time, sweat, courage, and cash should do more than just make us proud of Americans’ capacity for caring. They should ultimately prod us to fashion a new way of thinking about the relationship between public and private action, one that escapes the rigid ideological positions that have taken root over the years.

For much of the past two decades, we have been beholden to two concepts of the relationship between nonprofit and voluntary action and government priorities. The first vision has been grounded in the mainstream liberal idea of a nonprofit world that dutifully works to achieve broad public purposes, sublimating its private values and commitments in an effort to work with government to provide secular services.

Many have seen the growing dependence of nonprofit human-service organizations on government money as a clear sign that the agendas of nonprofit groups and government can never be separated. Over time, this vision of a dependent nonprofit world has been closely aligned with advocacy efforts aimed at bringing ever-more government support into the nonprofit world.

The other concept of nonprofit and voluntary action, trumpeted by conservatives, has celebrated the private and idiosyncratic values that allow nonprofit organizations to innovate and experiment at a distance from government. For conservatives, the real value of private charitable activity was thought to lie precisely in its nongovernmental character. Rather than see the financial support and oversight of nonprofit groups by government as a potential tool for the achievement of greater accountability and effectiveness, conservatives have worried about the erosion of the independence of nonprofit activity.

The answer, they have argued, lay in the shielding of nonprofit and voluntary efforts from the embrace of government. These arguments became associated in the 1980’s with calls for reductions in public support of nonprofit social-service groups and greater levels of private charitable giving.

The scenes from New York highlight the overly simplified assumptions and limitations of both those longstanding visions. In place of outmoded and ossified arguments aimed alternatively at drawing or erasing a line in the sand separating the nonprofit world and government, what we need is an appreciation of the power of autonomous private action in the interest of important public purposes. At the heart of the images we have seen from New York is the idea that private voluntary efforts can indeed be brought to bear on public problems in a way that reinforces and supplements public action.

It is noteworthy that the early work of nonprofit groups and volunteers in the attacks was not governed by narrow service contracts or carried out in complete separation from government. Rather it was animated by something far more powerful, namely personal commitments to helping in the name of powerful public need. From this we need to take a lesson.

The picture that has emerged is one that neither conservatives nor liberals can really explain adequately using standard nonprofit sobriquets. It is a picture of public and private actors working side by side in an effort that simultaneously gives voice to the powerful private commitments of individuals while affirming the need for coordinated work focused on a critical public purpose.

When the tenon of private action is fitted tightly into the mortise of public needs, a joint is created that withstands great pressure. The challenge that has been set for all of us is to find ways to construct this strong joint when circumstances are less dire and desperate, but when the needs are nevertheless important.

Perhaps the events in New York and Washington will help us find a way that recognizes both the power of unleashing the needs of individuals to express their personal values and the necessity of channeling those impulses toward society’s most pressing public needs.

Even modest success at this task might allow something positive to emerge from a situation that otherwise is so desperately tragic.

Peter Frumkin is a senior fellow of the New America Foundation, a public-policy research institute in Washington.

FOUNDATIONS

By Mark R. Kramer

The raw horror of terrorism and war has shattered the polite discourse of philanthropy. How should grant makers and other philanthropists who have taken it upon themselves to make a difference respond to these events?

Money, for all its power, seems a weak tool compared with the sacrifices of blood and heroism these past few weeks.

We have seen many selfless acts, and know that countless more went unobserved: Thousands volunteer to donate blood or risk their own safety to help dissect the rubble and recover victims. Firefighters run unhesitatingly toward their doom in an effort to save others. Two men carry a woman in a wheelchair down 68 stories of stairs, risking their lives by slowing their own descent. Passengers on United Flight 93, who presumably overpowered their hijackers, made the heroic choice of saving other lives by destroying their own.

Far lesser sacrifices were made as well. Storekeepers freely gave out food and water as needed, taxis did not charge rescue workers, landlords offered free rent, and commercial real-estate agents agreed not to profit from the sudden need for office space. Far more donations of clothes and supplies were received than can ever be used. Throughout this country, at every level of society, people gave of themselves, as much as was needed, down to their very lives, without ever being asked. Our country’s profound spirit of generosity was never more apparent.

Private donors, too, most notably corporations, responded immediately. In the weeks after the disaster, $676-million has been donated to major charities and to special funds, such as the September 11th Fund, created by the New York Community Trust and the United Way of New York City.

Across the country, millions of Americans called or e-mailed each other to be sure friends and family members were all right, displayed flags, lit candles, gathered for memorial services, helped strangers, reached out to the bereaved. If a sense of community is essential for a civil society, the vast majority of Americans passed the test, literally with flying colors.

Inevitably, there was a dark side too. Muslims and Arab-Americans are living in an all-too-justified fear of angry attacks, arson, and murder from a vengeful and bigoted minority of Americans. And, whatever the rationale, all of us foresee and recoil from the loss of lives that is sure to come through retaliation.

In short, this response to tragedy revealed great hidden strengths, as well as weaknesses, in our society. How should we, the professional donors, respond?

It would be nice to write a larger-than-usual check for emergency relief and feel we have done our part. Writing checks is what we do most easily. Yet the test of response to a crisis is not in doing the ordinary, but in learning to do things differently than before.

The food, clothes, and precious human blood that so quickly piled up — and will largely go unused — is powerful evidence that the desire to give does not always match the moment of greatest need.

America’s foundations must offer a more thoughtful and deliberate response. We must deal with the longer-term implications of what is happening today and be there when the spotlight of popular support has moved on to other, more-current events.

This is an opportunity to reject business as usual and demonstrate the value of our foundations’ resources and philanthropic expertise. Should we use our $450-billion investment portfolios to support the fragile stock market? No one doubts that the market will eventually recover, and foundations are in a better position than most to take a short-term paper loss for the sake of their mission. Or should we expand our work in schools to teach the lessons — both good and bad — that can be learned from these tragedies? Alternatively, is it best to seize this moment of national unity to work with community organizations and try to preserve this outpouring of support to help solve the country’s other domestic problems?

With no lesser sense of urgency, we must still respond with thoughtfulness, insight, and creativity, holding ourselves to a higher standard than merely writing another check.

The demonic effectiveness of the September 11 attack was the result of careful planning and years of preparation. Our response must be even more deliberate, considered, and well-planned.

Mark R. Kramer is a founder of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, a nonprofit research organization, and managing director of the Foundation Strategy Group, a consulting firm in Boston. His e-mail address is kramercap@aol.com.

GRANT MAKING

By Sandra A. Glass

Foundation boards, while sincerely wanting to fulfill the charitable missions of their organizations, have historically been reluctant to spend capital. They have viewed their roles as trustees of endowments that will help aid future generations. When markets are down or volatile, trustees become extremely conservative in their grant making. They are hesitant to take financial risks.

It’s time to change that mind-set.

If foundations do not take stock of their usual grant-making patterns while dealing with disaster relief, the recent attacks in New York and Washington could have significant and harmful effects on charities all across the country. Grant makers should dig deep into their consciences and financial reserves and support both emergency and continuing charitable projects. Regular grant-making budgets should be augmented with money for crisis projects, even if it means doubling the percentage of assets that foundations normally spend on grants. If a foundation temporarily depletes its endowment principal in trying to make both disaster-related and traditional grants, the decision should be viewed as a positive — not reckless — decision.

Foundation staffs also can take the opportunity to encourage civic leaders to set priorities for long-term support in times of calm and crisis. If foundations can assure nonprofit organizations that local financial support will not be slashed, cooperation and trust will ensue, enabling all partners to participate in plans for meeting essential needs.

Foundations, like individuals, should respond to the call in times of crisis, and the events of September 11 deserve their concerted attention. A number of large and smaller regional grant makers already have risen to that challenge.

The Ford Foundation quickly announced a commitment of $10-million to aid families and nonprofit organizations. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged funds to the American Red Cross, the United Way of New York City, and the New York Times Foundation. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is working with a consortium of grant makers around the country to develop a coordinated response to this tragedy.

Still, foundations should not lose sight of the traditional support they have been providing to their customary grant recipients. With the threat of war looming and the nation shaken by recent events, it will be especially important to ensure that local nonprofit groups are functioning with skill and confidence to address health, education, and cultural issues. Programs for children and for elderly, disabled, and homeless people need to be sustained and increased.

The future of philanthropy in this country can be inspired by leaders of large and small foundations who are willing to take a brave step and increase grant making when all of America most needs their generosity and wisdom.

Sandra A. Glass is a philanthropy adviser in Claremont, Calif., and program vice president emerita of the W.M. Keck Foundation, in Los Angeles.

GLOBAL VIEW

By Kumi Naidoo

As the U.S. government and its allies undertake a political and military response to the terrorist attacks on the United States, the presence of a vibrant and independent body of voluntary organizations, working appropriately with government, will gain in importance in the coming days and months.

A decade ago, with the end of the cold war, the world had great optimism for a “peace dividend” and the imminent strengthening of the role of civil-society organizations in public life. Indeed, impressive developments have occurred, with citizens and nonprofit groups playing a greater role in dealing with the challenges facing humanity.

Now, the world of civil society is confronted with the tremendous responsibility of ensuring that its collective progress over the past few decades is not set back, or defeated, by terrorism or the response to it. Further, civil society must cope with and transform the global conditions of poverty, inequality, political disenfranchisement, and distorted images of “the other” that are the breeding grounds for such extreme forms of violence.

Much of the work of voluntary organizations already is focused on those causes, but now is a good time to examine the various ways in which philanthropic and civil-society groups can consolidate and strengthen their efforts.

Most important, perhaps, is the need to come together at this hour of shared grief to pay tribute to citizens, nonprofit groups, and rescue workers whose acts of bravery and volunteerism sum up the best of our common humanity. Continued support is also required for the important work being done by civil-society organizations to help people affected by the current crisis as well as the potential humanitarian and refugee crises that might follow in other parts of the world.

As political leaders act to prevent terrorist attacks in the future, civil society’s voice will be vital in urging governments to uphold human rights and the rule of law, and the fundamental civil liberties that underpin democratic participation. Although, at this moment, security and defense are uppermost in people’s minds, governments and citizens have a responsibility to work toward the long-term sustainability of humanitarian values. Civil-society organizations must redouble their efforts to weave anew the torn fabric of our collective existence. Robust coalitions on the local and national levels, linked internationally and inspired by an ethos of compassion and tolerance, are our best defense against those who would sow hate and destruction.

The philanthropic world, particularly in the United States and Western Europe, should continue to take the lead in looking at fresh ways of contributing its resources, skills, and knowledge to promoting greater international understanding.

A growing number of foundations and charities already are making important contributions: in peace education; promotion of greater tolerance and social inclusion; antiracist research and programs; promotion of human rights and social and economic justice; and the bridging of cultural and religious divides. This work must now be intensified at the national and international levels.

Promoting dialogue and cross-cultural understanding within the United States and internationally has become perhaps one of the most urgent priorities, particularly in light of hate crimes against Arabs, Muslims, and Sikhs. It is only through advancing cultural understanding that the world can stop the recent tragedy from spawning newer and equally avoidable tragedies. Interfaith dialogue at the local and international levels has never been more important.

Along with the acts of commission in the past two weeks have been acts of omission — particularly the neglecting of voices and roles of women in meeting the challenges posed by terrorism. Women were in large numbers among the casualties in New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, as well as being an important part of the volunteer force at Ground Zero in Manhattan. On the other hand, it appears that those who planned and carried out the attacks were men. Most of those who now have the power to respond to this crisis, and are voicing opinions on the “appropriate response,” are men.

Opinion polls in the United States and Europe indicate that a significantly greater number of men than women are adamant in calling for retribution and immediate military intervention.

This tragedy therefore highlights civil society’s challenge in strengthening the voices of women in public life at all levels, so that humanity does not continue to deprive itself of the wisdom, sensitivity, and leadership of women in dealing with terrorism and its causes.

It is becoming increasingly evident that confronting, and eventually defeating, all forms of terrorism will be a long struggle, necessitating long-term strategies. The danger is compounded by the ever-present risk of biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks. Civil-society organizations must quickly devise ways to improve their readiness to act in such emergencies.

For some years the Council on Foundations, in Washington, has done important work in looking at what approaches might best equip us to deal with natural disasters. This knowledge could be adapted to enhance the philanthropic world’s assistance in responding to terrorist attacks and other man-made disasters.

Collaborative approaches by voluntary organizations — approaches that cut across geographical boundaries and spheres of competence — can also send a powerful message against hatred and all forms of violence.

Last month, for instance, Civicus, a global alliance of civil-society groups whose members come from 107 countries, convened an international meeting of nongovernmental organizations to formulate a collective response to the September 11 tragedy. The result was an unprecedented show of unity, with civil-society organizations jointly issuing a statement about the current crisis and exploring future action. Organizations as diverse as the World Organization of the Scout Movement, Amnesty International, and Oxfam International have come together.

Such collaborative efforts need to be supported and encouraged. They are more likely to influence public opinion and public policy than isolated responses to terrorist threats.

Kumi Naidoo is secretary general of Civicus World Alliance for Citizen Participation, in Washington.