Discussion Guides for Different Audiences
Introductory Comments
This reader is intended to be useful to a variety of audiences including students at multiple levels, donors, professional grantmakers, fundraisers, philanthropy advisers, members of giving circles, and others. It is a tool to help readers think about philanthropy from within their own context, to formulate their own opinionsabout the big questions of philanthropy and to consider specific issues that arise in relation to their own philanthropic activity.
Each section in the printed reader includes broad discussion questions that could be useful across these audiences. Here we offer discussion and reflection questions tailored to each of the more specific audiences.
Students
Before reading the definitions of philanthropy given in Section 1, how would you have defined “philanthropy”? Was your pre-existing definition broader or narrower than the definition given by Payton and Moody or other readings? What part of your own philanthropic activity – e.g., volunteering in your community, giving online – are captured better by different definitions?
In what ways is philanthropy in your country today similar or different from what it was in previous decades or centuries? What has changed and why?
Considering readings – which can be in several sections of the reader – that describe what philanthropy looks like in different cultures, especially those that are different from your own culture. What is most surprising to you about how philanthropy is practiced elsewhere? Do you think philanthropy is more or less important in different cultures?
Why has the relationship between donors and recipients been so fraught for all of history? Reflecting especially on the Ostrander and Schervish article in Section 4, is there any reason to think this difficult relationship might change in the future? What would you do to help overcome the power dynamics and other challenges in the donor-recipient relationship?
Sections 5 and 6 introduce many new developments in philanthropy that will certainly change how it looks in the future, such as the increased use of business approaches, the invention of new mechanisms for pursuing social change, a heightened focus on measuring what is most effective, and so on. Which of these new developments are most exciting to you as you think about your own philanthropic future – perhaps even your own career in philanthropy? Which developments are troubling or confusing to you?
Fundraisers
Looking at the various types of explanations for philanthropy coming from different scholarly disciplines in Section 1, which of these make the most sense to you based on your own fundraising experience? Does the practice of fundraising fit better with one type of explanation – e.g., the psychological benefits of giving – versus another – e.g., the political or evolutionary reasons?
Do fundraisers need to be aware of the historic roots or cultural variations of giving and asking, as reviewed in Section 2? Why? How can this make you a better fundraiser?
Which of the various reasons for elite giving presented in Section 3 resonate with you based on your work with elite donors? Which do not? Do you see ways in which you need to adjust the ‘ask’ to donors who express these different sorts of reasons for giving?
Do fundraising appeals inevitably exaggerate the difference between those who can help and those who need help? What responsibility do ‘askers’ have to bring greater equality into the transaction?
Do you agree with everything that Henry Rosso and Booker T. Washington say about the noble practice of fundraising? Did anything they say surprise you?
How is the fundraising profession changing alongside the changes in philanthropy described in the last part of Section 5? Will fundraising be more or less important as philanthropy becomes more business-like and more focused on forms of financing that go beyond gifts and grants?
Drawingon the second set of readings in Section 6, how might you respond to a potential donor demanding evidence that their money will ‘really do the most good possible’?
Donors
Multiple readings in several sections emphasize how giving satisfies both personal interests and needs and public values and goals. Do you feel the same mixture of personal and public motives for your own giving, the same mix of egoism and altruism? How does this play out day-to-day as you make choices as a donor?
How do you see your own giving as reflective – or not – of you own religious views, race, gender, and/or geographic location? Can you think of examples when the religion, race, gender, and/or geographic location of potential beneficiaries has affected your decision to give or not to give? With hindsight, would you make the same decision again?
Much is made in the readings in Section 4 about the difficulty of the unequal relationship between donors and recipients. Do you encounter this in your own giving? What steps do you (or can you) take to minimize the power imbalance between you and those you seek to help? Did the Ross excerpt, describing the experience of being a beneficiary, surprise you in any way?
Thinking in particular of the Moody reading in Section 4, do you agree that philanthropists should sign a Hippocratic Oath? Why or why not?
Many readings – especially in Sections 3, 4, and 6 – make the point that it is more difficult to give money away wisely than to earn it in the first place? Do you agree? Why or why not?
Do you personally feel like you give more from your head or your heart? Do you believe philanthropy now emphasizes one or the other of these too much?
Grantmakers
Why do the impacts of grantmaking foundations feature so heavily in lists of ‘philanthropy’s greatest achievements’ like those in Section 1? Does this reflect greater success of foundations (versus other kinds of funders) or just a greater prominence of foundations and greater ability to ‘tell the story’ of what foundation funding achieves?How does this affect your sense of professional pride?
Thinking in particular of the readings in Section 4 about the potential ‘harms’ philanthropy can cause, how does your grantmaking organizationconsider what might go wrong with your grants before making a decision? What can you do after the grant is made to help avoid harm? Do – or should –you keep any sort of record of ‘gifts that go wrong’?Should philanthropists sign a Hippocratic Oath? Why or why not?
Does the Orosz reading in Section 5 resonate with the challenges you face in your grantmaking work? What does he get right and what does he miss?
In you work, have you ever encountered strong critiques of foundations like the ones that Roelofs makes in Section 5? If so, how have you responded? How might the Fleishman and Anheier and Leat readings in that section help you respond to such critiques?
Should foundations have ‘glass pockets’ and be highly transparent about all aspects of their work?How does the issue of transparency relate to the core trade-off between the democratic accountability of philanthropy and the importance of ‘private’ donor autonomy and intent?
Giving Circle Members
Reflecting on the readings on definitions of philanthropy in section 1, do all the members of your giving circle share the same definition of ‘philanthropy’? What are the reasons behind the differences? Does this matter as you work together on your giving?
How do any differences in religion, race, gender, or other cultural factors among the members of your giving circle affect your giving processes and decision-making? In what ways can these differences bea help or a hindrance?
Considering the readings in Section 4, do the members of your giving circle hold different opinions about the ‘right relationship’ between the circle and those you help? How has the issue of your relationship with beneficiaries come up in your deliberations? Which of Maimonides’ eight levels best describes how your circle makes gifts? Are there occasions when a different kind of giving would be ‘better’?
Which parts of Eikenberry’s description of giving circles (in Section 5) best fit your own giving circle experience? Are there important aspects that she misses?
In your experience, do you see ways that giving as part of a collective group makes your giving more ‘effective’? How and why?
Does your giving circle consider the amount of your gifts that will cover ‘overhead’ of the groups you might support? Do you agree with Pallotta (in Section 6) that this is a dangerous way to assess potential grantees?
Philanthropy advisers
Do you work with clients from different regions, races, genders, or religious affiliations? If so, how do these differences affect how they give and what they need from you as an adviser?
Considering the range of reasons for giving that wealthy donors might express – as presented in Section 3 – do you hear certain reasons more often than others? How do you react when you hear one sort of reason for giving vs. another – e.g., the desire to ‘give back’ vs. the desire to be a ‘hyperagent’ – from your own clients?
Can you – and should you - make your clients aware of the ‘subtle problems of charity’ like those described by Jane Addams in Section 4? In general, how can advisers help to avoid or minimisethe potential harms caused by well-intentioned donors?
Have you noticed clients coming to you with greater interest in new mechanisms like those described in the last part of Section 5 – e.g., impact investing, social enterprises, other new funding vehicles? What are you doing to facilitate these emerging trends in the field?
When you encounter clients with strong feelings (for or against)‘outcome-oriented philanthropy’, ‘effective altruism’ or similar concepts as described in Section 6, how might the Singer, Schambra, and/or Connolly readings help you to respond?