social justice philanthropy Feed


Emerging leaders for justice, with a gospel message. (Via Dr. Larry James.) More  at Sojourners: Faith, Politics, Culture. Here is what they say about Planned Giving:

Planned giving possibilities include trusts, bequests, and insurance options. Including Sojourners in your will is a way more and more subscribers and supporters are making a substantial and lasting gift to a ministry they trust and believe in.  Our planned giving experts can assist you in documenting your intention to strengthen Sojourners with a gift from your estate.  Contact us at, or call (800) 714-7474.

Kind of dry, right? What if they, and organizations like them, approached Boomer constituents in the spirit of Christ, social justice, and social change and asked, "What are final things? What are the ultimate things in your life and your society, with your family, community, and God? Have you done your estate planning, your last Will and Testament in that sacred spirit, with an eye to what you have and what you owe and to whom, or have you done it with the Scribes and Pharisees of tax planning and those alone?' OK, I am too polemical. The point is that colleges, prep schools, social justice organizations, houses of worship, arts organization have a life affirming message that needs to guide the planning process from the top down, not be retrofitted to some little tactic of philanthropy. The spirit of a group like Sojourners can bring a death time plan to a life that is not snuffed out with death. You don't get that from the tax attorneys.

Welcome to Headwaters!

Here is how the voice of Headwaters Foundation for Justice sounds,

Injustice isn’t an accident. Take spying on your own citizens without warrants. Or siphoning money away from after-school programs. Or not opening an investigation when a black girl gets shot. Or looking the other way when a woman gets beaten. Folks shrug their shoulders because the issue seems too big to confront. Or too small to reveal its place in a larger pattern. They explain away these things as accidents. Oversights. Hard choices. Which is why we fund. And why we train. And how we’ve created a movement for changing society at its core by connecting the many involved. Welcome to Headwaters.

To those who see philanthropy as a non-threatening, though inefficient,  industry, or as a kind of money management job, or a client service for people with more money than brains, let me say, Boo! More is at stake than fits within that business-fixated frame.  Justice is not an industry, unless you mean the for-profit prisons. Justice is, according to some, the fundamental basis of a workable commonwealth or social compact. What is being renegotiated on the sly, I think, is the very framework of a free society. Will we continue to use the passionate language of justice, rights, and advocacy, rallying people in solidarity for social change, or will the well-bred and well-fed change the vocabulary to that of investment analysts, and business executives, and social venture investors? Within the language of money management, tactical philanthropy, concierge philanthro-services for the rich, philanthropic capital markets, the philanthropic industry, blended value propositions, balanced scorecards, and double bottom line social ventures you just are not going to find the indignation and fighting spirit cited above. The bland but controlling market-speak is made to move over and surreptitiously swallow up the space once devoted to the social acitivsm that might threaten the hegemony of the MBA world view.  I guess, that is one reason so many funders pump money into the bland mythology of social venture investing.  Life is good inside the MBA bubble! Don't let me puncture it.

Mapping The Philanthropic Ecosystem

The Ecosystem of Philanthropy

Who is part of your "better world" ecosystem? That is, if you want to create for yourself and those you love a better life in a better world, what other "players" impinge on you, for good or ill? And how might you, then, uplift both your own actions and the overall ecosystem so that a better world is possible? That is the line of thought that I have been pursuing within an informal network over the last several years. I will organize for my own use these observations under key names in my ecosystem.

Tracy Gary

Key actors in her vision are donor, advisor, and nonprofit. Key indicator of success is the number of dollars raised. Key driver of dollars raised is donor training to help the donor manage the planning process with advisors towards a more inspired, but also prudent result. As donors are trained to ask for philanthropic plans that very request will motivate more advisors to provide such plans.  Training for advisors would then be well-received, since tied to a practical result, that of meeting a real demand. Also, a key actor is the next generation, the children of the donor. If money goes to charity it might come at the expense of taxes first, but at some point it will come at the expense of inheritance. Hence, children must be raised and mentored in their roles as carriers on of a giving tradition. Nonprofits on this model become the convener of the appropriate training and conversation and network.

Tracy and I will present this vision to Advisors in Philanthropy at their Annual Conference next week. The following week I will present a version of it to Southeastern Council of Foundations.  We do have some early success stories. A number of other professionals have expressed interest in this way uplifting the philanthropic ecosystem.

Catherine Austin Fitts

A former investment banker, and former assistant director of HUD, Catherine seems to have stumbled upon the dark side of money and become for awhile an "enemy of the state," as she puts it with a smile, suffering the tribulations of Job, as a lesson in civics for herself and others. She is not keen on philanthropy, because she has seen where money, in certain cases, comes from, with whom it consorts behind the scenes, and how brutally those who control so much of the world's money and power behave when their insider games are outed or challenged. She has seen philanthropy used as cover or cleanser for the reputations of people who should probably be in jail for financial fraud, extortion, drug running, betrayal of the public trust, mere graft, or high crimes and misdemeanors. She also sees that philanthropy will be tolerated as a cleanser as long as it remains both upbeat and ineffectual. Philanthrocapitalism is also safe because it does not challenge, in fact personifies the hegemonic game.

You might think, then, that while Tracy is liberal that Catherine is a revolutionary Marxist taking her cue from Che. In fact she is a Christian Conservative taking her cue from Adam Smith and Jesus Christ, which makes her a dangerous mind. She is not asking capitalism to give way to socialism. She is demanding that capitalism live up to its own founding ideals: financial transparency, honest  book keeping, the rule of law, and the prosecution of criminals regardless of their wealth, rank, philanthropy, connections, or access to armed force, or criminal networks.

Catherine urges us to create a better, more financially intimate world, by withdrawing wealth from the rigged and gamed financial markets and reinvesting in places governed by the rule of law, maybe New Zealand, or maybe your home town, or among a circle of friends who have farms, small businesses, or a local bank.  As an investment banker she thinks bigger than that too, asking who will own the water supply, for example, in your town? Who will commandeer the food supply? Might we not form investment pools that would allow local decision makers to steward such resources for the good of the town, rather than, say, Nestles?

You can see that this is not your idea of "philanthropy," but the actors named by Catherine (the drug dealers, the slum lords, the corrupt governmental officials gaming the sub-prime mess, the investment bankers bringing for profit prisons to market, the private bankers who own the Fed, the governors owning prison stocks and passing "three strikes you're out" laws, the shadowy actors trading drugs for arms and arms for hostages,  the corrupt accountants of both business and government, the blackmailers and hit squads operating here and abroad to silence those who out the dirty game) are part of the same ecosystem in which philanthropy goes about its upbeat work.  Some capitalist like Boverton Beaver who has made billions out of buying companies in, say, the liquor business, gambling stocks, the porn business, or armaments, or in for profit prisons, might call himself a Double Bottom Line Social Investor and might start a double bottom line bakery employing at low wages the convicts on parole from the prison he owns up the hill from the ghetto, blighted by the drug lord whose Harvard educated son sits with Boverton on the board of the local hospital, or the home town newspaper, or serves on a Blue Ribbon Commission studying urban poverty.  That philanthrocapitalist might then endow a business school, or a chair in social venture capitalism, or might fund a DC Think Tank on Engaged Philanthropy, or on Pro-Market Public Policy, or might hire out the writing of any number of white papers and scholarly studies on metrics for double bottom line firms.  All this might then be applauded by leading philanthropy bloggers who, in their business life, consult to the banks and the brokerage houses with their captive philanthropy departments catering to private wealth from sources both light and dark, or who make their living managing Boverton's money. So the world closes back on itself in an ecosystem in which the herbivores, the carnivores, and the hominids thrive and prosper - up to a point, though that punctuated equilibrium is far from optimal from the standpoint of human flourishing. 

H. Peter Karoff, Amy Kass, Bill Schambra, and others Devoted to the Liberal Arts

What other actors? What are we leaving out? How about the teachers, writers, artists, prophets, and thinkers who are the masters of our spiritual, intellectual, ethical, and cultural traditions? (If you are not familiar with such figures you might think instead of Star Wars or Marvel Comics or Grand Theft Auto or the Matrix; those may be close enough to wisdom, if that is all you have and you don't know the difference.) If our better world is to be guided by what T. E. Hulme called "the best that has been thought and said," then we must listen to voices of the graces, or the holy spirit, or the muses,  or the voice that speaks out of the thunder, or the still voice we have been ignoring, or whatever one wishes to call that voice that rises in us when we are obedient to what is greater than ourselves, what is most alive and life-giving in our traditions. I could go on at great length on this point. Eloquence trumps power. The pen is mightier than the sword. Love conquers all. And the dead shall rise into eternal life, dead or not, as they live on within the tradition they would not betray, even at the cost of their own life, the ultimate gift.  As different as are the three figures mentioned above they share an almost helpless love for the life of the mind and of the spirit. When they discuss giving, it is within the shadow of Mt Ararat  within eyeshot of the ruined garden. I am not implying that they would get crossways with worldly wealth or power. We catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Phil to Thee

Well, you can see that the company I keep makes my head ache and buzz.  What I come down to is this: Whatever is the correct map of the ecosystem in which we live, whatever actors you see, or think you see, whichever you name, or fear to name, whatever your personal resources, you cannot blink the questions:

  1. What kind of person do you want to be?
  2. In what kind of world?

As you meditate on those questions, you will need your own vision of success, and a realistic model of your current situation - whether upbeat or dark or chiaroscuro. Given that vision of a better life in a better world, and given your assessment of what you are up against, you will have to make your own decisions, in the light of the traditions that speak to you and through you, as to how you will deploy your money, your time, your attention, your life energy, and your love within a risk profile that includes your assessment of the probability of success or failure under conditions you can barely discern. Each of us can see only a little.

Best Practices within a Learning Community

As we find our way, across this landscape, let us share what we see, share what we learn, mapping our terrain, and sharing the paths that lead out of the dark wood into the light. As you address the two questions above (and they cannot be evaded for the evasion itself is an answer), consider sharing what works and does not work so that we can collectively do better than we could alone. I am trying to take that approach here sharing my notes on what I am learning, and hope you will share as well, whether through a note to me, or on your own blog, or however you wish.  Perhaps if we live in truth, and speak what we know, and look out for each other, we  not only ameliorate specific ills,  and prosper in our own lives, but also uplift the overall ecosystem of which our efforts individually are but a tiny part. 

Moral (Tough) Luck

Richard Eptstein on Good Fortune and Good Luck in The University of Chicago Law Faculty Blog. He defends the belief that the poor and unlucky are best helped locally, through, presumably, individual acts of generosity and volunteerism, rather than through elaborate government programs. We might think of the response to Hurricanes Katrina as a case in point, where local action seems to have done better in some respects than FEMA. One of Eptsein's commenters writes in exasperation, "Income distribution is the undeveloped and failing portion of neoclassical economics and we all need to pull our heads out of the sand and address it." Another notes that our response to what works best may differ if we are thinking of sustainable Gross National Product over the next 100 years. Negative externalities like cancer, autism, and ecological collapse take some of the fun out of Green Zones and Gated Communities, even for the winners in this Darwinist (now Malthusian) contest.

Best PowerPoint Title I Have Seen

The Revolution Will Not Be Funded. Dr. Larry James of Central Dallas Ministries lays out the facts about wealth and poverty, the business climate and the carcinogens, the productivity of the economy and the stinginess of social programs, in TX. His metrics include holding one another, our community, and our institutions "accountable on these matters of life and decline." To a commenter who baits Larry by asking if the revolution will have a body count (other than the poor dying on the streets), Larry responds, "The 'revolution' I spoke to involves integrity, action, resolve and courage linked to the day-to-day hard work of engaging the poor, as well as the forces that keep too many in that state." I guess TX really is backward. Larry has not gotten the memo saying that the social justice movement died 40 years ago last Friday with MLK.

Saving the Babies, A Parable about Social Justice

Saving the Babies, Looking Upstream for Solutions (3 page pdf), by Steven E. Mayer, PhD, Effective Communities, LLC. If you have never read this parable, you should. Social change philanthropy and conservative philanthropy divide, often, on the issue of entrenched social injustice. One side says that that the deck is stacked against the poor, women, or minorities. The other side, says, in effect, "If you losers would quit your bitchin and be like us you would not be poor." The parable works because it is about babies. What if we changed that to adult blacks? ("Why should I pull 'em out; let 'em learn how to swim. Pull 'em out and we give them an incentive to flounder. Maybe it their genes. Darwin says we should let them drown. We can't subsidize a culture of failed swimmers. Whoever saved me from drowning?") See also, William Schambra and Albert Ruesga here and here.