Home / AHF Publications & Reports / The Drift

Charity and Philanthropy

While the federal government bails out Wall Street and other institutions "too big to fail" in the current economic crisis, philanthropic organizations closer to the ground are faced with balancing their chosen mission, programs and strategies with meeting immediate and pressing charitable needs in their own communities.

The tension between 'charity' and 'philanthropy' is certainly not new in our nation's history, but it takes the dislocation of a major physical, social or economic crisis to bring it into sharp relief.

Charity - relieving suffering and meeting immediate human needs - is the older, downstream concept. Philanthropy - addressing the root causes of suffering and need - is the newer, upstream concept. It is a continuum, of course - selfless charity at one end, "strategic" philanthropy at the other - but there is a decided difference in intent and approach, depending on where along the continuum a philanthropic organization decides to spend its energy and resources.

Charity is where the heart is, strategy is where the head is. In organizations as well as individuals, the heart and the head are connected and interdependent: feed one but not the other, and the body dies.

In times like these, the pull of human suffering and need is strong, and none of us can turn away from the opportunity to help others and still call ourselves civilized. At the same time, the push of strategies to address the fundamental economic and social imbalances that give rise to much of human suffering is equally as compelling. Those of us who are privileged to work in philanthropic organizations must continue to focus our efforts on building infrastructures of purpose, resources, skills and leadership that will sustain and nourish our communities in the face of adversity.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for charity. Our principles, policies, mores and institutions would ensure freedom, justice and basic human rights for all. The deep notion of philanthropy - voluntary action for the public good - is informed by this utopia, always out of reach but never out of the imagination and hearts of those who see the impoverishment of mind, body and spirit and seek to eliminate it.

Whether you believe God intended for "the poor to always be with us" or not, this impulse has given rise over the years to a large charity "industry" that today is every bit as professionalized, regulated and bureaucratized as other industries, and certainly as contentious and competitive. When we are admonished to be "charitable" in this season of caring, it is to the denizens of this industry that we attend with our gifts of money and time. Agencies that feed the hungry, house the homeless and provide solace and comfort to the sick and poor depend on our contributions to continue their work. It is our moral imperative to support them, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The rest, frankly, is small change.

This support, however, can take many forms, and that's where strategic philanthropy has an important role to play. All community begins in conversation and engagement. Philanthropic organizations, in addition to providing charitable funds for necessary services, can convene, facilitate and help to develop that engagement into shared trust, shared motivation and shared action. A safety net of health and human services, so vital in times of crisis, is itself a product of intertwined networks of engaged, committed citizens. Philanthropy can help to develop those networks, to increase their capacities and skills, and to connect them in ever widening circles of influence, investment and consequence.

In the days ahead, some philanthropic organizations will choose to turn their attention and resources to helping people meet basic survival needs. Others will continue to focus on the longer term work of building community networks to ensure that, no matter what the conditions on the ground, a safety net of community wells, assets and resources is available for those who need it.

In the end, the question of where organizations ought to sit along the charity-philanthropy continuum in a time of crisis is the wrong conversation. If the current economic collapse has taught us anything, it's that the old conversation and the old models are economically and morally bankrupt. Rehashing old distinctions won't get us anywhere.

What we need are a new conversation about social ends and new models of social reciprocity and change. That is what philanthropy ought to be investing in now.

Feedback? Send it my way: .

*The Drift reflects the views of the author, and does not represent the official view of SLHI's Board of Trustees and staff.