April 8, 1999 | Read Time: 6 minutes
In philanthropy, passion is not enough. Yes, it was a passion for books that led Andrew Carnegie to establish thousands of public libraries that have nourished millions of Americans’ personal growth and ambition. It was a passion for art that inspired Isabella Stewart Gardner to provide in her will that her prized art collection and Boston home be maintained permanently for the education and enjoyment of the public. And it was Monroe D. Anderson’s passion for improving medical care that led to Houston’s renowned M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
But strategy, not passion alone, got those benefactors where they wanted to go. The exact strategies differed, but the fundamental strategy was to find a way to forge partnerships to insure that an individual or institution, over time, would feel committed to carrying forward.
In Carnegie’s case, the partnership was with the local community; for Isabella Gardner, it was the creation of an independent non-profit organization whose purpose was to insure continued public access to her collection; and for Monroe Anderson, it was family and friends who took his passion forward — and arranged an unusual collaboration between a medical center and state government.
In today’s world, there is no shortage of needs — or of ideas on how to meet those needs. Sorting through them, however, requires discipline, and selecting where to focus requires study. Simple “do-gooderism” is not enough. A strategy to carry forward the impulse is essential.
Defining the problem is the first step in the strategic-planning process. Such a step requires partnerships between communities and philanthropy that go beyond the shallow diagnoses and solutions to arrive at a constructive, long-range vision of what can be.
Indeed, the first and foremost challenge for philanthropy is to help channel the frustration that Americans have with government into constructive action, building on the fact that Americans have a long history of coming together to get things done. Americans seem to have lost the habit of doing so — though such efforts as the Colorado Trust’s program to promote community responsibility and a similar effort by the Kansas Health Foundation are making progress in strengthening community resolve to improve the human condition.
A second, parallel challenge is to promote discussion among all groups in a particular community about alternative ways to define and deal with problems. Making partnerships with the many groups that have a stake in a community’s quality of life provides local and national philanthropies with the allies they need to do good with their money.
A third challenge, in the words of John W. Gardner, is “to prevent wholeness from smothering diversity, and diversity from diluting wholeness.”
To meet those challenges, communities must have two things at hand: committed talent and objective information. Philanthropy can provide the means for acquiring both by:
Moving theory into practice, inspiring innovation, and getting the facts for the community — be it a state, county, or neighborhood — on what works elsewhere.
Making money available to study whether programs are making a difference.
Providing business expertise to help non-profit and other community groups learn to become more effective.
Helping to create talent, as the Flinn Foundation’s Merit Scholars Program is doing by encouraging Arizona’s top students to attend institutions in the state instead of going elsewhere.
Most important, philanthropy can help by serving as a convener — by bringing people together to consider what needs to be accomplished, by providing objective data to guide the discussions, and by supporting the talent to help define problems and figure out how best to deal with them.
Philanthropy can’t reach its full potential, however, unless national foundations and government agencies learn how to work more effectively with local foundations.
National foundations generally possess a broad, objective, and informed view of issues — enhanced by serious study and insights, as well as by experience gleaned from being watchdogs of the national and global scene. But they need working relationships with local foundations so that knowledge gained from the work of the national foundations can be translated into usable information at the local level and that promising models for improving the human condition can be adapted effectively at the local level.
Collaborative relationships won’t work, however, unless local foundations speak out about the problems that often occur when the federal government or national foundations try to work in a specific geographic area. Parachuting money into a community, county, or state without seeking advice from local grant makers is unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. All too frequently, when the national support runs its course, the burden falls on local foundations to either fill the money gap or suffer the political fallout for ending a program.
Local foundations also must try to make the case to national foundations, and to the federal government, that it takes time to generate positive change — time to stabilize institutions, develop local talent, and harness the oversight needed to sustain a program.
Effective investment in promoting human welfare has always had to confront the inherent complexity in how people live and interact. But doing so today is more difficult because of global, sometimes man-made forces that frequently, subtly, and negatively influence states, cities, hamlets, neighborhoods, and families.
Global economic shifts are changing local job patterns, creating opportunities for the educated but vacuums for those without skills or education. The new technology is dictating the flow and content of information across geographic and social barriers, influencing Americans’ beliefs and responses, altering behavior and attitudes, and challenging past values of right and wrong. Substance abuse, fueled by widespread global availability, is causing problems well beyond the individual and the family. It is eroding health, compromising public safety, and lowering productivity in the work setting. New diseases and global transmission patterns are making it difficult for the U.S. health organizations to do all that is necessary to protect the public’s health.
Ironically, as problems become more global, more and more of the burden for guarding the public’s welfare is shifting to the state, county, and community levels, where there is a limited capacity to plan and bring about positive change. Keeping in mind the adage, “Today’s realities affect tomorrow’s hopes,” philanthropy has a serious role to play today in making sure that reliable data exist to guide decisions affecting human welfare, that meaningful partnerships occur out of meaningful debate, that well-prepared, spirited people are available to make and oversee changes and are encouraged along the way. All this national philanthropies, working with local grant makers, can stimulate and support, helping communities to develop effective strategies, with passion as the guide.
Margaret E. Mahoney, former president of the Commonwealth Fund, in New York, is now president of MEM Associates, a non-profit organization that advises foundations and other groups. This article was adapted from a speech she gave to the Conference of Southwest Foundations.
