(Roughly) Daily

Posts Tagged ‘charity

“We only have what we give”*…

 

There’s a great deal of concern over whether or not the new tax bill will decrease charitable giving in the U.S.; as noted below, it’s painfully well grounded.  But there may be another threat to not-for-profits on the immediate horizon: competition from politics…

In very late 2016, following the election, and continuing into 2017, there was a surge in donations to not-for-profits like the ACLU, public broadcasting stations, Human Rights Watch, and the Sierra Club– organizations that addressed concerns that donors worried would be given shorter shrift in the new administration.  Patrick Rooney (Director of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at the University of Indiana) recounts:

American individuals, estates, corporations and foundations donated a record US$390 billion to charitable causes in 2016. [It is too early to know the tabulation for 2017.] Total giving grew 1.4 percent, adjusted for inflation. Donations from individuals amounted to nearly three-quarters of all giving and grew more than giving by foundations, corporations or bequests with a 2.6 percent gain to $282 billion…

We have, however, witnessed a shift in giving to groups devoted to animal welfare and environmental issues, as well as international affairs. These categories were so small that we couldn’t track them until 1987.

While they still draw less support than others – religious groups, at $123 billion, and educational institutions and organizations, at nearly $60 billion, still top the list – animal welfare and environment groups and international affairs organizations made big strides in 2016…

But as a result of the new tax bill, Dr. Rooney suggests, there will be roughly $21 billion less per year to charity.  That’s almost four times the amount of growth in the sector last year.  So, if Dr. Rooney is right, the not-for-profits that have lately had the wind at their backs may find themselves sailing into it starting in 2018.  

But that may not be the whole story.  Even as charitable contributions are under pressure, political contributions look poised to rise.  They were already astronomical: 2016 contributions to presidential campaigns were over $2 billion; congressional (Senate and House) races brought in over $4 billion; and state-wide races, over $1,5 billion (all, new highs, and all not counting an unmeasured amount of soft/dark spending).

2018 will, of course, be an election year– one for which interest and momentum are already building.  It’s not a presidential year, of course; still, it promises to be a big one. There’s every indication that Democrats are readying to field a record number candidates at every level in the mid-terms, and to fund them at record levels.  At the same time, it seems clear that Republicans are preparing to match their efforts.  Which is to say:  while there remain concerns about voter engagement, there’s every indication that there will again be an increased level of contributions to the campaigns.

So, the new tax bill is likely to reduce funding to not-for-profits, at the same time that political concerns are likely to make a greater demand on the “giving budget” of Americans.

Research conducted on the 2012 election (pdf), suggest that a donor’s political contributions do not decrease his/her charitable giving.  And with luck, that will hold true through 2018.  But the amounts in question, on both the charitable and the political fronts, continue to rise dramatically… and at some point, there is a limit to the amount that an individual can or will give– especially if that individual is not a member of the 1%… Those not-for-profits that experienced a “Trump Bump” in their funding in late 2016 and 2017 might find that, with the double-whammy of the new tax bill and “competition” from politics, they are facing head-winds in 2018.

I am a scenario planner by trade; I’ve learned the wisdom of contemplating all of the scenarios– the plausible futures– that we might face in order to be ready for any of them.  We certainly hope that there’ll be no hit to charitable contributions; but if this dark scenario unfolds, what do we do?

For the smaller donors who were the backbone of the Clinton and (before that, the Sanders and Obama campaigns), many of whom re-directed their support to charities after the 2016 election, there may come a set of choices:  First, for the many who will no longer itemize, do I continue to contribute though now I can no longer deduct the gift?  And second, for all, a Hobson’s Choice:  do I give to support the non-government organizations stepping in to try to fill needs (services, advocacy) from which government is retreating, or do I support an effort to reconfigure the government so that it pre-empt/address those needs?  The obvious right answers are “yes” and “both,” which may well require all of us to stretch to, if not beyond, the limits of our capacity to give.

For not-for-profits, this a moment to be cautious.  Dr. Rooney’s warning notwithstanding, it may be that Americans have the capacity to sustain their increased contributions at the same time that they increase their political giving.  But the strategically-robust position is to assume that they cannot, and to make plans– if only contingency plans– for level, even reduced contribution income.

Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

* Isabel Allende

###

As we dig deeper, we might celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on this day marked in his honor.  The holiday was established in 1983 when President Ronald Reagan signed the bill creating this federal holiday.  Reagan had opposed the holiday, citing its cost, joining southern Republicans like Jesse Helms, who were more naked in their reasoning; but the enabling legislation had passed by a veto-proof margin.

 source

 

“A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog”*…

 

Savior Barbie stands in front of a chalkboard in a run-down classroom somewhere in Africa. “It’s so sad that they don’t have enough trained teachers here. I’m not trained either, but I’m from the West,” the caption on the photo reads. In another, the plastic figurine poses in front shacks made from scrap metal and sticks: “Just taking a slumfie… Feeling so blessed.”

In the satirical Instagram account for Savior Barbie, Barbie is in Africa running an NGO that provides drinking water to locals. “Harnessing broken white hearts to provide water to those in Africa, one tear at a time,” the tagline for her organization reads. The account, started a month ago by two 20-something white women who have worked in East Africa, now has over 18,000 followers…

Savior Barbie also highlights the point that advocates and experts working on the continent have been observing for years—well-intentioned but naive volunteerism—or “voluntourism“—is at best ineffectual and at worst harmful to the developing countries it’s meant to serve. It drives an industry that sees 1.6 million people do volunteer work while on vacation every year, spending as much as $2 billion in the process. Nigerian-American author Teju Cole once dubbed this impulse the White Savior Industrial Complex

More at “Instagram’s White Savior Barbie neatly captures what’s wrong with “voluntourism” in Africa.” Pair with “The Smug Style in American Liberalism“– bracing stuff.

[TotH to EWW]

* Jack London

###

As we rethink relief, we might send forbearing birthday wishes to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; he was born on this date in 121.  The last of the Five Good Emperors, Marcus Aurelius is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers; his Meditations, written on campaign before he became emperor, is still a central text on the philosophy of service and duty.

 source

Written by LW

April 26, 2016 at 1:01 am

I choose… me!

People in Western countries drown in choice. Want a T-shirt? Thousands of alternatives await you. Want some toothpaste? Sit down, we could be here a while. Many people see these options as a good thing – they’re a sign of our independence, our freedom, our mastery over our own destinies. But these apparent positives have a dark side.

Krishna Savani from Columbia University has found that when Americans think about the concept of choice, they’re less concerned about the public good and less empathic towards disadvantaged people. His work supports the idea that endless arrays of choice focus our attention on individual control and, by doing so, they send a message that people’s fates are their own concerns. Their lives are not the business of the state or public institutions, and if they fail, it is their own fault. With choices at hand, Americans are more likely to choose themselves.

Savani’s experiments and their results make for pretty bracing reading.  Still, he notes, not all cultures react the same way.  And as for Americans,

… Savani points out that the US is one of the world’s most charitable countries. He writes, “If Americans believe that they are choosing to help other people out of their free will, or if they can affirm their selves through making choices for other people, they may be even more charitable.” The problem lies more with “choice for choice’s sake.”

Read the whole story in Discover.

As we resolve to simplify, we might recall that it was on this date in 1718 that London lawyer, writer, and inventor, James Puckle patented  a multi-shot gun mounted on a stand capable of firing up to nine rounds per minute– the first machine gun.

Puckle’s innovation was as formative in the realm of intellectual property as it was in the martial arena:  Quoth to the Patent Office of the United Kingdom,”In the reign of Queen Anne of Great Britain, the law officers of the Crown established as a condition of patent that the inventor must in writing describe the invention and the manner in which it works.” Puckle’s machine gun patent was among the first to provide such a description.

source and larger view, with transcription

What goes around…

George Packer described in the New York Times what happens to the clothes that one drops with charity…

If you’ve ever left a bag of clothes outside the Salvation Army or given to a local church drive, chances are that you’ve dressed an African. All over Africa, people are wearing what Americans once wore and no longer want. Visit the continent and you’ll find faded remnants of secondhand clothing in the strangest of places. The ”Let’s Help Make Philadelphia the Fashion Capital of the World” T-shirt on a Malawian laborer. The white bathrobe on a Liberian rebel boy with his wig and automatic rifle. And the muddy orange sweatshirt on the skeleton of a small child, lying on its side in a Rwandan classroom that has become a genocide memorial. A long chain of charity and commerce binds the world’s richest and poorest people in accidental intimacy. It’s a curious feature of the global age that hardly anyone on either end knows it.

Mother Jones and the International Reporting Project collected a stunning gallery that helps those on this end of the chain better appreciate the other.

The circumstantially-ironic commentary of the photos is just a bonus…

"Iowa: Nothing to do since 1772" shirt worn by University of Liberia student

More wonderful pix– all shot in November, 2010 in Liberia, West Africa, “where former warlords tend rice paddies and American t-shirts are sold in heaps under the hot African sun”– at Mother Jones‘ “Where Do Goodwill Clothes Go?

 

As we appreciate the long reach of the global market, we might recall that it was on this date in 1954 that Walt Disney announced plans for Disneyland in Anaheim, California.  Construction was begun on July 21st of that year, and the park opened a year-and-a-day later.

source

 

%d bloggers like this: