In Daily Giving, Gratification Trumps Good Sense

To the Editor:

The news that Ariel Nessel, a Dallas-based real-estate developer, has established a giving program to donate $1,000 a day to charitable causes is likely to win him accolades in many circles (“A Dallas Real-Estate Developer Pledges to Give Away $1,000 a Day,” January 17).

I must, however, place myself among the critics of this giving approach.

While Mr. Nessel’s desire to make an impact is admirable, it appears his need for personal gratification has overtaken good sense in his philanthropy.

Mr. Nessel told The Chronicle he had made numerous large grants to organizations, but when he asked what else they were interested in, he was disappointed to hear that they simply wanted more or larger donations.

The need for instant gratification has caused Mr. Nessel and other donors to eschew traditional giving for small, short-term flashes of accomplishment.

The truth is, doing work such as combating homelessness involves a lot of sustained, repetitive work full of difficult challenges, and it can be outright dreary at times.

Perhaps a bit of the blame lies with nonprofits.

Mr. Nessel’s statement that traditional philanthropy didn’t make him feel “nurtured” may reflect the poor job that nonprofits sometimes do at making donors feel connected to the work that they make possible. After all, many donors who make large gifts find that their giving leads to little more than invitations to an endless number of galas and rubber-chicken dinners where awards of questionable significance are bestowed.

Looking out from the tastefully draped dais, donors can’t be blamed if they feel ever more distant from the people and the cause that inspired them in the first place.

However, I think a lot of the donor dissatisfaction has to do with an increasingly unrealistic approach to philanthropy that is at once consumerist and romanticized.

Rather than giving their money to an organization and knowing that their money will be combined with others’ to have a larger impact, donors want to know the impact of their specific contribution. Nonprofits increasingly offer menus of items from which donors can choose.

What do you get your nature-loving brother who has it all?

“Adopt” an animal from the zoo for his birthday.

Not interested in giving to the annual fund? Here is a selection of special programs you can support (and be assured that overhead costs are buried in there because there’s no other way to keep the place running).

This approach both reflects the demands of today’s donors and creates a norm for giving where people essentially purchase a piece of social change.

Somewhere there is a balance between nonprofits’ learning to communicate better and donors’ checking their expectations.

We’ve known for a long time that reports that churn out statistics on the number of people served and newsletters that brag about how much was raised at the latest gala do not instill an emotional connection the way a story about one person helped by the organization does. That emotion is key in moving a person from being a spectator to being a participant, whether as a volunteer or a donor.

While donors understandably want to feel good about the contribution they’re making, they should recognize that some of philanthropy is boring and, at times, disappointing.

Your community may offer the same summer feeding program for out-of-school kids year after year because it’s what they need. A national advocacy organization may work for a year on legislation only to see it die in committee. And while the community flips over the new baby polar bear at the zoo, the much-maligned turkey vulture still needs to be fed.

When philanthropic giving becomes more about nurturing the donor’s sense of satisfaction and less about the impact of that gift, we risk losing the good to the lure of the new and exciting.

Amy Scanlon
Pittsburgh