The NonProfit Times - October 15, 2008 - (Page 19)

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The old,discredited approach of charity, in this view,responded too emotionally and directly to the immediate problems of individuals before them. It did not use its head. It lacked the steely, detached scientific knowledge to see through the bewildering, distracting, superficial manifestations of social ailments, down to the final, root causes of those ailments, which we now had the power to cure once and for all. But only the ungodly bright few are able properly to exercise scientific discipline. Quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, Fosdick made this link explicit: “If notwithstanding the apparent confusion and welter of our life, we are able to find a steadiness of purpose and quiet dominating intelligence, it is largely because of [those] who have been trained to a considerable extent in the scientific method.” over to the intelligent few. For all the changes the 20th century wrought, its philanthropy closed the century as it began, with leadership by the ungodly bright still regarded as the only progressive and enlightened path for grantmaking. After a full century of insisting that their peculiar value to society is the ability to get to root causes of, and decisively solve, social problems, how have foundations performed? For a field so insistent that its grantees show demonstrable outcomes, philanthropy in fact has precious little to show. One hundred years ago, at a time when the federal government’s presence in social policy was insignificant, foundations did in fact play a major role in establishing the institutions and professional structures of medicine and public health.There was considerable pay-off when it came to combating diseases like yellow fever and hook worm. Later, scientific developments in agriculture supported by the large American foundations produced the “Green Revolution,” saving millions from starvation. But when it comes to social -- not medical or agricultural -- problems, the record of philanthropy is abysmal. Here, philanthropy has largely tinkered around the edges of the delivery systems of the social welfare state, fine tuning this program, replicating that one, and rearranging existing services into new combinations. That might be commendable work, but it’s hardly how philanthropy justifies itself.It claims rather that the ungodly bright deserve the privileged position of grant-making leadership because they don’t tinker, but rather cut directly to the source of significant social problems, grasp their cause,and solve them once and for all -- just as hookworm was decisively eradiCommentary, page 25 Foundations invariably describe themselves as innovators and experimenters, relentlessly pursuing “social change” It might seem today that we no longer look to social science with such naïve, utopian expectations. Nevertheless, the language and practice of modern American philanthropy still reflect an abiding faith in the ungodly bright to lead us into a new, more rational world. Hence, foundations invariably describe themselves as innovators and experimenters, relentlessly pursuing “social change”through new and imaginative projects that will conclusively reveal the hidden workings of underlying social forces. Their programs are designed according to cutting-edge academic theories about social behavior and carried out by staff with impressive professional credentials. Foundations know that they are tapping into root causes because their programs produce concrete outcomes analyzable by sophisticated scientific metrics. Philanthropy is peculiarly positioned to play this pioneering role in social change, it is often argued, because it is mercifully insulated from market forces, political demands, and other bothersome pressures of the everyday world, and so can come at public problems from a uniquely objective, detached point of view. In other words, foundations still provide a perch from which the ungodly bright can steer social change in a progressive direction. It is hardly surprising, then, that Warren Buffett should have surveyed the perplexing variety of charitable needs and projects competing for his attention, and concluded that it was better to “attack truly major problems” by turning his fortune OCTOBER 15, 2008 THE NONPROFIT TIMES www.nptimes.com 19 http://ksgexecprogram.harvard.edu/ http://ksgexecprogram.harvard.edu/ http://www.nptimes.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of The NonProfit Times - October 15, 2008

The NonProfit Times - October 15, 2008 Wall Street Meltdown Charities Hope To Rev Giving When To Say 'Thanks' Contents Paul Newman: It Was Always His 'Own' Safe Donations Uneven Performance Answering Donors' Questions Business Briefs Going Back To School Doesn't Require A Classroom Anymore Webinars Bring Professional Training To The Office Should The Ungodly Bright Lead Philanthropy? The Tough Economy Calendar NPT Jobs Resource Directory

The NonProfit Times - October 15, 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.