At knowledgeplex.org recently, I read an article that asked the same question that has often puzzled me: With all the poverty in the world, with billions of people living hand-to-mouth and millions starving and dying, why do so many generous people give so much money to nonprofits such as universities and the opera?
Don't get me completely wrong. I understand that schools and art organizations and other nonprofits depend on donations and that we'd be a poorer society without them. I wouldn't want our society to be without them. I give to my alma mater regularly -- though not anywhere near as much as I give to other organizations. My reasoning? Well, some needs just seem more urgent than others. Donated to certain effective organizations, $100 can help lift one or more families out of poverty -- which means that not only are the family members less likely to die from disease or hunger but also their children may get an education, eventually lifting the family and its descendants up even more. That's powerful. Alternatively, $100 given to my alma mater may help buy lightbulbs for some classrooms or may (more nobly) be part of one needy student's financial aid package. That's good, but not as compelling.
Most puzzling of all to me is when really big donations (such as millions of dollars from a single donor) go to institutions that don't seem to be hurting all that much. For example, Harvard University's endowment tops $22 billion! And yet it still seeks, and gets, more and more from generous alumni. Manhattan's Metropolitan Museum of Art has raised nearly $700 million in recent years, supported in part by corporations such as Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), IBM (NYSE:IBM), Tiffany (NYSE:TIF), and AltriaGroup (NYSE:MO). At the same time, smaller, less well-known organizations are doing great things in the world on shoestring budgets. Double their tiny budgets, and you'll double their impressive output. Why aren't more big corporations supporting important small organizations? (I suspect part of the problem is that they're unaware of smaller outfits -- though a little digging would turn them up.) Another question is why corporations donate money in the first place -- it doesn't seem all that sensible when it's a CEO or small committee deciding to give away funds that are really owned by shareholders who don't have much say in the matter.
Here in Fooldom, we advocate our own brand of giving: Foolanthropy. We look for certain traits in the organizations we support, and each year we urge our readers to join us in supporting some extremely effective and worthy outfits. Here is this year's intriguing crop -- learn more about them:
-
Canine Companions for
Independence: Enhancing the lives of people with disabilities by providing highly trained assistance dogs and ongoing support to ensure quality partnerships.
-
First Book: Giving children from low-income families the opportunity to read and own their first new books.
-
Habitat for Humanity International: Seeking to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.
-
Heifer Project International: Empowering people to lift themselves out of poverty in a sustainable way with gifts of farm animals and training.
- Spirit of America: Extending the good will of the American people to assist those advancing freedom and peace abroad.
As you prepare to donate some of your hard-earned dollars, do so thoughtfully. (Consider donating stock, too -- it can be more efficient than cash.) Think like the investor you are, and ask yourself where you'll get the biggest bang for your bucks.
And consider dropping by our Foolanthropy discussion board, to share your own thoughts on how and why you donate and to see what others have to say. Perhaps plug your favorite charities.
Longtime Fool contributor Selena Maranjian does not own shares of any companies mentioned in this article.
