Tag Archives: Chronicle of Philanthropy

Strange Math

Here’s the world’s simplest math problem.

My wife Pat and I often meet a pair of friends for a movie. If there’s a risk that the show will sell out, I run over to the theater ahead of time and buy all four tickets in advance. When our friends arrive, we hand them their tickets and they pay us back what they owe us.

So the question is this: how many tickets did the movie theater sell?

Four, of course.

But in the parallel universe of donor-advised funds (DAFs), where double-counting comes as naturally as breathing and dissembling, the answer would be six.

Let me try to explain the inexplicable. Continue reading

Share this: Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Tsunami

[Note: This post was published as an op-ed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy on October 28, 2014.]

Each fall the Chronicle of Philanthropy publishes its “Philanthropy 400,” a list of the nonprofit organizations that raised the most money in the previous year. Last week’s publication of the 2014 Philanthropy 400 created a stir by sadly confirming what many of us have feared for the last several years: an inexorable takeover of the charitable sector by Wall Street.

Three of the top 10 fundraising organizations on the list are donor-advised funds (DAFs) affiliated with financial firms: Fidelity (No. 2), Schwab (No. 4), and Vanguard (No.10). A fourth organization in the top 10, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, is also primarily a sponsor of donor-advised funds. Money is flowing into advised funds, rather than to nonprofits that provide actual services. This accelerating trend of warehousing philanthropic dollars is a deeply troubling trend for American philanthropy. Continue reading

Share this: Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Wall Street Muscles In

I really wish I’d been wrong in my earlier warnings about the growth of commercial donor-advised funds. But the latest Philanthropy 400 rankings from the Chronicle of Philanthropy indicate that the Wall Street acquisition of the nonprofit sector is, if anything, ahead of schedule.

It turns out that for the second year in a row, the second-largest “philanthropy” in terms of funds raised in the U.S. is an entity called Fidelity Charitable. Fidelity Charitable’s growth rate was an astonishing 89% over the year before, and with donations of $3.2 billion, it is positioned to overtake United Way Worldwide (that is, the combined United Ways of the entire country), which only grew 1% and raised $3.9 billion.

How is something named Fidelity considered a charity at all, let alone one that is poised to become the nation’s largest? Here’s a history lesson. Continue reading

Share this: Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Missing the Obvious in Nonprofit Ratings

[Note: This post is simultaneously being published as an opinion piece in the October 6, 2013 edition of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.]

Americans love ratings and rankings. We like to think that all large, complicated questions can be answered by simple numbers.

That’s given rise to the notion that nonprofits can be fairly and simply rated. And it’s not surprising that, once you scratch the surface, nonprofit rating systems prove to be nonsensical and even harmful. Continue reading

Share this: Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail