Have MacKenzie Scott and Melinda French Gates Changed Philanthropy? The Wrong Question

Before now, I have not publicly weighed in on this question.? After all, there is a surfeit of op-eds, webinars, and analyses. I was not sure there was much to add, and perhaps even these comments have been previously made.

?But a recent webinar that attempted to answer that very question raised concerns for me that this discussion has the potential to distort decision making for too many everyday or even merely rich funders.

?For over a quarter century, I have been teaching philanthropists and foundation professionals.? I typically begin the course with a brief social history of the development of the institutions of philanthropy and the practices related to them. One organization of funders found this presentation so valuable that for many years built it into their annual conference.? Many assume that my presentation is about Astors and Rockefellers and Rosenwalds and Carnegies? In fact, it isn’t.

?Always and in every place there have been ultra rich whose philanthropy dominated their cultures and societies.? In some places that meant royalty or aristocracy or oligarchy or financiers.? And to be sure, there is a voyeuristic fascination with how these folks chose to spread their wealth, to say nothing of how they lived their lives. For example, why do we visit the cottages of Newport or the palace at Versaille. However, what is more revealing and useful for us as funders is to see how the rest of us do/did our philanthropy.? That tells us a lot about civil society, community structures, family systems, and even overriding legal and political systems.

?There is no society of which I am aware that does not have some form of philanthropy or structured voluntarism.? So, looking at how that works is far more revealing than peering into the chambers of the superrich.? Moreover, such an examination tells us why certain practices and institutions arose, how they influence the philanthropic landscape, and why they may or may not any longer play a key role.

?This is all a long prescript to why I am concerned with the attention given to these two philanthropists.? That is not to say that their philanthropy is irrelevant.? It is thoughtful, substantial, and from everything we know, authentic.? And it is at an incredible scale. But to propose that the way they are doing philanthropy is or should be transformative for the rest of us is, I think, unhelpful.

?For example, MacKenzie Scott made massive grants to organizations that did not know it was coming. Let us be clear, though – they were not random gifts. ?They may have been “trust based” but a very highly paid consulting firm spent a lot of time vetting the recipient organizations to make sure that they were trust-worthy and could absorb potentially transformative gifts.

?That is one of the reasons that the CEP study of the gifts is less meaningful than it might be.? I am a big fan of the Center for Effective Philanthropy, but when their review showed an 80% positive for the recipients of the grants to effectively utilize these large sums, the Bridgespan prep work is quite relevant.? I think it is great that Ms. Scott was willing to give those sums, but it wasn’t to a random group of nonprofits.? And it surely didn’t prove that the nonprofit field as a whole is able to absorb a massive fund infusion.? [To be clear, most nonprofits are profoundly undercapitalized and deserve far more to be able to achieve their missions.? All I am saying here is that a highly studied and selective group doesn’t prove or disprove that the entire field has done the preparation or has the capacity for a transformative gift. We simply don’t know the answer to that.] [Full disclosure: I have or had some connection to several of the organizations that received gifts although I don’t currently sit on any of their boards.]

?Similarly, Ms. French Gates is now on her own and articulating an important set of priorities for the giving under her own auspices.? But she too was the beneficiary of lots of prep – in her case a good long time as the co-chair of a massive foundation that co-bore her name.? That foundation has had a very substantial staff that have both studied and implemented the vagaries and sometimes evolving philanthropic priorities of the two principals.? So when she went out on her own, the depth of experience and learning that informed her own priorities and mission was massive.? She surely has quickly moved to define her own way, but it would be naive to assume that it has not been years in the making.

?The philanthropy field is fortunate to have such outspoken, forceful, thoughtful, and decisive leaders as these two.? But most of us need to look with caution before we choose to model our own philanthropic behavior on theirs.? Our reach, our influence, and most important, our bench strength is far more modest.? ?Their impact is great because of their ability to give great sums and to precipitate the possibility of transformative changes within the organizations and causes they support and not necessarily because they are doing things differently.

Moreover, as transformative as their giving and commitments are, neither has funded every good and worthy organization even within their range of priorities.? Many of those others continue to be at risk and our comparatively lesser gifts can be make or break for them.? Impact need not be measured in mega numbers, but often in everyday place-based organizations doing heroic but unheralded work.?

It would be a tragedy if we allowed the hoopla of two very prominent and ultra rich, albeit impressive individuals to forget the impact the philanthropy of the rest of us can and should make.

Also published as #489 on WisePhilanthropy.Institute

?

?

?