Stop Outsourcing Your Philanthropy

Think back to your last experience with philanthropy (giving your money to create good). All right, now with that experience in mind, briefly answer the following questions:?

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how close in proximity were you to this philanthropy? (1 being > 1,000 miles away and 10 being in person)
2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how close is this person/cause to you? (1 being no relationship and 10 being family or like family)
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rank how this experience impacted you? (1 being little to no impact and 10 being life-changing)
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how eager are you to participate in philanthropy in the future because of this experience? (1 being not eager and 10 being extremely motivated)

Before I discovered micro-philanthropy, roughly 90% of my funds that went to charity were donated to an established organization or cause. Whether it was my church, a social cause promoted by my school, or a large-scale world disaster, my giving experience was basically transactional.?

The money went out of my bank account and into someone else's. I never had a lot to do with it, and if there was any follow-up on the project at all, it was usually in the form of an impersonal piece of mail that showed up weeks later. I never really felt like my donation mattered very much.

These experiences weren’t necessarily negative, but if I had to rank them on the scale we walked through above, my results would look something like this:

1. 2
2. 2
3. 3
4. 2

Pretty lame for something as potentially life-altering as philanthropy. If you review my numbers, however, you might begin to notice a correlation between questions 1 & 2 and questions 3 & 4. The distance to the cause and the related impact seems to correlate with how impactful it was for me personally and if I would get involved with it again.

This is far from just my personal isolated experience too. In her Ted Talk, Elizabeth Dunn, a Canadian Social Scientist, shares her experience around giving up close.

“When you hear that more than 5.6 million refugees have fled Syria, you're faced with this tragedy that the human brain hasn't really evolved to comprehend. It's so abstract. Before, if any of us had been asked to donate 15 hours a month to help out with the refugee crisis, we probably would have said no. But as soon as we took our family to their new home in Vancouver, we all had the same realization: we were just going to do whatever it took to help them be happy.”

By involving herself in philanthropy that was up close and personal, Elizabeth’s giving experience went from abstract to concrete. She was able to more fully experience and comprehend the impact her giving had in a specific situation. She goes on to share why this is:

“In one experiment, we gave participants an opportunity to donate a bit of money to either UNICEF or Spread the Net. We chose these charities intentionally, because they were partners and shared the same critically important goal of promoting children's health. But I think UNICEF is just such a big, broad charity that it can be a little hard to envision how your own small donation will make a difference. In contrast, Spread the Net offers donors a concrete promise: for every 10 dollars donated, they provide one bed net to protect a child from malaria.

We saw that the more money people gave to Spread the Net, the happier they reported feeling afterward. In contrast, this emotional return on investment was completely eliminated when people gave money to UNICEF. So this suggests that just giving money to a worthwhile charity isn't always enough. You need to be able to envision how, exactly, your dollars are going to make a difference.”

Envisioning is one thing, being directly on the frontlines of giving is quite another. On May 20, 2013 an EF5 tornado (strongest measuring category) ravaged Moore, Oklahoma. This tornado killed 24 people and caused almost $2 billion dollars in damages. The news stories were horrendous. Like many people, I felt saddened by the news. Unlike most people, however, I would have a chance to see this damage up close in just six short weeks.?

I can remember the hot humid air radiating off of the asphalt of Will Rogers Airport in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Although six weeks of cleanup had done wonders, I will never forget what I experienced that day. Piles of debris littered the streets, damaged homes revealed cracked foundations, and people showed discouraged faces. I thought I had a good sense of what I was walking into that day. I didn’t until I experienced it for myself.

Outsourcing all of your philanthropy to outside organizations is like watching a nature documentary instead of taking a hike, seeing an artwork print instead of viewing the original, or speaking to a loved one over FaceTime instead of in person. There is some sense of the real thing, but the overall benefit and experience do not even compare.?

What I am not advocating for is a total shutdown of donations to charitable organizations or causes that we can’t see touch or feel. I am simply suggesting a diversification of our giving to include more opportunities for philanthropy that is up close and personal. When we outsource our giving, we distance ourselves from the experiences that create the skillset of philanthropy.?Deep impact is a byproduct of just such a skill.

There are people and projects in your sphere of influence right now that need your help. Instead of waiting for the next knock at your own door, get out into your community and use the money in your pocket, regardless of the amount, to create meaning, connection, and impact.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Basement Philanthropist,

Grant David Collins