Book Excerpt

Creating Change Through Family Philanthropy

by Alison Goldberg, Karen Pittelman and Resource Generation

Many families are looking for ways to engage the "next generation" in philanthropy.  But for next generation family members, getting involved raises complicated questions.  How can they bring their values to the table?  How can they move more resources to social justice?  In this excerpt from the forthcoming Creating Change Through Family Philanthropy (Soft Skull Press, Resource Generation, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2007), the authors note the distinction between a family philanthropy for wealthy families and a family philanthropy for social change.  For more information on Creating Change Through Family Philanthropy, visit www.changephilanthropy.org.

Introduction

It's easy to come up with a list of reasons not to get involved in family philanthropy.

We are walking into organizations that were set up, in many cases, before we were even born. We are rarely given an orientation or the necessary information to be effective participants. When meetings are held across the country or in the middle of the week, it's hard to skip school or work to be there. Our family funds may have priorities that we don't agree with. Plus, making decisions as a group of family members certainly isn't the most efficient way to give. Agreeing on what to fund--or what to have for lunch--can be a challenge.

On top of all this, family philanthropy grants us power and authority that can feel uncomfortable, or even misplaced. Incredibly experienced non-profit leaders have to prove to us they are deserving of grants. Our funding decisions can make the difference between whether an organization survives or has to shut its doors. Fancy board rooms and fundraisers can make us feel more like we've signed up for a social club then social change. Is this something we really want to be a part of?

Why we need to get involved anyway

On the other hand, there's a big reason why it's essential for us to be involved: As young people who have family funds, we can channel the money and power of family philanthropy toward social justice.

Collectively family funds control over $209 billion. Yet currently only a tiny percentage of philanthropic resources support social change--one study estimates less than 3 percent of all foundation giving. As the "next generation," we have the opportunity to dramatically increase that figure.

While the power that comes with getting more involved can feel awkward, it's exactly what makes our involvement imperative. Very few people are given this kind of access. This is our chance to use it for change.

What is Social Change?

There isn't just one definition of social change.  Social change encompasses many different issues from affordable housing to equal participation in the political process, from immigrant rights to dismantling racism.  As a result, individuals and groups that are working for social change have many different visions for a better world.  A common thread, though, is that social change activists address the systems that are creating inequalities rather than only ameliorating the symptoms.

At RG, we define social change broadly to mean creating a more just distribution of power and resources.  Currently, the top 10 percent of wealth holders in the United States have 70 percent of the wealth.  The world's wealthiest 500 individuals have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million people.  These statistics don't require a lot of interpretation to demonstrate that the current state of affairs is unjust.

Philanthropy for Wealthy Families

The word "philanthropy" is often used as a synonym for giving or generosity.  By that definition, family philanthropy means families giving together in all forms: volunteering for a soup kitchen, writing a check to a community organization, caring for a relative ... Families from all backgrounds share time and resources in many different ways.

But the "family philanthropy" we're looking at here is something different. It doesn't include all forms of giving, and it doesn't apply to all families that give. Instead, this family philanthropy is an exclusive institution in the United States that's made up of foundations, donor-advised funds, and charitable trusts.

What is an institution?

An institution is an organization or a system of organizations. Banks, hospitals, and schools are just a few examples. Institutional policies evolve over time, shaping rules, practices, and cultural norms. An institution has a force that's all its own--its agendas and influence hold a greater collective power than that of any of the individuals involved.

Family philanthropy is exclusionary.

Access to the institution of family philanthropy is restricted to those with significant wealth. Setting up a foundation entails steep legal and accounting expenses, in addition to assets for giving-some estimate that $1 million is the minimum amount required. While donor-advised funds and charitable trusts can be created with less, family philanthropy organizations and events are, by and large, limited to participants granting tens of thousands of dollars a year.

Why is the institution of family philanthropy so restrictive? To understand this, we'll have to look at its history.

Family philanthropy began in the Industrial Revolution

Foundations were established as legal entities in the early 1800s, but wealthy families didn't begin using these vehicles for philanthropy until the end of that century. Spurred by the mounting concentration of private wealth during the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of the federal income and estate taxes, a growing number of donors set up funds as mechanisms to shelter their assets.

By creating foundations, wealthy families received more than major tax relief.  They were able to pay family members high salaries. Families could use their foundations as investment partners by placing their funds' assets in companies where they had a vested interest. Until 1969, foundations weren't even required to give any money away.

The early family foundations also played a considerable public relations role. In an era when 10 percent of the population controlled 90 percent of the wealth, powerful businessmen used their foundations' giving to recast their role from profiteers to benefactors. Industrialists like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie sponsored spectacular public works, making a show of supporting the common good. Yet the social and economic conditions their charity addressed were often caused directly by their own business practices.

Family philanthropy today

Since these early years the institution of family philanthropy has mushroomed. There are now over 33,000 family foundations, thousands of philanthropic trusts and donor-advised funds, and an extensive network of supporting organizations. The impact of family fund giving is highly visible everywhere, from libraries to universities to hospitals.

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 introduced some significant changes in the field. For example, the Act required foundations to spend at least 5 percent of their assets each year and regulated investment practice. More recently, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 restricted how donor-advised funds can be used. Still, family philanthropy continues to serve as a way for the wealthy to concentrate money, power, and control across generations.

Philanthropic assets are public resources. By contributing to a family fund, a donor receives tax deductions. The fund is then legally bound to distribute that money to the public for charitable purposes. Yet family philanthropy is structured so that the public has no say in how resources are allocated. The power remains with the donors and their descendants. Because there are no limits on how long foundations can exist or how large they can become, this power can then be passed onto successive generations indefinitely.

If we want to use family philanthropy for social change, we can't lose sight of where the institution came from. Its history influences everything: how much we give, the ways we give, even why we find ourselves in positions of authority. We can't change the past. But we can challenge it--and help change family philanthropy's future.

Philanthropy for Social Change

Family philanthropy wasn't established to redistribute resources. Yet, throughout the past century a small number of families have found ways to use their funds to support social change. If we want to transform our own family funds, we'll need to draw from that history. We'll also need to explore an alternative framework for giving: social change philanthropy.

What is social change philanthropy?

Social change philanthropy has its roots in the movements of the 1960s. During that time, donors and activists began creating new public foundations that reflected the values of the era's struggles for peace, women's rights, and racial justice. Some of the earliest examples of these new funds included the Brotherhood Crusade, an African-American community fund, and Resist, a foundation created to support war resisters and student organizing.

Since its inception, social change philanthropy has been a vital strategy for funding issues of equity and justice. This success is due in large part to a focus on democratizing the giving process. Social change philanthropy puts decision-making power into the hands of activists and community members, not just wealthy donors. As a result, funds have the experience necessary to respond more effectively to movements' shifting needs. By tying the principles of social change to philanthropic practice, this philosophy challenges funds to reflect their mission in everything from day-today operations to investment policy.

Over the past thirty-five years, many different groups, from workplace- giving federations to private foundations, have adopted these ideas. There are now close to 200 activist-led funds focused on a wide range of geographic regions, population groups, and issue areas around the world.

Family philanthropy has a history of supporting social change

There's also a tradition of family funds supporting social change that stretches back almost one hundred years. The Julius Rosenwald Foundation, established in 1917, gave grants to organizations like the Highlander Center, an important training ground for union organizers in the South. The Wieboldt Foundation was founded in 1921 in the hope that its grants would assist "charities designed to put an end to the need for charity." The foundation aided the launch of the Mexican-American civil rights organization that became the United Farm Workers Union.

More recently, a few family foundations have sought to address inequality not only through their giving but also the ways they give. Funds like the General Service Foundation and The Needmor Fund have adopted the principles of social change philanthropy by including both activists and family members on their boards. Other family funds have transferred decision-making power entirely to activists. The New World Foundation embarked on a process to phase out family involvement and become a public fund. The Bert and Mary Meyer Foundation turned its assets over to grantees to create a new activist-led organization, the Southern Partners Fund.

Building the tradition

Family funds can support social change: foundations like these have proven it. But to truly build on their tradition, we'll need more than history. A strong analysis of current practices in the field is an essential tool. By drawing on the concepts of social change philanthropy, we can shape a deeper critique. The next chapter begins the process with the fundamental question: Where does the money go?

To find out the answer to that question and many others, as well as personal stories and exercises, visit www.changephilanthropy.org to order Creating Change Through Family Philanthropy.

Family Giving News is published monthly by the
 national center for family philanthropy
1818 N Street NW,  Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036
http://www.ncfp.org
please be advised that the content of family giving news is for informational purposes only, and is not intended to constitute legal advice.