your political beliefs?

Who is talking about these issues? Could a political lens awaken more engaged conversation about philanthropic strategy, in an area where “polite” has largely ruled?

Susan Herr