What makes a successful philanthropist/philanthropic organization?

There are two questions that come to mind after the past few classes. One: what is the essence of philanthropy? And two: what does successful philanthropy look like? Here is my take on these two questions.

Broken down to its parts, philanthropy means “love for humanity.” Pragmatically, it takes various forms: non-profit organizations, donors, grantors, crowdfunds, religious institutions, etc. We learned from the first video we watched that philanthropy in practice can exist in the smallest act of kindness and through the multi-million dollar grants provided by associations like Blue Meridian. But with the myriad methods of practicing philanthropy, is there anything more to philanthropy than just doing it; but maybe why, or how we do it, that makes the difference between more effective philanthropy and philanthropy that persists for its own sake?

These questions call upon our values, which can never be concretely proven to be “correct” or “incorrect”; however I can broadcast my personal beliefs for your judgement. In my core values reflection, I talked about how my Christian faith is the backbone of my philanthropic vision: how my belief in a God who embodies goodness helps me define the goal of philanthropy and derive my philanthropic actions. The existence of an absolute good, like a moral compass, points towards serving others and seeking the best out of our neighbors. Thus, my answer for a most effective philanthropy is one that aligns with the values of my faith.

But moving past the overarching theology behind our lives, there are many methods we use to make decisions. What can help us derive the right choices for our philanthropic goals? And how does success in business differ from effectiveness in philanthropy?

After the vote between Kiva and the John Crimmins Foundation in class on Thursday, it got me thinking about why Kiva received more votes than John Crimmins. What were the factors in play? How do these factors affect the success of a philanthropic group?

I believe that a few key factors affected our class’ decision, including presentation, organizational programs and operations, and purpose. In terms of presentation, both presenters had clearly shown evidence of preparation, but perhaps just the slightest advantage of Kiva’s presentation including slides provided the class with the assumption that more work was put into Kiva’s presentation, often correlated with a more organized presentation. However, I think it is necessary to note that mere appearance, while easiest to judge at first glance, can often be overshadowed once we look thoroughly at the organization and its works.

Secondly, the programs and operation of each organization were explained differently. While Kiva’s operations had its catches--some microlenders can charge large amounts of interest which Kiva cannot control--the clear business plan conveyed trust. The donors--our class--could easily identify the need for operational costs (the loans were crowdfunded separately), albeit for an organization that is merely capturing a niche loans market where there were no market before. As for John Crimmins, the hypothetical allocation of our funds was solicited through questions, after which we found out that operations perpetuated small, locally-focused awareness events and transfers to larger organizations related to John Crimmins’ goals. Not to say either method was more good than the other, but the clarity in Kiva’s approach seemed less risky to invest, perhaps helping its voting prospects.

Lastly, the purpose of John Crimmins Foundation possessed more emotional connection than that of Kiva. Its purpose “to save the hearts of the countless others who love [people who suffer from seizures],” evokes the emotional impact of reducing pain; while Kiva’s mission “to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty,” does not have the same emotional quality. In this issue is where I was conflicted myself between the two organizations, and what I posit the rest of the class who voted for John Crimmins would make their case. Perhaps the case for John Crimmins would be more compelling with more information and clarity in its operations, but I believe the areas where Kiva held a persuasive advantage, notably its operational clarity and appeal to authority, outweighed the emotional strength of John Crimmins’ cause.