Blog

  • What Lawmakers Need to Know About Foreign Donors to Nonprofits and Political Advocacy

    As lawmakers investigate the rare instances of foreign interference in U.S. elections through nonprofits, Philanthropy Roundtable encourages them to protect charitable giving by upholding the constitutional right to donor privacy. 

    On December 13, 2023, the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means held an Oversight Subcommittee hearing on the “Growth of the Tax-Exempt Sector and the Impact on the American Political Landscape.” The subcommittee, led by Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) and Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ), aimed to explore concerns about donors using tax exempt organizations for political purposes, especially foreign donors, and policy reforms to address these concerns.   

    In response to a call for written comments, Philanthropy Roundtable submitted a Statement for the Record to the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee hearing. In our written statement, we emphasize that in a nation built on individual liberty and opportunity, the spirit of giving has woven itself into the fabric of our story. Philanthropy, fueled by the generosity of countless Americans, isn’t just about charity. It’s the engine of social progress, a cornerstone of our democracy and a vital counterbalance to an ever-expanding government. 

    Amid concerns about the growing nonprofit sector, it’s crucial to remember its vital role. A strong nonprofit sector isn’t a threat – it’s a testament to the strength of our civil society. These organizations aren’t simply filling in the gaps; they’re on the ground, nimble and deeply informed about the communities they serve. They provide education, health care, housing and food to those in need, strengthening the fabric of American society. 

    From Andrew Carnegie’s libraries to Susan B. Anthony’s fight for women’s suffrage, philanthropy has driven transformative change throughout history. It empowers individuals to take ownership of their communities, bridges societal gaps and fosters innovative solutions to the challenges we face. This dynamic network of nonprofits – from food banks to global humanitarian initiatives – employs millions, reflects the unique needs of diverse communities and often delivers more effective, cost-efficient solutions than traditional government programs.  

    Furthermore, in a time of increasing government size, a vibrant nonprofit sector serves as a crucial check and balance. It fosters civic engagement, empowers citizens to be active participants in shaping their communities and provides a platform for free speech and diverse viewpoints. This vibrant exchange of ideas and actions is the lifeblood of democracy, ensuring it remains responsive to the people it serves. 

    Of course, with any system, concerns about abuse exist. Philanthropy Roundtable recognizes these concerns and advocates for strong enforcement against any wrongdoing. However, it’s essential to remember that instances of abuse, while unfortunate, are statistically rare. Available data shows a vast majority of nonprofits operate with integrity and dedication, delivering on their vital missions. 

    Finally, amid calls for donor disclosure and empowering government agencies, we must ensure donor privacy is protected. Private giving allows individuals to support causes they believe in, free from fear or undue pressure. This freedom fosters diversity of thought, fuels innovation and ensures the wellspring of charitable giving remains unpolluted by external influence.  

    As the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee considers these comments, we urge them to remember the vital role of nonprofit organizations in upholding American values and strengthening our communities. While concerns about the sector deserve examination, we must approach any reforms with a clear understanding of the potential consequences. Forced donor disclosure or further empowering government agencies can stifle the philanthropic spirit, hindering its ability to drive social progress and protect individual liberty. Let us work together to ensure oversight strengthens, not stifles, the incredible contributions of the nonprofit sector, safeguarding their ability to be a powerful force for good in our nation. 

    Read our full Statement for the Record. 

  • A Critical Lifeline: Israel’s New National Blood Bank

    As Israel’s allies come to its aid during the unfolding Israel-Hamas war, one critical resource that has been years in the making and has proven paramount to Israel’s defenses is the recently completed Marcus National Blood Services Center, funded by hundreds of donors, including Bernie and Billi Marcus of The Marcus Foundation and American Friends of Magen David Adom (AFMDA).  

    At the grand opening of the blood bank in Ramla, Israel, on May 2, 2022, Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel said, “The Marcus National Blood Services Center … embodies the most moving essence of our shared humanity. To receive a blood transfusion — the irreplaceable gift of life — from complete strangers is a stark reminder that we are one living, breathing tapestry of humanity, now safeguarded in this impressive new center.” Catherine Reed, CEO of AFMDA, called the center of “strategic importance to the people of Israel.”  

    Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with The Marcus Foundation to discuss the security features in place at the Marcus National Blood Services Center and the critical role philanthropy played in its founding. 


    Q: On May 2, 2022, the Marcus National Blood Services Center was dedicated in Ramla, Israel. How did the Marcus Foundation learn this was needed in Israel and why was Bernie Marcus inspired to support it? 

    The Marcus Foundation: Bernie Marcus learned years ago, on a trip to Israel, that the blood center at the time, located at Tel HaShomer, had to move its operations into bomb shelters when rockets launched from Gaza targeted the Tel Aviv area. He realized then how delicate and vulnerable the blood system was.   

    “We worked with Magen David Adom (MDA) as it rethought ways to protect Israel’s national blood supply well into the future,” he has said. “Having it in a safe and secure underground facility doubled the blood supply and protects it from harm during missile attacks, chemical warfare and earthquakes, ensuring Israel’s blood supply will be protected for all its citizens, Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.” 

    More than 600 Americans and others around the world also made significant donations. Bernie and Billi donated $35 million to the project. In addition to the Marcuses, major donations were made by the Adelson Family Foundation; Bloomberg Philanthropies; Donna Calcaterra; Kurt and Susan Charm Schwartz; Crown Family Philanthropies; The Deshe, Diamond and Saul Schottenstein families; The Donner and Sznajer families; Judy Fleischer; Barbara and Dr. Bruce Ribner and The Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies. A total of 25 of the major gifts were each $1 million or more. 

    Q: The new blood bank was meticulously designed to double Israel’s blood capacity while also being protected from missiles, biological and chemical warfare and earthquakes. Which capabilities and securities are in place in this facility?  

    The Marcus Foundation: Construction of the project required the removal of 11,000 truckloads of soil to excavate the site. Three floors of the six-floor facility are underground and have an even larger subterranean footprint than what is seen above ground. 

    The facility, built at a cost of $135 million, is a first in its concept, design, engineering and capabilities. It was designed and constructed in cooperation with the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Defense, Israel Defense Forces and the National Cyber Security Authority. It is shielded with extra-thick concrete walls, blast doors and airlocks. One of the doors is considered the most secure, largest and heaviest blast door in Israel and, perhaps, the world. To ensure the highest levels of protection and continuity of operations in war scenarios, such as today, each critical system has a secondary system. The center has 375 employees, including hematologists, phlebotomists and lab technicians. 

    Q: What impact has the new blood bank had in the wake of the October 7 attacks on Israel? 

    The Marcus Foundation: Since October 7 through November 26 (seven weeks), AFMDA blood services collected 81,000 blood units. This is 2.3 times the 35,000 blood units collected during its regular activities. Only because they had the new protected, safe, spacious Marcus Blood Services Center, were they able to process, test, store and deliver all the units needed by the civilian and military authorities in Israel.  

    Both the blood inventory and the employees, volunteers and the military brigade of reservists, soldiers and officers, who were recruited to assist during this emergency — all were under 100% protection during the many Red Alert events that were experienced in the last 2.5 months. It can confidently be said that the blood supply of Israel was saved during this war due to the generous, important donation of the Marcus family and foundation. 


    Q: How can donations to this vital project be made? 

    The Marcus Foundation: Donations are especially important now, and ongoing support is needed, as normal blood need is 270,000 units of blood a year, and terrorism continues to take the lives of innocent Israelis. Amazingly, the Blood Center became operational just days before October 7. The Center and ambulances were all called into service on and after October 7. 

    MDA relies on the support of donors to keep its dispatch systems, training and equipment the best in the world. MDA’s site has various ways people can contribute including donations of critical equipment and financial donations online, via text, phone and mail. The blood center has its own donation website. 

    Q: In your opinion, how did Bernie’s approach to philanthropy make a difference in supporting this particular project?  

    The Marcus Foundation: Bernie’s business acumen, combined with his passion for saving lives, culminates in an entrepreneurial approach to giving that is unique and often missing in the nonprofit sector. In his philanthropy, Bernie has helped redefine the metrics philanthropists employ to distribute their wealth. He has said, “Charity is no different from business. There’s a bottom line to it.” 

    The probing questions donors should pose to potential grantees include: What are the deliverables? How will we measure outcomes? What is the organization’s plan for self-sufficiency? How capable is the leadership? 

    Learn more about Bernie Marcus and his charitable giving by watching his interview from our video series Doers to Donors.

  • Conserving Our Lands Through Local Innovation

    The following was presented as part of a session at Philanthropy Roundtable’s Annual Meeting in October 2023.  

    Fires that consume more than 100,000 acres are becoming commonplace in America, with 72 million acres affected in the last decade. That’s according to Brian Yablonski, CEO of the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), an organization that pursues innovative market solutions to the nation’s most pressing conservation problems. 

    “The biggest culprit here is 100 years of misguided government policy,” Yablonski said during his Big Idea talk at the Roundtable’s Annual Meeting.  

    PERC, located in Bozeman, Montana, pushes back on the idea that more government regulations are the answer to conserving America’s natural lands.   

    “Conservation needs to be about speeding up not slowing down,” said Yablonski. “We need to replace slow down regulation with speed up policies that enable us to get in and restore quickly. … And that’s going to take revisiting environmental laws that have been on the books for more than 50 years.”  

    Yablonski says conservation is in desperate need of innovation, entrepreneurship and technology, driven by local individuals who are open to exploring new ideas.  

    One example Yablonski cites is the Crazy Mountain Virtual Fence Project, which will improve wildlife habitat on America’s cattle land by enabling the removal of miles of internal barbed-wire fence. Ranchers will be able to remotely map and manage livestock through a series of signal towers and GPS collars worn by cows.  

    “Conservation needs to be done with, not to landowners,” said Yablonski. “Local individual knowledge needs to drive conservation, not bureaucrats.”  

    For more information on this organization or others, please contact Program Director, Clarice Smith. 

  • How Philanthropy is Helping Veterans Navigate the Workforce

    As Lekendric Doyle faced the end of his naval career, he wasn’t sure where to go next. But when he connected with the D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families, everything clicked into place. The organization, based out of Syracuse University, has several programs for veterans looking to jump in, or back in, to the workforce. For Doyle, it was the Onward to Opportunity program that stood out.  

    Doyle had no college degree, but through IVMF, he had the time and opportunity not only to get his project management certification, but also to complete his ​Lean Six Sigma Black Belt and his ​bachelor’s degree. Today, Doyle works for aerospace manufacturer Blue Origin, founded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. 

    IVMF, Doyle says, “gave me the opportunity to seize my own time, and without doing that I would not have been successful in my endeavors. 

    “Time was the key piece, and the mentorship from the program, to really help me achieve that,” he adds.  


    Problems Persist During Transition Out of Service 

    For other veterans, the transition is not so easy. Only one in four have a job ready when they transition out of the service, per Pew Research Center. “Finding a job after their military service affects nearly 200,000 veterans every year,” CBS reports. “A U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation study from 2016 found that 53% of veterans are unemployed for four months or longer after leaving the military.” 

    Many veterans lack the degrees or certifications necessary to find gainful employment. Some find themselves out of a job, while others flounder at a poorly paying and unfulfilling career.  

    This continuing problem isn’t due to a lack of effort in the nonprofit world. But it may be made worse by some nonprofits that refuse to do more than throw money at the problem.  

    The most infamous example is the Wounded Warrior Project. In 2016, the nonprofit came under fire for spending “lavishly on itself,” per a New York Times exposé. The “country’s largest and fastest-growing veterans charity,” the paper reported, “has spent millions a year on travel, dinners, hotels and conferences that often seemed more lavish than appropriate.” 

    Top executives were subsequently fired, and the organization tried to rebrand. But a massive budget with little oversight is a recipe for disaster, nonprofit leaders say. Luckily, there are many veterans organizations committed to getting a real return on their investment.  


    Putting Veterans on the Path to Success 

    IVMF works with veterans and military spouses to help them succeed in the civilian workforce ​primarily ​through three programs:​ career training, entrepreneurship training and navigation of community services​. Onward to Opportunity, the career training program that helped Doyle, offers 40 different learning pathways, from training in information technology to business management and customer service, free of charge.  

    “It’s an excellent opportunity to help veterans transition, and it provides a supportive environment where you can start to look outward from the military and gain a grasp on what there is out in the world for you as a veteran,” Doyle says.  

    IVMF has built a diverse alumni network as well as an impressive slate of corporate partners, including Walmart, J.P. Morgan​ Chase, Fiserv​ and USAA.  

    Maureen Casey, chief operating officer for IVMF, says despite their unique skill sets, veterans can face a disconnect with ​potential ​employers, who aren’t always sure ​how military skills translate to the private sector.​​     ​ 

    “We need to ensure that there’s some cultural competency​ on both sides [employers and veterans]​,” Casey says. “Some of ​[veterans’]​​ ​challenges are going to be unique. We just have to help them overcome them​,​ and we know they will be very valued community members.” 

    Importantly, she explains, IVMF measures its success not ​only ​on the number of veterans it serves, but on their outcomes.  


    How Philanthropists Can Fund Effective Organizations  

    As philanthropists research organizations that help veterans find meaningful careers in the civilian workforce, Aaron MacLean, senior director at the Paul E. Singer Foundation and a board member at Philanthropy Roundtable, warns them against adopting a dangerous mentality.  

    “It’s easy to see ways in which a disconnect [between employers and veterans] could appear,” he explains. “But it’s important that philanthropists resist buying into a victimhood model or mentality about veterans.” 

    MacLean, who was an active-duty Marine for seven years, says although veterans may need unique assistance, they are not victims.  

    “You see in a lot of places in our society this notion of a veteran as this wounded bird that needs very special care and treatment to be reintegrated into society,” he says. “Generally speaking, that’s just false. I think, if anything, veterans are valuable to any employer.” 

    After all, veterans certainly develop many soft skills that could be beneficial to a potential employer. But they have hard skills, such as logistics, as well. The key is the transition.  

    “But I do think it would be possible to do harm, operating with an attitude where you’re encouraging people who are not victims to think of themselves as victims,” he says.  

    If traps for organizations focusing on veterans in the workforce include wild spending and lack of oversight, plus the danger of embracing a victimhood mentality, who should philanthropists look to as a success story?  

    Dan Goldenberg, executive director for the Call of Duty Endowment, says the nonprofit spent its first ​three​​ ​years as a “typical corporate philanthropy​ effort​.” They wrote big checks with little to show for them, he says, and large​, well-known​ nonprofit partners failed to show impact.  

    ​​In 2013​, the endowment moved to an accountability-based model. “W​e’re deeply skeptical about​​ ​trust-based philanthropy,” Goldenberg says.  

    This doesn’t mean underperforming nonprofits are left out to dry. In fact, the opposite is true.  

    Call of Duty Endowment currently supports 10 nonprofits with a turnover rate of “maybe 10% per year.” It ​assesses​​ ​the groups every quarter, ​reevaluating annually, ​looking for a strong ratio of veterans served to veterans placed​ into high-quality jobs​. ​This gives the nonprofits opportunities to improve. ​ 

    ​​For example, a number of grantees that were off track in their placement numbers turned out to have unsophisticated outreach capabilities, Goldenberg says.​ ​T​he quarterly evaluations helped the endowment ​identify and address this critical gap​. It was able to connect those groups to social media experts, ​fund​​ ​website improvements ​and​​ ​automate client service functions. ​The nonprofits were back on track within a year.​ 

    “​Conversations like this​​ ​are super helpful for coaching these nonprofits, but also for ​channeling targeted resources to improve their performance,” ​Goldenberg​​ ​says.  

    To ensure its money is going to the right place, ​the ​Call of Duty Endowment also doesn’t partner with organizations ​that haven’t passed its formal performance assessment and also presented audited financials.​​     ​ 

    “If you love an organization, you need to invest in systemically evaluating their performance,” he says. 

    Organizations that are held accountable continue to get better, Goldenberg says.  

    “​While we started with impact results similar to U.S. government programs, today o​ur grantees​ ​place veterans into jobs for 1/13 the cost of the federal government’s efforts. Last year, every $618 placed a veteran in a job.​ This has enabled us to fund the placement of 125,000 veterans—that’s a group two-thirds the size of the U.S. Marine Corps.”​​     ​ 


    An Urgent Need to “Step Up” for Veterans 

    While the government pours billions of dollars into the Department of Veterans Affairs, many veterans find it is too slow to meet their needs, or they are ineligible for VA support.  

    “Federal agencies do what they can, but it really needs to be a public-private partnership to fill in the gaps,” Casey says. ​The VA isn’t always able to provide certain kinds of support to families​, making IVMF’s support of military spouses key for transitioning families.  

    This is not to mention the VA scandal from a decade ago when an internal audit revealed tens of thousands of veterans were waiting 90-plus days to receive health care. Despite the controversy, the VA is still being criticized for its wait times.  

    The infamous failure of the government when it comes to supporting veterans leaves the door open for policy philanthropy, MacLean says. But “the lower hanging fruit, and what philanthropists who are interested in this subject should challenge themselves to do, is to be what philanthropy can be: the flourishing of civil society to take on challenges in ways that civil society can actually do best.” 

    The philanthropic sector certainly isn’t lacking in veterans’ organizations. Typing the word “veteran” into Guidestar yields more than 36,000 results. With so many options, the lack of accountability in some veterans’ nonprofits has harmed others, as less successful organizations essentially siphon funds from more successful ones.  

    “There are too many veteran nonprofits​ and ​precious few market forces to hold them accountable​.​​ ​​At the same time, ​the amount of money going into the space​,​ if anything​,​ is decreasing,” Goldenberg​ says​. ​“As a result, high-performing nonprofits are under-resourced, and low-performing organizations with big names are kept on life support.”​ 

    Meanwhile, there is an urgent need for results.  

    “The way we treat our veterans has become a national security issue,” Goldenberg says, adding that for the last two years, each military branch besides the Marines has missed its recruiting goals. “The perception is that veterans have bad outcomes after their service.” 

    That perception, he emphasizes, “is not a true story.” As Casey notes, veterans are much more likely to be entrepreneurs than the general population. According to Small Business Administration data from 2022, veterans owned nearly two million businesses and employed more than five million people.  

    “We should step up when they return and ensure they have every opportunity to thrive post-service,” Casey says.  

    And while high-profile scandals may have turned some philanthropists off from supporting veterans’ charities, they can still make a great impact if they find the right groups to support.  

    “There’s a saying in the military that amateurs focus on tactics, professionals focus on ​logistics​. Same for philanthropy,” Goldenberg says.  

    When funders throw money at the problem without oversight, they risk seeing their money wasted on overhead, excessive spending or programs that sound nice in theory but don’t really work. When funders and nonprofits work together to focus on measurable outcomes, they can help people like Doyle find a new career — and truly change people’s lives. 

  • Ian Rowe on “Our American Stories”: My Coming of Agency Moment

    Recently, Founder and CEO of Vertex Partnership Academies Ian Rowe sat down with radio veteran Lee Habeeb for an episode of “Our American Stories,” a syndicated radio program and podcast that highlights “ordinary Americans who do extraordinary things.” Rowe, who is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, frequently speaks about the Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative, an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity that values each person as a unique individual and empowers charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions and help those in need.   

    In this discussion, Rowe shares the idea of “agency” which he defines as “the force of one’s free will guided by moral discernment.” He recalls his parents’ journey from Jamaica to the United States in search of a better life in the 1960s and how his mother’s coming of agency story as a young black woman in Jamaica parallels his own. Rowe shares the moment he knew as a young boy in a segregated school the role he played in his own destiny and shares how it shaped him to be a leader in education today. 

    Below are excerpts from Rowe’s story, featured on “Our American Stories”:    

    “My parents are from Jamaica, West Indies. They met in the mid-1950s. … And my mom took a liking to this guy, Vincent, my mom’s name is Eula. He was working on a sugar plantation as an accountant there and he was very smart and they started dating while they were very young. She was 18, and he was just a few years older. … And they fell in love with each other. 

    At the time, Jamaica was still an English commonwealth. And so my dad thought he kind of reached kind of the apex of what he could learn in Jamaica. He had the opportunity to go to England to finish his schooling. He went to England and after being there a few months, he missed his ‘bud’ that’s what they called each other. 

    At the time the British Government required that if you wanted to marry a young woman who is under 21 you had to write a letter to the young woman’s parents asking for her hand in marriage. And so Vincent [my dad] wrote the letter of a lifetime asking for her hand in marriage. … After much discernment her parents decided yes, and so my mom, at 19 years old, in the mid 1950s, a young Black woman, took a boat all by herself, about a 5,000-mile journey, to England to meet up with my dad and they got married. About a year later they had my brother and seven years later they had me. 

    They ultimately came to the United States. My dad became one of the early Black engineers at IBM and my mom started working at Manufacturers Hanover …which became J.P. Morgan Chase.” 

    … 

    “In some ways, for my mom, that moment when her parents said yes to this huge decision, and I’ll talk a little about my own coming of agency moment, I think that’s what she experienced. This moment where she felt she had a lot of skin in the game. She played a role in her own destiny. She was advocating to her parents to be able to go to England at 19, all by herself. Something that wasn’t done. But she knew that it was right. 

    It’s a lesson I learned from my mom and my dad, as well. Every young person is going to face multiple moments in their life when the future is unknown. Where you’re facing a huge decision that you don’t know the outcome, and yet after you’ve mulled the decision, after you’ve mulled all the factors, then you commit. You commit. That’s a part of agency that you take ownership of decisions in such a way that you are leading a self-determined life. You are responsible for your behavior, for your attitude. That’s ultimately what agency is all about. 

    I think for my mom, having that first big yes many years ago initiated a cascade of decisions that she, and then she and my dad made, which essentially and ultimately was to the benefit of them and their own family.” 

    … 

    “When my parents first came to the United States it was 1968-1969. … A lot of racial tension. … But they were very cognizant of what was going on in the country. They were raised in a predominantly Black country, so the role of race was far diminished. I remember my dad always used to say that when he was in Jamaica, he was a man. He was a man. ‘In Jamaica I’m a man.’ It was not until he got to the United States that he learned he was a Black man. And that had meaning to him because in Jamaica, your skin color wasn’t the first thing that defined you. What defined you was much more your actions, your attitude, your ambition. But in the United States he felt that based on these external forces, you were a Black man first and he fought against that. He said, ‘Well that’s crazy.’ 

    They also recognized that the country was changing. You know the Civil Rights Act had just been signed, the Voting Rights Act signed. You know opportunity was opening up. So, in some ways they weren’t running from Jamaica, they were running to the United States in search of a better life.  

    They instilled in me certainly this idea that your effort and your character, and what you do matters far more than the singular characteristics.” 

    … 

    “We first came to Brooklyn and had a very humble home. We were in a two-family house. What’s interesting about that time was my parents frankly were not that happy with what they saw (about) how young Black men were operating their lives. They thought they were too loose, and they were concerned especially given the larger context of all of the issues facing the nation.” 

    … 

    “I was kind of on lockdown… From kindergarten I went to school in the morning, came home immediately, did my homework, we had dinner as family, went to bed. … And so my experience growing up was very contained. My parents placed a huge value on being together as a family. They placed a huge value on faith. They placed a huge value on education. 

    My parents put a very high premium on education. … They knew that if you were going to succeed in this country the opportunities are there, but you have to be prepared once those opportunities come your way.” 

    … 

    “In 1973…we moved to a small town in Laurelton, Queens, into a community that had been predominantly white, Italian, Jewish, but was slowly becoming more racially integrated as more Black people in particular were moving into Laurelton. And unfortunately, that slow integration led to a lot of racial tension in Laurelton, and my junior high school, junior high school 231, had become the epicenter. And the school board decided to solve this problem by saying ‘You know what, we are basically going to punt and we are going to create a new school, and annex, in Rosedale, Queens,’ which was another town a few miles over in a more permanently and predominantly white part of town.  

    Essentially what happened was all the white parents that were going to my junior high school 231 in Laurelton decided to take their kids out and send their kids to this annex junior high school in Rosedale. Leaving junior high school 231 as a segregated virtually all Black school. And my parents, on the assumption that where the white kids go that’s where the better education will be, … they said to me they were going to take me out of 231 and send me to this other school.” 

    I’ll always remember the Sunday night before the transfer papers were supposed to be submitted, I begged my parents. … Something about this decision didn’t feel right. I loved my school. I loved my teachers and even this very idea just because now all white kids are gone somehow it has to be worse.  Why? Why? Why just because now that everyone is Black that just inherently means that its bad. … I begged. …,’Please let me stay.’… Ultimately my parents relented.” 

    … 

    I always wonder that in that moment, even for my mom, did she think back to that moment when she was in Jamaica as a 19-year-old girl with this letter in the hands of her parents making this huge decision and she’s asking them to go, ‘I want to go. It will work out. I love him. I’m ready to go.’ And they said, ‘yes.’ I’ve always wondered if that experience parallels to when I was begging for the opportunity, now at 12 years old, to stay at my junior high school.  

    And I like to think yes. I like to think yes because I feel like that was her first coming of agency moment where she felt she knew that she could play a role in her own destiny. And I felt at 12 years old that after my parents said yes, that I had skin in the game now in a way that I’d never had before. … That was the first movement that I experienced agency. That I was a force in my own future. That I had the ability to shape my destiny. That was a turning point in my life. 

    Every big decision I’ve made going forward, particularly anything as it relates to my leadership in schools, is asking the basic question, ‘Why should it matter what the demographic makeup is of an institution? Who cares?’ What matters is the expectations. What we are asking young people to do. What is the metric for excellence? Are we holding everyone to high standards? That’s what matters. 

    I’m convinced that the reason I run schools today is connected back to that moment.” 

    … 

    “This presumption that just being all Black meant it had to be ‘less than’ and I never want anyone of any race, of any background, (to think) that just because there are kids of a certain background in their school or institution somehow it is ‘less than.’” 

    To listen to the full episode with Rowe, please visit  “Our American Stories.”   

  • Elizabeth McGuigan on NewsNation: “The State of Giving is Strong”

    On Thanksgiving Day, Philanthropy Roundtable’s Senior Vice President Elizabeth McGuigan appeared on NewsNation’s “The Hill” to discuss charitable giving ahead of Giving Tuesday. 

    In response to a question by host Blake Burman about the state of philanthropy, McGuigan said Americans continue to give generously to those in need – donating nearly half a trillion dollars last year. While middle-class giving was down in 2022, McGuigan said foundations and flexible giving vehicles like donor-advised funds showed signs of growth for the sector – and the state of giving is strong. 

     “We are seeing a decline in middle-class giving in particular,” said McGuigan. “But at the same time, you see foundations and you see corporations stepping up to fill that gap. And I think that dip in middle-income giving really speaks to the need to keep what we call philanthropic freedom, the ability to give how, when and to what cause you see fit, free and protected.” 

    McGuigan also previewed continued threats to philanthropic freedom expected in 2024, including threats to donor privacy.    

    Watch the interview here.

  • Donor Intent Watch: Higher Education Donors React to Campus Responses to Israel-Hamas War

    Earlier this year, following the passage of the Donor Intent Protection Act in Kansas, Philanthropy Roundtable launched a monthly series on donor intent controversies around the country to better inform those who care about this important topic. We await updates on lawsuits involving Middlebury College and the former Hastings College of the Law, and will continue to inform readers about those topics.    

    Most cases discussed this year have involved gifts to colleges and universities. Art and natural history collections have also experienced disputes, as indicated by our continuing coverage of the Barnes Foundation and the October 2023 discussion of a landmark case at the Berkshire Museum. This month, following nearly six weeks of campus turmoil, we are returning to higher education and featuring several recently-published articles that raise important questions about the relationship between donors and the institutions they support.    

    We encourage donors to contact us with any questions they have about our featured items and consult additional resources on donor intent at the Roundtable’s Donor Intent Hub. We also welcome any news about donor intent that we may have missed.    

     
    Wealth Management: “Philanthropists are Pulling the Plug” 

    Trust & Estates legal editor Anna Sulkin Stern writes about donors’ responses to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and rising antisemitism on campuses, naming those who have suspended or terminated their giving to Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. She also reminds readers that donor dissatisfaction can easily spread to other donors and campuses, quoting from an October Trusts & Estates article:  

    Upholding and respecting donor intent encourages charitable giving. When donors know their intent will be honored, they develop confidence in the charitable sector and the organizations to which they give. However, if donors lack trust or confidence that their intent will be protected by those responsible for upholding it, some either won’t give or will give somewhere else. 

    The article goes on to suggest that although this season’s disputes between donors and higher education grantees do not necessarily involve violations of donor intent, donors who continue to give to colleges and universities may change how they structure their gifts. Avi Z. Kestenbaum, co-chair of Meltzer Lippe’s Trusts & Estates practice group, warns: “ 

    … In the future, I could see major donors putting more conditions and restrictions on their donations, not only as to how the funds are used, which is already common, but also with regard to the world view and belief system the university espouses and supports on its campus, in light of what we are now witnessing at some of these universities. 

    In the current environment, Kestenbaum’s prediction is likely correct. Increased donor restrictions, however – especially those that speak to an institution’s “world view and belief system” – are likely to run head on into faculty and administration concerns about hiring, tenure and ultimately, academic freedom. Donors will need to be well-informed about utilizing appropriate language in their gift agreements and should be prepared to engage legal assistance if needed. 

    Read more here.  


    The Chronicle of Higher Education: “The Dangers of Donor Revolt” 

    In The Chronicle of Higher Education, Lila Corwin Berman, a professor of Jewish history at Temple University, and Benjamin Soskis, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute’s Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, discuss the unfavorable reactions of many philanthropists to recent campus events. They also worry this signifies an unhealthy and dangerous level of power in the hands of megadonors that warrants increased regulation.    

    The authors note:  

    In 2022, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education calculated that institutions of higher education took in $59.5 billion in charitable gifts and found that the top 1% of givers accounted for at least 80% of all donations. Dependent on these top givers, colleges allowed them to earmark funds through “restricted” gifts dictated by donor-determined limits and priorities. According to one recent study, a full 68% of money in the largest private universities is “restricted” in this way.  

    Of particular concern, Berman and Soskis suggest, is that the political leanings of the wealthiest Americans “tend to skew centrist and conservative on many issues.”   

    While conceding that donors who are now threatening to withhold further gifts if universities fail to address antisemitism on their campuses may be “hold[ing] power to account,” the authors suggest these donors may also be engaging in “public grandstanding … showing the public that, far from balancing power, they are arrogating too much for themselves by elevating their concerns over others’ interests.” Regarding the revolt of Jewish donors, they maintain, “It is safe to assume that some critics will draw on a deep well of antisemitic tropes linking Jews to perfidious uses of power.”  

    “The donor revolt,” Berman and Soskis conclude, “has brought to the surface long-simmering debates about philanthropic power. … At the very least, we should take it as an opportunity to ask whether the philanthropic system as it exists is worth defending, or whether a public revolt against the philanthropic status quo is in order.” 

    Yet the authors never clarify what form such a public revolt might take, or what manner of increased charitable regulation they propose. Their concerns about donors who are demanding that higher education grantees abandon free speech and the protection of academic freedom are certainly warranted, yet they fail to acknowledge that donors have the right to restrict the use of their gifts to programs and institutions aligned with their values.  

    They imply that Jewish donors should avoid voicing their anger and retracting financial support because they will likely inspire more antisemitism. Their focus on donors’ power discounts the bargaining power a university can bring to the table – especially when donors are alumni who are emotionally invested with their alma maters.  

    Finally, Berman and Soskis seem to neither understand nor acknowledge that the common thread in the current communications of dissatisfied donors is a powerful feeling of betrayal. That is true for many donors who cannot be simply written off as “megadonors,” including the 1,600 Harvard alumni who are threatening to end any financial support of their alma mater unless the university addresses the wave of antisemitism on its campus.  

    Read more here. (You may need to create a free account to access this article.)   


    Cornell University and Dartmouth College on Faculty Responses 

    In The Cornell Daily Sun and on Dartmouth’s website, these articles focus on faculty members and their responsibilities to the community of students and others they serve. Both are potent reminders that the core purpose of higher education institutions is not fundraising, not lobbying, not public relations – it is teaching.  

    Responding to the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, eight Cornell University faculty members representing a variety of fields of study sent a joint letter to the student newspaper regarding the tumultuous events on that campus over the month that followed. “Whatever our personal response to the unfolding spectacle of physical and verbal violence now being directed at Jewish people not only here, where we live, but everywhere,” they write, “it is as professors and educators that we wish now to speak and to register our offense.” What follows is a stark reminder of the many ways in which too many faculty members have abrogated their responsibilities not simply to their profession, but – and far more importantly – to their students.  

    Failure to ensure student safety is a primary concern, the authors argue, as students must be given an opportunity to discuss issues in classrooms “without fear of reprisal, intimidation and the threat of public shame.” They go on to say, “If professors abdicate their responsibility to ensure the freedom of all their students to speak their minds, what happens in the classroom hardly deserves the name of higher education. What passes for teaching under such circumstances is called propaganda.” 

    Faculty members who express opinions in public about matters they have not studied are expressing “contempt for the years of painstaking effort that it takes to master any subject,” the authors continue. Those faculty members, they say, are not only disrespecting their colleagues and their profession, but “are also making it very difficult for all of us to ask our students to follow the rules that differentiate the conscientious pursuit of knowledge from the irresponsible reproduction of ignorance.”  

    Finally, the authors say too many faculty members fail to engage students in understanding “the implications of their position on a specific question” and in “confront[ing] fully and honestly the meaning and consequences of what they are saying.” Intentionally – and even unintentionally – allowing one’s students to adopt a mindset based on slogans is one more symptom of the current “assault on the teaching profession and discourse, an assault with which the profession itself seems to be cooperating.” The victims of this assault, the Cornell authors conclude, “are precisely those whose approval we are now shamelessly courting and whose young impressionable minds are our most important charge.” 

    At Dartmouth, faculty members have succeeded in creating a safe forum for open and educated dialogue on matters at the heart of their scholarship. Since October 7, they have offered three on-campus and livestreamed events for the college community. Susannah Heschel, chair of the Jewish studies program, and Jonathan Smolin, associate professor of Middle Eastern Studies, have led this effort which has featured faculty from Dartmouth and other institutions. Heschel has credited the longstanding practice of scholarly collaboration between the two programs, noting, “Because of that long-term relationship and understanding, we were able to immediately jump right in on this issue as soon as the October 7 attacks took place. … You don’t wait until there’s a crisis.” 

    Beyond this, a Dartmouth senior lecturer, Egyptian author and academic Ezzedine Fishere has taught a course on the politics of Israel and Palestine for seven years. In recent years he co-taught the course with visiting professor Bernard Avishai, a scholar of Israeli politics. “We thought having both perspectives would create a safer space for everybody in class,” Fishere has remarked. Although Avishai will not be available for the college’s winter term, Fishere will bring in other presenters by Zoom, explaining: 

    The idea has always been to teach students to understand the motivations of the players and their concerns and their aspirations so that they can better analyze this conflict and understand its dynamics—where it might be going—rather than to try to get them to know, quote-unquote, the truth and take positions about it. … I’ve seen how students, once they feel safe enough to allow themselves to exercise introspection about the community that they come from and about their own beliefs and stereotypes, they can open up and allow themselves to go beyond the point where they started. It’s heartwarming and it’s also what learning is about. 

    The critical importance of the teaching faculty to donors who are committed to reforming higher education is manifested in both Cornell University’s faculty letter and Dartmouth College’s faculty collaboration. In our guidebook on donor intent, “Protecting Your Legacy,” we recommend that a donor find at least one (ideally tenured) faculty member at the target institution who shares the donor’s vision and can help a donor navigate the bureaucracy of a particular campus. Faculty members can be particularly useful in explaining an institution’s academic processes and the boundaries of academic freedom, and can assist donors in building more support and continuity for their proposed reforms.  

    Read more here and here

  • Christie Herrera in Associated Press: New Philanthropy Roundtable CEO Christie Herrera Ready to Fight for Donor Privacy

    Philanthropy Roundtable President and CEO Christie Herrera was recently interviewed by Associated Press business writer and editor Glenn Gamboa on her new role and vision for the organization. In this Q&A, Gamboa asks Herrera about Philanthropy Roundtable’s philanthropic freedom work – and threats to philanthropy coming from both sides of the political aisle. 

    Below are excerpts from the article entitled “New Philanthropy Roundtable CEO Christie Herrera ready to fight for donor privacy”: 

    “Christie Herrera says, as the new president and CEO of Philanthropy Roundtable, she plans to fight for the principles the advocacy organization has always prized. But Herrera, who was officially promoted in mid-October, recognizes that battle is getting tougher and more complicated than ever. 

    ‘The Roundtable is going to be who we’ve always been — and that’s a home for donors who share our values,’ she said. ‘We will continue to be passionate about philanthropy, about values-based giving, about philanthropic freedom, and about philanthropic excellence – the nuts and bolts of giving that I feel the philanthropic sector has gotten away with some of the social issues they’re taking up.’ 

    … 

    “Q: We live in polarized times. Do you feel the Roundtable should lessen that polarization? 

    A: Yeah, absolutely. Freedom is important no matter what you believe. And we always love finding allies across the aisle and forming those strange bedfellows coalitions because that’s the only way we’re going to get policy done, especially with a gridlocked Washington and so many purple states.” 

    … 

    “Q: What is the biggest challenge you see to the Roundtable doing what it has in the past? 

    A: It’s one thing and one thing only and that’s protecting philanthropic freedom. That is what makes generosity possible – allowing donors to give where and when they choose. The really interesting thing about this is that we’re seeing threats coming from the left and the right, which puts the Roundtable in a unique position to stand up for philanthropic freedom, for conservative foundations and progressive foundations, because we believe in the right to give no matter what your ideology.” 

    To read the complete article, please visit The Associated Press.  

  • A Conversation about History, Race and the Meaning of True Diversity with Ja’Ron Smith

    Editor’s Note: Philanthropy Roundtable’s True Diversity initiative offers an equality-based, holistic framework for embracing diversity. We support efforts that value every person as a unique individual and empower charitable organizations with the freedom and flexibility to advance their missions. Learn more at TrueDiversity.org. 

    Cleveland, Ohio native Ja’Ron Smith and Washington, D.C.-raised Chris Pilkerton are two men of different races and backgrounds united by their faith and purpose to help the underserved. They both rose to become policy advisors to President Trump, where they advanced solutions for economic mobility of Black, white and all Americans. In a new book titled “Underserved: Harnessing the Principles of Lincoln’s Vision for Reconstruction for Today’s Forgotten Communities,” they offer a prescription for rebuilding underserved communities by drawing upon President Abraham Lincoln’s vision for reconstructing the nation after the Civil War. 

    I spoke with Smith, a policy expert on regulatory affairs, economic mobility, social justice, finance, banking and housing and urban development about his personal experience, new book and how he views true diversity.  

    The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.    


    Q. Tell us about your background and how it shaped your approach to work and life. 

    Smith: I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio, in a lower middle-class community. My early years were similar to that of many people: parents struggling with drug addiction and alcoholism. My parents were both blue-collar workers and their parents were poor. They did what they needed to do to survive.  

    My dad sent me to a Catholic high school. That education gave me my first experience with religion and created an environment to help me. I wasn’t a good student until age 14 or 15. Despite their addiction, I was anchored with two parents that loved me and a grandparent that loved me, which made me a resilient person and gave me the courage to be curious. As I set out to be my best self, I had to do service projects to graduate and that’s where the passion developed for helping people. 

    My generation was the first generation to start going to college. 

    My background planted the seed of wanting to help change our community and empower people. From that experience you learn that people go into drugs and self-destructive behavior based off trauma or traumatic experiences. It can be hard to try to figure out how to become your best self and put food on the table.  

    I attended Howard University and during college interned in Washington, D.C. on Capitol Hill, which got me interested in politics and policy as a way to positively impact people. 


    Q. Coming out of your background and work at the highest levels of government, why did you decide to write this book? 

    Smith: I wrote this book along with my colleague, Chris Pilkerton, because working together in the White House, we realized there were so many challenges in underserved communities. Because of the pandemic, we weren’t able to finish some of the work we had begun on issues ranging from criminal justice reforms to workforce development. It became apparent that the work we were trying to accomplish was more important than ever. Some communities will be set back even further because of COVID. 

    My north star and mission has been figuring out solutions for underserved communities. When I came back to D.C. in 2008, I gave my life to God and He has positioned me through relationships to accomplish this mission. We talk about our faith journeys in this book, but this book provides a blueprint to complete our unfinished work.   


    Q. “Underserved” focuses on the post-reconstruction era in the United States. There was so much opportunity for Black folks: in politics by becoming legislators, starting businesses and creating economic centers, creating a new middle class and creating greater Black wealth. What didn’t happen following Reconstruction that led to issues we’re still dealing with today?  

    Smith: Abraham Lincoln grew up on a prairie, he grew up poor, was self-educated and he learned the importance of earning a living for yourself and being able to leverage that to empower oneself through economic empowerment.  

    Lincoln’s vision for Reconstruction highlights that economic empowerment … is a core part of America. America is a capitalist country; the whole notion of capitalism is based on the concept of mutuality and mutual benefit. It has lifted so many underserved communities around the world in ways that other systems haven’t. The challenge is that slavery raised the question of whether capitalism was exploitative. Capitalism doesn’t have to be.  

    Unfortunately, Andrew Johnson worked with the privileged class of the South (former plantation owners) and the creation of Black Codes created a dual system that Black Americans lived in for about 60 years until the Civil Rights Movement. Despite all of that, Black Americans in segregated communities were still able to foster economic empowerment and build robust communities. But the government and racist factions tore that apart. That has happened several times. In our book, we mention the Freedman’s Bureau, race riots and Black Wall Street. 

    Ultimately, you still did not have a breakthrough with those communities. Laws from the ‘30s created redlining and concentrated poverty and race. Then the presence of Great Society programs at the same time as the post-Integration movement led to Black flight. Upper class and middle-class Blacks left those communities. When affluent people–doctors and lawyers–left the community, those left behind were left with no real role models or high earners which led to concentrated impoverished communities. It’s similar in some white communities too. The reason we called the book “Underserved” is because we talk about poverty in white communities as well.  

    Lincoln saw the importance of investing in poor white communities as well as Black communities. His assassination cut short this work which could have helped in the Jim Crow South where poor whites were pitted against poor Blacks. A century later, the race and class warfare was something Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about during the Civil Rights era. 


    Q: Can you talk about the role of the church, particularly of the Black church, then and also today in driving outcomes that go toward economic opportunities?  

    Smith: First of all, the movement to free the slaves was undergirded by the Great Awakening, which created the abolitionist movement. The emergence of the Republican Party was anchored in religion. When we went into Reconstruction, many of the HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities) that were launched were financed by religious organizations and invested in training preachers. The early leaders who went to Congress, like Hiram Revels, were ministers and the church became a safe place for individuals in the Black community to mobilize, organize and educate themselves.  

    New Black churches emerged out of that. Different denominations undergirded the Civil Rights Movement. The church has historically for the Black community been an anchor for change in our communities. However, over the last 40 years—and not just in the Black community—institutions overall including the church have lost the trust of the community. 

    Throughout America, people are less religious. Some people on the right blame taking prayer out of public schools, but it goes back to the methodology of trust. Some churches–not all of them–haven’t been the anchor that they used to be because trust is not there in the community. You might have a number of different churches in any underserved community. They are not all places that people go to or frequent. After being in seminary, I learned that in many cases churches have become more of a social club rather than an anchoring or change agent for society.  

    We need that anchoring because the church and faith community’s help in figuring out who you are as a person is extremely important in behavioral health. So many communities have dealt with the trauma of the pandemic and historic trauma. Being able to navigate the nuances of life is hard when you come from broken families. That’s a mission I have been on. We need the church and civil society more than ever.   

    Aside from the Black households, in which you see 70% are single-parent households, 50% of white households are single parent or divorced households.  


    Q: How can True Diversity or other equality-based, holistic frameworks for embracing diversity contribute to economic mobility?  

    Smith: Different perspectives help you to be competitive. Many other countries don’t necessarily have the model of diversity that America has and if we’re in a global competition of ideas, we are far ahead of people by celebrating our shared diversity. Celebrating that we are a melting pot is in the American DNA. We became a place where people came from all different walks of life to be able to participate in the American experience, which is based on individuality, ideas, freedom and liberty. That undergirds everything.  

    Companies and organizations that decide not to be intentional about thought diversity are losing the opportunity to benefit from that market share. But it has to be genuine, it has to be intentional. It cannot be virtue signaling. What the workplace is  trying to do is to harness our best asset which is the diversity of opinions and backgrounds. No one has the same experience. We celebrate that uniqueness that you can bring to the table and that uniqueness drives different ideas that an organization would never have thought about.  

    I’m not sure that designating a role for Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is right. If you have a C-suite, a better approach is having more COOs from different perspectives, more CFOs and CEOs. If you lean into being intentional about bringing in the best talent from diverse perspectives, you will get individuals in leadership roles who will commit to bringing other individuals with diverse perspectives along. For me working at the White House (and every organization I’ve been in), I’ve been able to identify individuals with different backgrounds that other leaders may have overlooked and they’ve ended up adding value.  

    It hasn’t been based on race but comparative advantage. Everyone brings different skills to a situation and it’s figuring out what comparative advantages individuals have that can make us more competitive. You want businesses or organizations to be intentional about what their talent needs are and to lean into those, not just check demographic boxes.  

    In the current landscape, DEI has become a talking point instead of looking at the most unique capabilities people bring to the table and what we can learn from them. We put blanket approaches in place that are not effective, when the unique qualities that people have because of their backgrounds is what we should focus on. 

    Click here to learn more about True Diversity.    

  • American Habits and the Case for Practical Federalism

    Philanthropy Roundtable recently sat down with Ray Nothstine, senior editor of American Habits, a new publication by State Policy Network’s (SPN) Center for Practical Federalism that makes the “intellectual and moral case for federalismand its practical applications to today’s challenges.” Through sharing the inspirational stories of everyday Americans who get involved in their local communities, American Habits hopes to encourage citizens and policymakers to solve more problems through local and state solutions. 

    The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.   


    Q: Can you tell us a little bit about your background and SPN’s American Habits? 

    Nothstine: My dad was an Air Force pilot. So, I’ve lived a lot of places, which shaped my worldview and experiences. I’m 44, so I hate to admit my age, but I do remember a time during the Cold War when my dad was sitting on alert in case our country had to respond to a potential nuclear attack. I think that played a significant role in shaping my background and likely my deeper interest in the issues of human freedom. And so why do we have this nation-state? Why do we try to preserve freedom? Why is that important? I was at least thinking about those kinds of questions in my head at a young age.  

    I worked for Congressman Gene Taylor (Mississippi) after college at Ole Miss. I always enjoyed reading about political history and some of my first memories [were of the] 1984 presidential campaign. I then started reading scripture more and went to seminary at Asbury Theological Seminary. The late Ellsworth Kalas, an amazing preaching professor, encouraged me to write, so I did. After some time with The Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C., Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Civitas Institute and the John Locke Foundation, I got involved in SPN and American Habits. 

    American Habits is a project focusing on federalism. We have a center for practical federalism, and SPN is trying to make the case for a culture of self-government and push back against federal overreach. You can equip state lawmakers to do that, but also give people a sense of mission and purpose and not just at the national level, but at the state and local levels. 


    Q: Can you share with us any highlights from the stories you’ve encountered so far? 

    Nothstine: I just interviewed Bill Courtney, founder of Classic American Hardwoods, a manufacturer in Tennessee. Courtney is known more as a football coach though and is depicted in the amazing documentary “Undefeated.” He’s done a lot of great work highlighting people who are getting involved in their local communities. He told the story of a woman named Anne Mahlum, who liked to run to deal with stress. When she was working in Philadelphia, she ran by this homeless center every day. They’d say, “Why do you run off all the time?” And she’d say, “Why do you just sit there all the time?” And she went back to this homeless center a day or two later and said, “I want to start a running club.” So, Bill tells these great stories about people who get involved in their community and that running club is active in 15 or 16 major American cities right now. I think it’s just giving people a sense of purpose, right? A sense of drive, that you can get involved in your local community and make a difference in people’s lives. I think there’s a component to that, which is just so essential today, just getting off your butt and getting involved. That’s a big deal. 


    Q: What role has philanthropy played, in your opinion, in state and local solutions during your career and now during your time at American Habits? 

    Nothstine: From a mission standpoint, philanthropy has played an important role. I think there are opportunities all over the country to get involved to make a difference, not just in policy or D.C., but maybe in cultural aspects where you’re changing local communities and where you can network with individuals who are like-minded. In a way, that facilitates conversations and real action for change. Of course, none of this is possible without the generous donors who care deeply about their communities and country.  


    Q: American Habits seeks to reignite the “capacity for self-government.” How can we restore an understanding and appreciation for self-government and decentralization in our country? 

    Nothstine: It’s a hard question, right? The death of local news has played a role in this in terms of the conversation and the 24-hour news cycle and all these sorts of ideological battles that we hear about are focused on Washington D.C., but it doesn’t have to be that way. 

    And I think one of the ways that we change that is through civic education. So there’s probably a two-pronged effort, certainly some renewal through storytelling at the local and state level, which is something that we’re going to do at American Habits. Also, from a civic education standpoint, it’s discouraging when you see recent survey results, even at Ivy League schools, where young college students don’t know anything about American history or American government.  

    American Habits wants to play a role in changing that. We’re educating people about the history of America but also asking what is the function and purpose of our government? That’s one of the key questions we need to ask ourselves as Americans today. If we aren’t asking that fundamental question, ideological noise is going to win out.  


    Q: Philanthropy Roundtable partners with philanthropists who believe the best way to safeguard the future of our democracy is to promote and defend American ideals. Do you have any advice for those who are looking to advance federalism through philanthropy?  

    Nothstine: One of the things to do from the get-go is to read. I mean, you can read the Federalist Papers. You can read about American history. A lot of us idolize the past sometimes in our movement, but there’s some bad things about the past, right? I think having a comprehensive understanding of American history and American tradition is essential.  

    For example, why did people sacrifice during the American Revolution? What were their motivations? Why did colonists take up arms against the Crown? And how did they understand rights? Those are things we don’t think about enough today. An important component of this is how we understand rights, what does that mean and where do rights come from? All these questions are important for entrepreneurs and philanthropists, to discover and rediscover and to get in that conversation. All these ideas are accessible to Americans and are meant to be accessible.  

    It’s important to be educated on the threats that ideologues want to impose on America. I think just having a willingness to sacrifice is a key component, whether it’s your time, finances or energy. That sacrifice is for these greater ideals and purposes, so that we can offer what we’ve inherited for future generations. The spending that we see in Washington is very depressing, and this inability to put others above yourself, primarily speaking about Washington politicians, is a depressing statement about America right now. 


    Q: Who are some of your mentors and favorite authors who have helped to shape your worldview? 

    Nothstine: Michael Novak, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has now passed away, was a man of faith and deeply ingrained in theology. A lot of his writings were from the viewpoint of the human person and argued there’s a higher power than the state. That’s an important component for people whatever their faith, that they understand the state is not the highest element of society and is not the highest authority in our lives.  

    Congressman Gene Taylor taught me a very important lesson by the way he treated the Capitol Police, Capital employees, interns and constituents. There was one time he was late for a meeting with the Secretary of the Navy and my job was to go find him in the Rayburn Building in Washington, D.C. I was running around like a chicken with his head cut off looking for him. I eventually found him in the stairwell talking to, I think, a maintenance worker. When we were walking back up to his office, he says, “When I lose an election, these are the people who are still going to be friends with me.” This teaches the importance of humility, which is an essential component for life.  


    Q:  What type of information do you hope to impart to readers with American Habits? 

    Nothstine: One of the goals is to be interesting, because the publication space is crowded. People can go to limitless places to read content. Storytelling is an important aspect of that. We haven’t perfected that yet, but we are on our way to doing that.  

    We also want to be a change agent. We want to equip state and local lawmakers with information to let them know there are avenues where you can push back against federal overreach. You have the Constitution on your side, you have a constituency out there, you have partners in other states, you have the SPN network that helps reach out and say, look, the Constitution matters, and this network of like-minded folks are a resource to you. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and there is training available, content available and there’s a way to equip people with the tools to push back against an anti-American element of centralization that we all must be conscious of today. 

    If you are interested in learning more about organizations that work to protect America’s founding principles, please contact Philanthropy Roundtable Program Director Clarice Smith 

  • How Philanthropy is Preserving the Environment

    In the past few hundred years, the North American elk population has dropped by 90%. Today, there are only one million left. Elk are not currently endangered, but their preservation should be of concern to all us; as the elk go, so does the health of the habitat. 

    “Elk are important ecologically and can provide an indicator of how well habitats are functioning,” the U.S. Forest Service reports. But they could be at risk: “Expanding human populations into elk habitat and declining habitat quality remain some of the primary long term risks to elk.” 

    Elk need green space that seems to be disappearing, and many of the places through which they would travel in their migrations are on private land. That’s where free market conservation comes in.  

    Brian Yablonski is the CEO of Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), an organization that has been working to create and implement market-based solutions to conservation issues for more than 40 years. One such issue is the elk population.  

    To keep elk numbers from dwindling, PERC has a creative solution. It has partnered with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition to use donations to pay landowners “elk rent” for allowing the animals to travel through their property. Game cameras capture the number of elk on a plot of land, and ranchers get paid per elk, which helps offsets the costs that can come along with hosting wildlife, including broken fences, predators and more.  

    The system is a win-win. Ranchers get paid to help the elk, and the elk get safe passage on their migratory journey, ensuring their populations can continue to the next generation.  

    Yablonski says in order for these types of solutions to work, you have to “make conservation more of an asset than a liability.” 

    “There are people wanting to connect to a market-based approach to conservation. They just haven’t been given the market-based tools,” Yablonski says.  

    That’s what PERC does. 

    PERC focuses on land, water and wildlife issues. It does this in several ways, including incentivizing landowners to invest in conservation and wildlife protection, finding creative funding approaches to restore America’s forests and expanding the use of water markets.  Headquartered in Bozeman, Montana, it follows the economic principle that incentives matter. If you want people to take care of the environment, you have to make environmentalism the better option.  

    PERC also has a Conservation Law and Policy Center designed to “advance legal and policy reforms that respect property rights, expand incentives for voluntary stewardship and empower people to advance conservation through markets.” They also have a Conservation Innovation Lab, created earlier in 2023 to focus on implementation of market-based solutions, including the Elk Occupancy Agreement, the Paradise Valley Brucellosis Compensation Fund and the Grizzly Conflict Reduction Grazing Agreement, all of which compensate landowners for implementing environmentally friendly practices.  

    Conservation doesn’t tend to be as flashy as other issues in the news, until it is. After the Hawaii wildfires ravaged the island of Maui this summer, the tragedy brought a renewed focus to forest management and its role in preventing natural disasters. While some environmentalists file lawsuits to block forest management practices from taking place, believing a forest’s “natural” state is better, Yablonski says the current conditions are anything but natural.  

    Conservation today isn’t about returning to a state that no longer exists, Yablonski argues. Following more than a century of mismanagement causing massive wildfires in the U.S., we can’t afford to move slowly. 

    “Conservation has been about slowing down,” he says. “We’re moving to an era where we need to speed up.” 


    A market economy for conservation 

    Perhaps the most vocal environmentalists are the ones who say the state of our country is so dire the only solution is expansive, top-down government action. Todd Myers, environmental director at Washington Policy Center, argues the opposite. If you care about the environment, he says, the last thing you want is more government intervention.  

    “The more concerned you are about climate change, the less you should support government programs — because government programs are incredibly ineffective,” Myers says.  

    For example, Myers mentions the Portland Clean Energy Fund, which just received a $750 million government grant to reduce CO2 emissions. That’s an enormous amount of money for one city, and there’s just one problem. Myers says according to his calculations, the program, which involves the difficult process of retrofitting multi-family homes with these environmentally friendly systems, will spend $10,000 just to reduce one metric ton of CO2.  

    Meanwhile, the Portland nonprofit Bonneville Environmental Foundation, which also aims to reduce CO2 emissions, spends just $14 per metric ton.  

    “So the city of Portland is spending more than 700 times as much per metric ton as another available private sector program,” he says. “If you care about climate change, that should infuriate you.” 

    Kim Dennis, a longtime PERC board member and president of Searle Freedom Trust, agrees that government intervention is not the best solution. If you don’t think the government is doing well with the economy, you certainly can’t trust it with the environment, she says.  

    “The idea that it’s government’s role — all you have to do is look at a government-dominated society and look at their environments, and they’re terrible,” she says. “Russia, China, they have the worst environments.” 

    Part of the answer to failed government programs can come on a micro level, with individual citizens choosing to do small things such as turn off lights they’re not using or plant milkweed for monarch butterflies. But a bigger, more powerful role comes from the market: private companies and philanthropists.  

    Everyone knows the ocean is full of plastic, and efforts to reduce it can seem futile. So 10 years ago, Canada-based Plastic Bank decided to pay people to pick up plastic.  

    A few years ago, it began a partnership with SC Johnson, the manufacturer of household products such as Raid, Saran and Ziploc. Participants from countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia and Brazil drop plastic off at collection points. “The collected plastic is then recycled and sold into the market,” SC Johnson explains, at which point the company purchases it and incorporates it into its Windex bottles. People are able to earn and save extra income, especially those in need, and corporations get to incorporate environmentally friendly practices in their products. Everybody wins, and the government is nowhere to be found.  

    Plastic Bank reports that as of January 2023, it has stopped “72.1 million kilograms of plastic from flowing into the ocean, or the equivalent of 3.6 billion plastic bottles.” 


    How philanthropy conserves 

    When it comes to land conservation, it’s not the government that must always step in to ensure environmental protection. This can even be true on public lands owned by the government. The federal government owns about 27% of all land in the U.S., most of which it manages via the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Of the privately owned lands, according to the American Geographical Society, “63% … are farms and ranches, while 32% are forests.” 


    Conservation on public land 

    Ivan London of Mountain States Legal Foundation says even on federal property, ranchers and landowners are the natural “stewards of the land.” 

    Mountain States Legal Foundation is currently representing several ranchers in United States v. Idaho, a case about who has rights to stock water that livestock can drink on federal land. London says the case is a good analogy for the greater relationship between the federal government and the caretakers of the land. 

    “Not always perfectly, but the big picture is that the best way to conserve a scarce resource you want to protect is to value its use, and every western state has some version of what’s called appropriation doctrine,” he explains. “The acknowledgement here is that water is so scarce that we know the people who rely on it will take the best care of it.”  

    The same holds true for forest management. The U.S. has seen a catastrophic uptick in forest fires in the past decade. On the coasts, fire frequency has doubled. In the Great Plains, it has quadrupled. This is one reason private enterprise should be more empowered to manage and restore forests on public lands, says Nick Loris, vice president of public policy with C3 Solutions. 

    From prescribed burns to timber harvesting, “The private sector has done a much better job compared to areas that the Forest Service manages largely because of the laws that make management on federal lands so difficult,” Loris says. 

    It’s not that the agency is intentionally inept, he adds, but its efforts can get so caught up in red tape and excessive litigation it’s difficult to make sure the necessary work to maintain forests actually gets done. No matter who manages the federal land, it would benefit from less regulation. And with fewer regulatory burdens, cooperative relationships between local governments, tribes, businesses, nonprofits and landowners would be able to do more in much shorter time frames. 


    Conservation on private land 

    Private owners have a natural interest in preserving their lands, but there are choices they can make to ensure those lands are taken care of through the generations. 

    John Rohe, vice president at the Colcom Foundation, has long been passionate about conservation issues, particularly the preservation of migratory corridors for birds. As a retired lawyer, he also has a few ideas about how philanthropists can use their land to benefit wildlife.  

    Some conservation-minded individuals can sell or donate their land to a trust, or conservancy, which then takes care of it in perpetuity. For those who prefer not to transfer all rights to their land, there’s another option: conservation easement.  

    This means giving the land trust the right to prevent destructive modifications to the land so that “I own the land, but I can’t change something adverse to those conservation values,” Rohe explains. 

    According to the Virginia Department of Forestry, “A conservation easement protects land primarily by limiting the number of times the property can be subdivided.” It notes “The primary reason landowners donate a conservation easement is to preserve their land in its natural state, while still allowing their family to live and work on the land.” 

    This system, Rohe says, will “secure the property so that the habitat is protected in perpetuity, in keeping with the property right of the donor. This is the ultimate expression of property rights. It is private enterprise enabling someone to in perpetuity make a statement for the web of life.” 

    Conferring a conservation easement upon a conservancy means the land — its water, its local species, etc. — will be permanently preserved. It also comes with a tax deduction.  

    Yablosnki says “Private lands are the next great frontier of conservation. It’s going to take a different set of tools, protecting things we want to pass on to our children.”  

    Through these innovative approaches that incentivize private citizens to protect land, wildlife and water, funders and nonprofits are charting a path forward for a more sustainable future.  

    While environmentalism has recently been seen as a partisan, big-government issue, Rohe says preserving the environment is for everyone.  

    “This is a way for people to unite,” he says. “There’s no red, blue or purple way of looking at this. Everyone feels that affinity for this fragile element of nature. There’s no downside to this.” 

    Madeline Fry Schultz is the contributors editor at the Washington Examiner. She previously worked at Philanthropy Roundtable and as the culture commentary writer at the Washington Examiner.