…or somewhere in the middle?
First, two weeks ago, we’re told the wealthy in Silicon Valley are among the stingiest when it comes to charitable giving, based on a study of tax documents.
Now, the SF Chronicle comes to a much different conclusion:
From 1999 to 2004, the number of foundations in California grew from 4,208 to 6,242, an increase of nearly 50 percent, surpassing the national growth of 35 percent, according to a recent study by the Foundation Center in New York, which tracks philanthropic giving. Santa Clara County — high tech’s ground zero — had the largest growth in the state, 148 percent, with 292 foundations formed
How do these two square? Could it be that the wealthy are increasingly setting up philanthropies that are organized as for-profits, and not the usual non-profits? Like the Google Foundation?
Tags: co:google2 Comments
-
Jack said:
These two different sets of data easily square. The formation of a foundation or philanthropic entity is not correlated to the amount of money that is actually donated to charitable causes. 292 foundations formed does not equate to $X put towards aiding people. People in the Valley donate a smaller percentage of their income or perhaps in real dollar terms than other people, accordin to the first study, which, as a conclusion, can easily coexist with the data about number of foundations created. The formation of foundations suggests one of at least two possible conclusions: 1) those in the Valley are more interested in presenting their charitable activities to the world, in the form of an organization with their name on it or that can more publicly represent their activities or 2) there exists a stronger impulse towards greater activism in ones charitable activities through the formation of organizations that focus on specific interests and concerns, as opposed to donating towards existing causes. Both conclusions suggest, based upon studies that I have read, that the net result is a depressed effect from these charitable dollars. A number of experts on philanthropy argue that the fragmentation of charitable giving into myriad causes and entities often leads to reduced benefit for the targeted populations, ala Buffet’s decision to put his dollars towards an already effective group. Of course, I admit that one might not donate $ if they don’t find a cause that appeals to their particular, focused concerns; which would be a much less desirable outcome.
These two studies do not contradict one another.
-
Matt Marshall said:
Thanks, great point. When read separately, however, they generate very different feelings. You read the first story, and you feel wretched about this place, and you read the second, and you feel quite sunny.
