The government
and the nonprofit sector are two separate entities. They coexist in the sense
that the government hands out grants to nonprofits and nonprofits cover
services that the government does not. The overwhelming majority of the time
people give their money to the nonprofit sector. Rarely do people give directly
to the government or to organizations that are strongly intertwined with the
government, but it does happen.
One man who is
known for doing this is billionaire David Rubenstein, who has given away
approximately $300 million dollars, $200 million of which is going to
government-related institutions (Smithsonian, etc.). The article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/a-billionaire-philanthropist-in-washington-whos-big-on-patriotic-giving.html?_r=0)
gives a look at how and why Rubenstein has participated in “patriotic giving.”
Rubenstein makes
it clear that the main reason that he chose to give a large chunk of his
fortune to government-related institutions is because of the decrease in
funding from the government. The institutions that he has donated to are
largely art oriented or museums. We have gone back and forth in class whether
or not these are the best donations that could be made. Personally, I do not
believe that these are the best possible donations, as I would rather see it
going towards hunger or alleviating poverty. However, these types of programs
do need to receive funding from somewhere. If the government is not providing
as much funding to these institutions should philanthropy be stepping in to
make up the difference? Is this hurting society as a whole because money that
could be going to causes that help end suffering? If donating to the arts and
museums is not the best option, then is the situation worse if the arts and
museums are government related?
What I also found interesting in the article
is that Rubenstein donates based largely on his instincts and gut reactions. He
doesn’t pour over data to make his decisions and simply gives it away.
Afterwards, he does not even require a follow up. This flies in the face of
much of what we have established as “good” donation decision-making. Can
Rubenstein and billionaires just give money away because of what their gut says
because they have such a large sum of money? Or does the fact that he is giving
to relatively credible and government-related organizations make it acceptable
to do this? For me, especially considering the large amount of money being
given away, this is a somewhat frightening process. Yes, it is simple and
‘efficient” as someone states in the article, but it is also very risky, no
matter the organization.
I condone David
Rubenstein for donating hundreds of millions dollars, I just don’t agree with
his methods or where his is donating it to. I am curious where the other $100
million dollars of unpatriotic giving has gone.
This is an interesting topic Nick. I, too, feel more inclined to give towards alleviating hunger or poverty but I do not believe that Rubenstein’s donation is a bad decision. I believe that art and other museums are still important and are often times over looked. In reality museums are a major component of all of our lives. I am willing to bet that almost everyone in our class has taken a field trip to a museum at least once in there time in school. Museums are a good way to educated kids in a more interactive manner, and we all know the importance of education. If no one donated to the museums they could go out of business. I understand that they get some money from the government but museums still rely heavily on donations. My group for the organization assessments was looking at the Binghamton Zoo and originally I was not on board. Sarah made a very strong argument showing the importance the zoo is to the community and how a lot of people over look it when it should not be over looked (we are presenting tomorrow so I will leave the details for our presentation).
ReplyDeleteAs for donating by instinct and gut reaction, I agree with you Nick. I think it is frightening that Rubenstein is giving away such large amounts of money with minimal information of the organization’s workings. We have spent a lot of time in class looking at how to make a good donation. While this scares me I am also in admiration of the trust that he has in the organizations. This relates to the giving directly discussion we had. Many people were turned off by giving directly because the person could use the money for something other then what they said they wanted. The common example of this is giving a homeless man money for food and the man buying alcohol instead. I personally am hesitant to give directly. I like to know how the money will be spent and that is why I do not agree with the methods by which Rubenstein donates.
I found this article an interesting read for two reasons: you address two arguable problems that Rubenstein makes while deciding to donate vast amounts of money to organizations. You address your feelings regarding donation to the arts and museums, as well as shine light on Rubenstein’s process while “assessing” where to donate to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and most of the class that funds can be donated elsewhere other than museums and the arts. We can be using this money to donates to other organizations that focus on starvation, eliminating diseases, etc. However, as I debate this topic more and more I begin to think that I should not have a say in stating where individuals should be donating THEIR money. That is the key point that cannot be missed. It is these individual’s hard earned money and thus if they feel emotionally tied to one particular cause, regardless of what the cause may be, they should have every right to donate. We should not judge individuals on where they decide to donate their time/money/efforts. Thus if Rubenstein wants to donate to the art cause then he should be able to without being judged. After all, donating is still a humbling act of a good deed.
The second point you address in your blogpost, regarding the process, or lack thereof utilized by Rubenstein. In this aspect, I completely agree with you, Nick. I do not approve of the compulsion to donate large amounts of money based on an initial gut reaction. I also do not like how he does not focus on data or statistics regarding the organization. Data is extremely important in that it tells the donator how much of their contribution is being effectively used. As an individual who oftentimes finds herself donating to different causes, I make sure to always dig through the in-and-outs of an organization. Personally, I would rather have more than 85% of my money impacting the direct cause. If Rubenstein were to focus his efforts on evaluating the data of the organizations he donates to, he could find himself making many more efficient and worthwhile donations.
It is always tough for me to see so much money being given away, and most or all of it not going to help those who can't even afford to feed their family. It is of course admirable that he is giving so much away, but it would be nice if a man that graduated from Duke University and co-founded the Carlyle Group would put a little bit of an effort into where his money is going. I think that it is hard sometimes for the superrich to see the importance of helping those truly in need when they have been living such a comfortable life for so long. As we all know, life can be busy, and maybe Rubenstein just has friends that rave to him about how important these organizations are, and with his busy life he only has time to write a check and move on.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't really appear to be the best method to me, as I'm sure that he has time to research other institutions and find one that he could really make a big difference in. Based on his profile on the Forbes list of billionaires, he is flying around the world 250 days a year, which means that he could take some time on those flights to look at where his money is going. The other thing that I gathered from his profile is that he also seems to be concerned with the past rather than the future and helping future generations prosper. Purchasing historical works for extremely large sums of money doesn't seem all that reasonable to me. $14.2 million for the Bay Psalm Book doesn't seem like a good investment of money. (Here is the link to his profile: http://www.forbes.com/profile/david-rubenstein/)
Rubenstein reminds me a lot of Paul Allen, who even though he gives a lot of money away, he still has a bunch to give and isn't putting it to the best use in my opinion. I think that Rubenstein is caught up in leaving his mark on the world by having these great treasures and by being able to say that he helped keep these great historical organizations going. I would like to say that I am happy to see Rubenstein giving his money away, but I don't think that I can do that when he could really do something great, but instead he just tries to make a name for himself. This theory would also explain why he doesn't research these organizations that much. It shows that these donations are just another trophy that he can display for others to see now and in the future.
The lack of funding from the government has hurt a lot of organizations big and small. However I don’t believe that donating to government- related institutions is a better alternative to donating to non-profits. The government then chooses what to fund and what not to fund. By donating directly to non-profits you cut out that middleman. You directly decide where you want your money to go.
ReplyDeleteAlso based on personal values it’s hard to donate to a museum or an art gallery when children are starving. While looking through the applications those types of organizations were the first to be eliminated for me. I don’t like that this is my thought process because who am I to decide that a specific cause isn’t worthy of being funded. However, I think in terms of immediate help before leisure and comfort. Everyone should have their basic needs met. Funding art galleries and museums don’t provide basic needs. However, again who am I to decide where people should donate their money to. Philanthropy is very personal to me. People have different motives and reasons for choosing to donate to specific places. If donors want to fund certain kinds of institutions then so be it. I just hope that there are people who recognize that there needs to be a balance between helping end suffering and donating to museums and art related institutions.
If Rubenstein wants to use his gut to choose where to donate then that’s up to him. I personally would rather make a more informed decision before I choose to donate millions of dollars because a chunk of money like that can really make a difference to a cause. I agree with you Nick, it is frightening. Donating to the government is his choice but I still believe that donating directly to an organization is a better use of a person’s donation.
This is an extremely thought provoking topic Nick, thank you for posting it. The questions of donating to government-related programs, museums, and using "gut-feeling" to make decisions seem to be the topics of conversation.
ReplyDeleteI would first like to address the topic o donating to government-related programs. As it states in the article these are funded programs that have taken a cut due to the lack of funding. So here we have an instance where non-profits have to operate the same program with less money, obviously a problem. I have no problem with Rubenstein's patriotic donations. I think any donation back to the government is a quality donation considering the government spends more money than it takes in.
Second, the idea of donating to museums. In general I believe that someone has to donate to these programs in order to maintain a balance of philanthropy. Although my core values hold basic needs in higher priority, I support Rubensein's donation. Furthermore, I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that these are not just ordinary museums we are discussing. These are the best and most efficient museums in America and maybe the world. These institutions are responsible for preserving the greatest documents, speeches, and historical events in the world. If anything I would argue these museums hold priority over receiving donations than any other that receives government funding, due to their significance.
Finally, I am a huge proponent of Rubenstien's donation technique. I'm sure as we all know from this weeks paper, data is not relevant without an interpretation or story along with it. Therefore a commend Rubenstein in find something he believes is worthy and giving money. Also, I would urge my previous commentators to re-evaluate the specific organizations that Rubenstein is donating to. We are talking about the Smithsonian, Monte Cello, Washington Monument, and the National Archives. If you want to question the effectiveness of these organizations be my guest, but I think we can all agree this is a pretty rational "gut" decision.
Thank you everyone for commenting! I find it interesting that everyone so far has agreed to a certain extent that Rubenstein's donations would be better to use elsewhere, but Emily and Heawon that is was acceptable for him to donate there for two reasons. One of those reasons was that museums need money to survive. This is true and museums have also always relied heavily on donations in combination with their government grants. However, donations to museums could be cut back and the extra money could be given to charities that are alleviating problems that are plaguing the world. The other reason, which Haewon raised, is that the money is Rubenstein's and he should decide where it goes. I agree with this to a certain extent. I believe that Rubenstein should decide where the money goes to, but he should donate the money to causes that will have a greater impact on the world.
ReplyDeleteRyan's comparison of Rubenstein to Paul Allen may be a tad harsh, but there are many parallels between the two. He also talks a little bit about legacy. I, too, felt that much of Rubenstein's giving was motivated by his desire to leave a legacy behind. While we discussed this in class and decided that almost every donation has some selfish motive behind it, it appears that Rubenstein is a little more concerned about his legacy and image than most.
As I have stated before, I would not donate to museums or institutions of that nature. However, if this question was asked before I had begun taking this course I am sure that my answer would have been different. Has anyone else's answer to this question changed because of this course?
I forgot to mention the instinct based decisions. Everyone seems to agree that it is not the best idea, and I agree with Gladys that it is frightening. Derek does not agree and I can see his point. The government is a credible institution and giving to them seems to be a safe bet. However, decisions should be weighed by more than instincts.
DeleteI want to comment on the method with which Rubenstein bases his donations. Sometimes your gut reaction can be a significant player when making a decision. An example could be helpful in illustrating my point. How many times have we all sat down to a multiple-choice test, been stuck on a question and changed our answer at the last minute? A couple days later, we learn the valuable lesson that our first instinct is usually accurate.
ReplyDeleteI briefly mentioned something of this sort in class this past Tuesday. I said that a large factor in determining where we invest our $10,000 is going to be our intuition. When we do site-visits we are going to donate where we feel the best fit. We can think an organization is extremely efficient and produces impressive statistics, however, if we get a bad feeling when we walk through the door, they won’t receive our money. Thus, we should not penalize Rubenstein for listening to and following his instincts.
Now, I’ll address the next point. I agree with Derek in that donating to these patriotic causes are valuable donations. He made a great argument in that these are not your run-of-the-mill museums and institutions. These play a huge role in maintaining the historical integrity of our country.
I can’t help but picture an alternative world in which funding for these sources drops off. We would be missing a large part of our culture. In a sense, it reminds me of SIMS the computer game. When the SIMS aren’t surrounded by culture, art and literature, they are extremely unhappy and their quality of life declines. Thus, these donations are not only necessary to maintain balance in philanthropy but also a balance in life. If we all donated everything to non-profits that deal with hunger and poverty, we would see a great shift in our world. Hunger and poverty would be improved, but everything else would suffer at its expense.
Something interesting that Ryan brought up was the concept of the past vs future and that Rubenstein doesn’t want to help future generations. I think comparing the past and future is not a great argument here. He is, in part, helping to preserve the past for the future. If future generations grew up in a vacuum with no acknowledgement or understanding of the past, I can’t help but think they would be less successful. The context for our existence is the past and we learned a great deal on our journey to where we are today.