The Colossal Misperception of Charity and Charities

This is not a political post.

But a few politicians did, this week, illustrate the colossal misperception of charity and charities that lives on in the United States (despite the absolutely critical nature of the nonprofit sector in our life, economy, and history). In fact, they gave a textbook-worthy example of misunderstandings of the nonprofit sector that have reached crucible-status for leaders of worthy missions, causes, and organizations.

Betsy DeVos (no this isn’t political) showcased naiveté, as did her boss in “overruling his people.” The topic was the funding (or choosing not to fund) the beloved Special Olympics. In her remarks, as well as the response of her superior, a few generalizations received the spotlight:

1. Charities that receive philanthropy don’t need, nor deserve, public funding
2. There are dozens of good charities
3. The most fitting evaluation of a charity is whether you like it or not

There are many more generalizations, both implicit and explicit, but for today I’ll keep it simple with these three. And I’ll respond with three offerings of my own, by way of contrast:

1. Charities accomplish things that neither business nor government can or would by themselves. The Special Olympics illustrate this point quite nicely, as do PTAs, arts organizations, basic human services, and advocacy organizations.
2. Charities are economically productive – representing 10% of the labor market and over 5% of GDP – such that support of charities is congruent with economic growth, rather than contrary. (By the way, there are well over a million "good charities" in the US, Ms. DeVos, and they employ and/or organize people to do things that, generally, improve the quality of life.)
3. The most fitting evaluation of a charity is whether or not it makes a significant positive impact relative to the problem it aims to solve, while maintaining the integrity of public trust. If a nonprofit is either unethical or ineffective, then please do feel free to take appropriate critical action. But for the lion’s share of nonprofits, their impact is admirable, worthy, and uplifting.

A fourth point – not made explicitly by DeVos or her boss – but hovering in the nuance of all these conversations, is the misperception of overhead (as waste) in the nonprofit sector. I invite you to consider this angle on that conversation, regarding value-creation in the charitable sector, if this fourth point is a hot topic for you.

I once learned a powerful lesson from a peer who leads an admirable community foundation. This leader asked a gathered group of citizens to reflect on what they enjoy about the place they live, what made their quality of life there distinctive? They were asked to name aloud what had come to mind. As they named these things aloud (think: “vibrant arts community!” “parks and pools!” “sense of community!” “great organizations!” "fun museums!" and more) the community foundation leader noted that nearly everything voiced had an ecosystem of nonprofits behind it, making it possible. Indeed, whenever we appreciate the unique power of nature, art, compassion, education, and community, we’ll find we’re not too far from a nonprofit organization that is helping sustain it.

Please consider educating yourself, and your civic leaders, about a nonprofit sector that is and can be economically productive, community building, environmentally friendly, compassionate, and creative. It is a joy, and it brings joy. (And healing. And justice. And growth.)

If there is a crisis facing the nonprofit sector, it is that chronic misperceptions of charity, and charities, lead to lesser funding, leading to greater stress, leading (at times) to dysfunction and failure. The funny thing is, that also happens in business and government. So please don’t mischaracterize charities as being inherently “less than” or “undeserving” or “wasteful” as you discuss the news of the day.