Helping People is the Key!

Philanthropy is about people. Make sure that you have defined the specific people to be helped by your project.

People want to help other people. It is as simple as that. Nobody wants to contribute to a poorly framed project that says “Let’s save the world’s poor.” What does it mean? Who are they? The problem seems overwhelming and unsolvable.

But if I come to you and say we have a village in Africa that needs mosquito netting to reduce the risk of malaria, now we have real people, with a real problem. It can be solved, and we know who will be helped if we do it!

Give Lots of People an Opportunity to Help

One of the most powerful things we can do in our philanthropy is to give others a chance to participate. Help other people to help other people!

The change that will come into their hearts as they contribute in meaningful ways is one of the most important things you can do to save the planet! The key here is to make their opportunity to help as direct and personal as possible.

When we organized our event to take the children to Disneyland, we invited each donor to come to Disneyland with us and to spend the day with the child they sponsored. Every year, we now have 350 adults who come to help 350 children.

Some of these adults have started similar programs in different regions. Our philanthropy is multiplying because we make sure that many people get a chance to participate in the gift of giving.

All We Need Is Someone to Say “Go!”

One of the most powerful things we can do as philanthropists—and if you have read this far, I know you are one—is to give the go sign to important and urgent projects.

When the 2004 tsunami hit Indonesia, Thailand, India, and several island nations in the Indian Ocean, we immediately dispatched an emergency paramedic team to India. We told them, “Get on the plane; we are sending you the money right now!”

Then we went out to ask for donations. We keep an emergency fund set aside for just such occasions. We then take targeted donations to replenish the fund so we can help out the next time around.

We raised so much money for the medical team that we ended up buying two fishing boats to help restore the local economy as well. People will absolutely open their pocketbooks if you have a well-framed project that helps real people and if you have already given the go sign!

When Bill Gates recently announced that billionaires should give away the bulk of their fortunes, it made headlines around the world. While the Microsoft founder is among the world’s wealthiest individuals and perhaps the leading philanthropist of his time, he is just one of many entrepreneurs who have amassed great fortunes in the technology sector and are using their wealth and influence to bring about positive change.

Last year the Wall Street Journal (“Melinda Gates Defines a Charity’s Mission,” June 5, 2008) reported on the “growing class of people who are applying fortunes made in tech and on the Internet to trying to solve some of the world’s most stubborn problems,” including Jeff Skoll and Pierre Omidyar from eBay and Google founders Larry Page and Serge Brin. According to the article, “These new philanthropists — as you might expect — are trying to apply the same nitty-gritty analysis that many may have used to manage their businesses to difficult-to-measure social problems.”

“Philanthropy and technology can create enormous synergy, and the leaders of the tech community see a tremendous opportunity to change the world for the better,” said Mouli Cohen, entrepreneur, who founded eCast, a company that revolutionized the distribution of digital music to out of home venues worldwide and later started Voltage Capital, a private equity focused innovation fund.

Cohen’s start-ups have generated more than $3 billion in shareholder value, but the value he has created through his contributions in the philanthropic arena are perhaps his greatest source of pride. Cohen currently focuses his efforts on the research and treatment of pediatric cancer and blindness through grants to national and international organizations including Camp Okizu and the Childhood Vision Campaign. “I am personally committed to reducing the incidence of childhood blindness in third world countries and expanding the number and reach of cancer detection and treatment programs for children.”

Cohen is among the new breed of tech philanthropists whose involvement extends far beyond their checkbooks. According to Private Wealth Magazine, the confluence of wealth and technology is redefining philanthropy and ushering in an age of innovation and social change:

The entrepreneurs of the ’80s and ’90s have become the philanthropists of the new millennium, leveraging their time, energy and capital toward the social good. Today’s donors are younger, more energetic and more adept at leveraging technology, investing their capital and driving results. Frequently referred to as “venture philanthropists” or “social entrepreneurs,” they are accustomed to achieving success and not used to backing down in the face of resistance. Comfortable with their achievements and confident in their abilities, they are transitioning their passion and talent for creating wealth to its logical corollary: the distribution of wealth—“giving back,” as some would say—with the very same intensity and sense of direction as was required to create their wealth.

Gates, whose Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the world’s most generous philanthropic organization, hascalled upon his fellow billionaires to spread their wealth to the poorest nations and make a difference in fighting disease, improving access to education and championing other causes. In announcing hisdeparture from his day-to-day duties as chairman of Microsoft to focus his energies on the Foundation, Gates told reporters, “With success, I have been given great wealth. And with great wealth comes great responsibility to give back to society, to see that those resources are put to work in the best possible way to
help those in need.”

Gates’ message is clearly resonating with the billionaire set. Warren Buffett has pledged to leave the bulk of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, representing perhaps the largest charitable gift in history – estimated at$31 billion.

Although the wealthy certainly have more to give, Cohen argues that philanthropy is not solely the purview of the mega-rich. “There are opportunities for anyone with a passion for a particular cause to add value, not just in terms of monetary contributions. Organizations need tactical philanthropists’ to volunteer their time and provide intellectual and social capital to make sure the money creates the greatest possible impact.”

We don’t normally question the motives or charitable giving of others.  The fact that people willingly give of their wealth, their time and other resources is something we are proud of, and thankful for.  But if you ever wondered about how people give, or who gives more of their money in the U.S., that’s a question that’s been answered, at least recently.   There’s an interesting OP-ED article this week in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof titled Bleeding Heart Tightwads.

That may give you some indication of the storyline.  Based on the research, it looks like conservatives give a lot more of their personal wealth to charitable causes than do liberals.  It bothers me to stereotype people, but that’s basically what the article, and the research has stated.

“Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.”

“Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares“, cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals”

 The data is surprising, especially given the research when the results didn’t come back as expected. 

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

So assuming the research is accurate, then what is really going on?  Why do liberals give less of their personal wealth than conservatives?  And what does it really tell us?  Mr. Brooks indicates that religion plays a large role in charitable giving, and that religious liberals and conservatives give about the same.  But it’s interesting that conservatives came out ahead on other charitable giving approaches- themselves.

“Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.”

We all have our own opinions of these matters, but personally I believe the values that conservatives and the red states have, especially regarding religious convictions, leave them much more inclined to give of their wealth and time.  It’s something that is instilled within families as children are raised, and it speaks toward a sense of community.   And when your peers (and congregations) are giving, maybe it leaves one more inclined to do the same.

One thing does bother me though- the seeming indifference to the degree of charitable giving that Americans provide internationally.  In the history of the world and all mankind, there has never been a nation that has given so much to others as does the U.S. in foreign aid, food, programs and the help of our people.  Mr. Brooks’ research found the same thing.

“Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.”

“Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.”

This OP-Ed article has generated a lot of interest by readers of course, and Mr. Kristof’s blog, On the Ground, has generated hundreds of “Comments on Stinginess“ by supposed conservatives and liberals espousing their beliefs and opinions.

I am not in agreement with those who believe fostering government policies that increase spending to help the needy is “being charitable.”  For one thing, that’s spending other people’s money, namely taxpayers, and does not reflect a degree of individual charity.  But what about giving to the arts or sciences, or other worthy causes such as the environment?  Well, I agree that may qualify as charitable giving, but does it really help people in need?  I don’t think so… and for me, that’s where charitable giving really makes a difference- in the lives and welfare of our fellow human beings.

All in all, it would be far better not to worry about “who gives more” and to work harder instead on ways to help those really in need.  Liberal or conservative, it really doesn’t matter.  Especially during the holiday season, and the challenging times we face.  Donating more of our money, time or personal attention to helping others is something that can really make a difference.

Actor Paul Newman passed away this weekend at the age of 83.  He is of course remembered for so many wonderful roles in his movies, but many of us also remember him when we go shopping at the grocery store and walk by or purchase a bottle of “Newman’s Own” salad dressing.  What a great legacy to leave behind in terms of how your life has helped others, and how you helped to establish a foundation that continues to live on its own, providing financial assistance for good causes.  

Mr. Newman was never a flamboyant actor and spokesperson like many others in Hollywood, but he was a leading figure within his profession that made a choice in life to help others.  It’s as simple as that.   Thank you Paul! We wish you a fond farewell and to your family and friends.  And we’re sure to think of your good will the next time we buy one of your products.  The Newman’s Own Foundation will live on.

Have you heard of the ONE campaign?  It appears to be an incredible non-profit organization with many goals centered around the elimination of poverty and disease, and helping provide basic human needs throughout the world.  With a  broad partner list that includes some of the most respected worldwide charitable organizations, the ONE campaign encourages active participation and political action.  It’s also very interesting to read about current issues and actions, and the website is updated regularly.

Recently, the ONE campaign proved instrumental in helping pass reauthorization of President Bush’s Emergency Plan for Aid’s Relief (PEPFAR 2008).  Many people do not realize this program was a specific development based on President Bush’s focus on helping others throughout the world.  Just yesterday PEPFAR passed in the U.S. Senate, reauthorizing 48 billion dollars for international assistance.    The ONE blog describes this and many other initiatives and interest issues.

 For more information, the below paragraph is from the ONE campaign website describing their organizational focus.

“We are a campaign of over 2.4 million people and growing from all 50 states and over 100 of America’s most well-known and respected non-profit, advocacy and humanitarian organizations. As ONE, we are raising public awareness about the issues of global poverty, hunger, disease and efforts to fight such problems in the world’s poorest countries. As ONE, we are asking our leaders to do more to fight the emergency of global AIDS and extreme poverty. ONE believes that allocating more of the U.S. budget toward providing basic needs like health, education, clean water and food would transform the futures and hopes of an entire generation in the world’s poorest countries.”

“ONE is nonpartisan; there’s only one side in the fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty. Working on the ground in communities, colleges and churches across the United States, ONE members both educate and ask America’s leaders to increase efforts to fight global AIDS and extreme poverty, from the U.S. budget and presidential elections to specific legislation on debt cancellation, increasing effective international assistance, making trade fair, and fighting corruption.”

Donating our time or financial assistance to a charitable cause is a very personal endeavor. We may never know the reason that some people leave money for various charities, and we normally wouldn’t question any sense of giving to others.

Sometimes however, I think people do strange things and are not always of sound mind when they make decisions that affect society for years into the future. For example, I’m all for animal welfare and donating to like-minded charities, but when Leona Helmsley leaves billions of dollars to dogs but absolutely nothing to help people, it amazes (and saddens) me.

“Her instructions, specified in a two-page “mission statement,” are that the entire trust, valued at $5 billion to $8 billion and amounting to virtually all her estate, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, according to two people who have seen the document and who described it on condition of anonymity.”

Certainly we have no way of knowing how that money may help so many dogs or possibly increase awareness for animal welfare. Animals and humans at veterinary research hospitals may benefit, and research into canine disease may have some way of helping understand human disease in the future. And maybe some people will benefit or be guided to help animals in a way that betters all of humanity.

But quite honestly I think that’s putting a positive spin on it. Certainly it was her money to do with as she pleased. But it’s such a shame that someone with so much money could not allow various charities or foundations to manage some of it on behalf of the poor, or families struggling in poverty.

We all leave our mark in the world, in one way or another. For most of us, we will never know of the legacy we leave behind. Some people do however, and even during their lives have made a tremendous impact on helping other people. Think of Bill and Melinda Gates, and how their charitable foundation has done so much through the years.

I’m not sure if I’ll leave a legacy or if anything of my life will be much remembered. But I hope so in that it’s remembered for helping other people first. I believe through helping people, we can more effectively help the world around us, including animals.

Cyclone Nargis has ravaged the nation of Myanmar, and international relief is slow getting into the nation.  Some reports have forecasted that up to 100,000 people may have perished and aid agencies are struggling to respond.  I’m not a fan of countries with dictatorships in terms of their politics or the effect that their leaders have on the people of those that live there. Most of the time the people remain oppressed and poor, and are not able to work out of poverty, subsisting only on the fortunes of the country where they live.

In the case of the people of Myanmar, or Burma as it was formerly known, it is unspeakably tragic that thousands of people lost their lives as a result of the recent cyclone.  Certainly the cyclone was a natural disaster and not the fault directly of the military junta that serves as their government, and yet if you have traveled to many nations within the region you would find that hundreds of thousands of people live in squalor along the coasts, and for miles inland. 

Because of how they live, and where they live, people living in this region are subject to the ravages of nature such as cyclones, floods and even earthquakes and tsunamis.  If the government of Myanmar were more inclined to help the people and the nation grow with the developing world, perhaps they might be better prepared in the face of such storms and natural disasters.  Yet even if warned beforehand, thousands of these people have nowhere else to go.

In the case of Myanmar, some have questioned if their government adequately warned the people of the threat.  More likely they simply didn’t understand it.  It’s difficult even to conceive of such numbers in terms of human loss however.  But now the relief effort is underway, and hopefully the leaders of that nation will open their borders and work with other nations to help the survivors.

The United Nations has pledged over $30 million dollars, and the U.S. is weighing a great deal of assistance if Myanmar will accept it. The U.S. is also currently awaiting permission to help with navy ships and personnel as they have done so often in the past for other nations.  But getting Myanmar to accept the help may be difficult.

“The U.S., which has offered at least $3.25 million, assistance, is still trying to persuade the ruling junta to allow humanitarian aid into the country, Villarosa said in the conference call.”

“We’re dealing with a very paranoid regime,” she said.

“Myanmar’s military rulers are “suspicious of outsiders and very sensitive to foreign influences,” Maureen Aung-Thwin, director of the Burma Project, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television today. “They admitted to 22,000” people killed, she said. “I believe the figure is higher than that. Somebody said 150,000 and I don’t think that’s untrue.”

For now all we can do is send our thoughts, prayers and donations to help the people of Myanmar.  International agencies are having a difficult time with the situation.    But the International and American Red Cross organizations are providing assistance, planning and financial help.  Many other relief agencies are scrambling to get organized and provide assistance also.

Click here for the Red Cross Donation Link

“The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has also released an initial $189,000 and shipped shelter kits, made up of tarps, ropes and hammers, to support the relief effort in Myanmar. Additionally, the American Red Cross is prepared to respond with financial aid, estimated at $100,000, to aid cyclone survivors.”

“The American Red Cross and International Federation also have emergency supplies – such as tarps, hygiene kits and insecticide-treated bed nets – pre-stocked in warehouses in Kuala Lumpur and Dubai, if requested.”

“The American Red Cross is in close contact with its colleagues at the Myanmar Red Cross and the International Federation. We continue to monitor the situation, assess the needs of survivors and stand prepared to offer additional assistance as future needs are identified.”

But relief workers are challenged to get help to those who need it as Myanmar Blocks Aid Workers.  This may even be inadvertent; when a country is so backward and not accustomed to collaboration and working with other nations, they are unprepared for the scale of the effort necessary to help their own people. 

I’m a strong believer in the strength of free nations and markets, democracy and open borders for I believe it fosters economic growth and prosperity for all people.  Nations who show the way to others in terms of freedom and liberty offer people hope, and a chance to work out of poverty.  No nation or people are immune to the suffering and hardship that exists around the world, but on balance, I believe those nations that help people and businesses grow are better off.  The nation itself is then better off and more prepared to deal with the challenges that life may bring. 

Perhaps in some way while the international community helps Myanmar with relief and assistance for their people, the leadership will begin to move toward a more open nation and future.

Look what I found today! Tom Hanks is helping lead a wonderful charity auction for the Freeplay Foundation by selling Freeplay radios on eBay. The Freeplay foundation itself is a fantastic charity organization dedicated to helping people around the world gain access to information and education through sustainable technologies. This charity auction is a wonderful cause to sell these special solar and mechanical powered radios… well, how instead of me writing, how about listening to Tom Hanks describe it!

Here’s a link to the auction listings that are running from January 22nd to February 1st:

     You never know who’s going to raise a lot of money for charity these days.  In a strange, roundabout manner, Rush Limbaugh has raised $2.1 million dollars, and will kick in $2.1 dollars of his own money for a U.S. Marine Corps foundation that provides scholarships to children of Marine or federal law enforcement personnel whose parents were killed while serving their country.  This is the single largest amount of money ever raised on eBay by selling something for charity! The way he raised this money is kind of amazing.  During a radio talk show segment, he was criticizing a fake soldier by the name of Jesse Macbeth.  Someone who was arrested for faking his service in the U.S. military and trying to be the face of the anti-war movement.  Limbaugh called these wackos “phony soldiers” and was soon criticized extensively by the Democratic party.  At one point 41 Democratic Congress members and Senators signed a letter to Clear Channel Communications, Limbaugh’s radio network, demanding some form of apology- and blaming him for criticizing U.S. soldiers in general?  Which was incorrect and a strange tactic to take singling out an individual in society.  So what did Limbaugh do?  The actual letter and signatures of real people such as Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama was given to him after which he put it up for sale on eBay!  And that’s where he raised $2.1 million dollars, with all profits going to charity, along with his own matching contribution.   Personally, I’m glad to see a little politics result in some real charitable work for a change! 

     I love stories about people who give of themselves, their time and their money… especially when they don’t ask for anything in return.  Maybe it is inspirational to see people do things sincerely to help others, and when someone is in a very powerful position, yet gives from the heart with little regard for self-gain, it makes us very proud, and humble to see such kindness.   The story of The Secret Billionaire Giveaway is about one of those people, and his name is Chuck Feeney.  He built a company, made billions and pretty much gave it all away.  Well, he’s still giving it away.  And he did most of that quietly over time without much publicity.  After it did become public, he realized the story might inspire other people to give to charity as well.  I think he’s right… and I am very inspired.  Thanks Chuck- and best wishes!