Foundations and Katrina: a Diverse and Strong Response

To the Editor:

Over the past century American foundations and corporate-giving programs have increasingly addressed the most pressing challenges of society. The Council on Foundations is one of those leading the way in this movement. We recognize that leadership demands preparation.

That’s why last month the Council on Foundations convened a strategic-planning summit to consider appropriate philanthropic responses to a potential avian-flu pandemic. This was not a staged, public forum. It was a hard-nosed look by experts in global health with leaders from the public and private sectors with philanthropy to determine how best to serve our communities and nation in the event a pandemic strikes.

Philanthropy is an uncommon form of charity, sometimes defined as “problem-solving charity.”

Venerable charities such as the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army join government efforts to provide rescue and relief efforts following a disaster. We laud and support such work. But philanthropy has also, importantly, gone beyond such charity to determine the causes of disaster in order to avert them, and to seek the most effective outcomes in responsiveness.

As with most Americans, my donations in the hours after Katrina went to the immediate charitable response. Now, long after the first wave of agony and daily headlines, America’s foundations and corporate-giving programs have joined in the longer-term planning for renewal of the Gulf.

Pablo Eisenberg seems to support charity and dislike philanthropy (“After Katrina: What Foundations Should Do,” Opinion, January 26). Charity makes for better headlines. We understand that. But philanthropy makes for a better society. That’s why, within the past two weeks, as New Orleans and Mississippi leaders released plans for long-term rebuilding, we held meetings in our Council on Foundation offices with representatives from those states to organize philanthropic support. Simultaneously, the White House convened a meeting of corporate and independent foundations to help coordinate their support for rebuilding plans. Dramatic? No. Critical? Yes.

Perhaps what Mr. Eisenberg dislikes most is philanthropy’s philosophical diversity. Each foundation has its own mission and focus; none is compelled to support anyone else’s agenda. Some are extraordinarily progressive in their social views while others are firmly traditional. They contribute private monies for public good, but do it reflecting the rich diversity of ideas and opinions that America has long treasured.

It may frustrate Mr. Eisenberg that foundations feel no need to do as he demands. But it should please him to know that, when he is ready to put his own financial resources to public good, he may also do so without our stamp of approval.

The Council on Foundations was no more prepared for Katrina than any other American institution. But I was impressed in the days following the storm when Ben Johnson, chief executive of the Greater New Orleans Foundation, told me he knew foundations would give generously but stay flexible in dictating the use of such funds. He immediately recognized the limitations of government relief efforts, tightly defined and rigidly bureaucratic in their use.

He was right. Foundations from every corner of the nation convened board meetings and, making exceptions to their missions and guidelines, supported the Gulf region with generosity and Mr. Johnson’s hoped-for flexibility.

American philanthropy may never satisfy Mr. Eisenberg’s personal political agenda. Nor may I.

His demand is political advocacy. Having spent more than two decades in elected office, I deeply respect such work. Some foundations pursue it. But it is only one strategy through which foundation can serve others.

No dictate from the government, or from Mr. Eisenberg, should prevent foundations from supporting the public good in a broad variety of ways. The old adage about “looking the gift horse in the mouth” is one thing; punching that horse with a fistful of regulations is something else.

I began work at the Council on Foundations after Katrina struck. With others, I recognized that our philanthropic response was no better coordinated than government’s. I joined those urging that we prepare to lead when chaos follows crises.

Which brings me back to our strategic-planning symposium, called because we now know that if an avian-flu pandemic arrives on American soil it will be too late for planning. Thus, we are equipping our community-based foundations to provide leadership and support when it is most needed. It is exactly the kind of leadership Mr. Eisenberg should celebrate. It does not advocate that others do all the heavy lifting. It says that we, in philanthropy, are ready to lead through service — now, and throughout the 21st century.

Steve Gunderson
President
Council on Foundations
Washington