Electronic Giving Has Big Implications

To the Editor:

I commend you for your coverage of United Ways and the business of e-giving (“On-the-Job Goes Online,” August 22). However, in reading the article I could not avoid thinking that there is a great deal of thinly disguised effort to make a virtue of what professionals in the field evidently consider a necessity. In short, while it is true that there is a rising use, and probably continually increasing use, of electronic contributions, it is not true that all change is for the better. At the very least there is a serious downside to this kind of giving, which was not given enough consideration in this article.

To begin with, I doubt very much that giving by individuals at their computers can muster the kind of team spirit and corporate connection that the old workplace campaigns — with all their “warts” — could in effect achieve.

Second, the move to personalized computer giving sounds noble, and indeed it plays into American notions of the desirability of individual choice. But looked at from another vantage point, it is part of the increasing trend toward donor designation and donor-controlled giving — and away from thoughtful planning and coordination of efforts to meet community needs according to any kind of priority consideration.

Indeed we are using a marketplace psychology to replace a planning-policy-centered model for giving. The dilemma arises because choice (and inclusiveness) is desirable, even critical, but informed giving to some end other than my pet charity is also necessary in order to ensure that truly important community needs are met.

This dilemma, exacerbated by the growing use of Internet donations, but also encouraged through the use of donor-advised funds in community foundations and elsewhere (including local United Ways), is one of the most significant issues facing the philanthropic community. It is, however, not receiving sufficient attention or study, in light of the context and purposes for community giving and philanthropic contributions. This may be a continually “contestable” notion, as United Ways and philanthropists have always debated the idea that the donor is supreme, versus the needs of the community, determined by collective choice, as the primary driver. But now the need to face the issue head-on seems even more urgent.

Should we give up on the idea of allocating charitable contributions for community priorities? If so, the connection to public policy is evident: We need government aid more than ever to assure that priority needs (for example, of poor people) are met, so that decisions made by charitable donors are less consequential for meeting basic needs.

Eleanor L. Brilliant
Professor of Social Work
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, N.J.