In this generation, when business rules the day, it’s refreshing to witness the (re)emergence of fundamental philanthropy.

What is fundamental philanthropy?

Simply put, philanthropy is any altruistic activity performed for the purpose of creating good or improving the quality of life. Fundamental philanthropy is then described as ‘basic’ or ‘natural’ philanthropy. This type of philanthropy involves using our own ‘natural’ resources, such as talents, knowledge and opportunities to perform an altruistic act.

Fundamental philanthropy or intentional acts of kindness has become one of today’s hottest topics. Voluntary association, voluntary giving, and voluntary actions – are gaining so much attention and awareness in our culture. National magazines and local newspapers have recently made celebrities out of ordinary citizens committed to extraordinary acts of grace using nothing more than their innate abilities.

Even Hollywood is in on the movement, with the biggest and brightest stars temporarily putting away their wallets and tapping into the greatest fundraising influence possible – their famous names and faces – to shine light on important causes. Fundamental philanthropy, it seems has become more mainstream in recent years than ever before. The goal in life seems to be changing. An elemental emphasis on “philanthropy” has recently shifted to a popular focus of “social responsibility”. And the truth is, even though we may not be rich, famous celebrities, we all have something powerful that must be given to society!

Why is fundamental philanthropy so important?

Brendan Behan once said, “I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society, except that which makes the road safer, the beer stronger, the old men and women warmer in the winter, and happier in the summer.” A jolly good declaration, and one that clearly depicts the essence of that which makes charity a way of life instead of a duty.

Philanthropy, by tradition, is rich, old people donating loads of money to their pet causes. A bourgeois obligation. People like Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and JD Rockefeller…they were serious philanthropists. For most of society, the assumption is that “if I’m not rich, I can’t be a philanthropist”. Simply not so. Philanthropy does not have anything to do with money. Not a single cent is required. You can put your checkbook away forever and still be a well-seasoned philanthropist.

A wise person once said, “All the money in the world doesn’t help if there isn’t anyone to do the work. The most plentiful crops will rot if there is no one to harvest the fields”. Those donations of compassion and cooperation are just as important as money because both parties are fundamental to getting the work done.

Although, it’s essential for each us to contribute, when we can, funds to further the efforts and operations of our preferred charities, it is not the only way to be charitable! It’s high time for society to get back to basics and start discovering the greatest gifts we have to offer such as our:

Skills.   Are you an experienced carpenter? Why not join a Habitat for Humanity project in your area?

Talents.  Got a green-thumb? Try extending your love of horticulture to your community with a ‘Sew a Second Row’ group!

Hobbies.   Do you love to knit? Get your Friday night knitting club to start making warming crochet caps for kids with cancer.

Knowledge.   Knowledge is power. If you know of a way to help others, offer that wisdom to individuals, groups, communities and nations.

Status.   If you’re in a position of power or influence, use it! Put your prominence to good by raising awareness to the pressing issues in our world.

The earth is ripe for change.  Fundamental philanthropy is essential to positive change. Tapping into our innate gifts is a powerful way to combine our “natural resources” with our desire to increase the well-being of society. The great news is we all have something to contribute!

Does it seem like we see pink ribbons everywhere these days?  I think by now the pink ribbon’s symbology is very familiar to most Americans, and people support fundraising efforts for breast cancer awareness and research.

But how much is too much?  In other words, when does the ubiquitous nature of pink ribbons and focusing on breast cancer begin to take away from other charitable needs, research and awareness?  That’s precisely the question that a recent MSNBC article has investigated, revealing some startling statistics in The Politics Behind the Pink Ribbon.

“Some advocates for research into other diseases, and some scientists, worry the breast cancer movement is hogging the spotlight — and the money — at the expense of other worthy causes.”

“In the world of cancer charities and government funding, breast cancer is queen. The top four breast cancer charities take in a combined annual revenue of roughly $256 million according to their tax returns. The largest breast cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, had a total revenue of $161,974,711 for the year ending March 31, 2007 according to its tax return.”

“The National Cancer Institute (NCI) devoted $572.4 million researching breast cancer in 2007. Other National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for breast cancer boosted the total spent on the disease to $705 million. Plus, the Department of Defense operates its own breast cancer research outfit at a cost of another $138 million in fiscal 2008.”

Let’s see… that’s over $840 million on breast cancer research in 2007…

“By way of comparison, in 2007 the NCI spent $226.9 million studying lung cancer, the leading cancer killer in the U.S., and $73.3 million studying pancreatic cancer, which kills nearly as many patients as breast cancer, usually within a year of diagnosis. Cardiovascular disease, the biggest killer of both men and women, received $381 million.”

The article goes on to show how lobbying efforts provide rich rewards to research groups where “disease advocacy” is important to bring in funding.  But why does breast cancer research funding reach such greater levels of awareness and engagement?   Suprisingly they state it’s because breast cancer victims live a lot longer than other cancer victims.

“Breast cancer organizations have another advantage: many breast cancer patients live to become an army of walking, letter-writing, TV-appearing advocates. Nearly 90 percent of women with breast cancer survive the disease at least five years.
On the other hand, “pancreatic cancer patients are dead,” points out Barron Lerner, professor of medicine and public health at Columbia University, author of a book called “The Breast Cancer Wars.”

It does leave one wondering why there isn’t more balance across America for these needs.  And no one dare questions the feminist aspect of that matter either.  But are prostate cancer needs any less?  Pancreatic, lung, or colon cancer?   It might seem that many cancer diseases are simply not as fashionable.  People don’t want to talk about colon cancer or prostate cancer as readily.  And what about lymphoma or the various childhood cancers and diseases?  Let’s face it, in a world where “what we look like” reigns supreme, breast cancer awareness is going to have the largest share of media attention.  But perhaps the focus has reached a point where many people have begun to question this attention.

“The saturation of breast cancer awareness has left even some survivors dismayed. Writer, social critic, and former breast cancer patient Barbara Ehrenreich has called the movement “an outbreak of mass delusion,” and “a cult.” 

The products — teddy bears, pink-ribbon brooches, and so forth — serve as amulets and talismans, comforting the sufferer and providing visible evidence of faith,” she has written.

That sounds a bit strong if you ask me.  But how can any other cancer disease advocacy group compete with that?  Some say it doesn’t matter, and that any gains in breast cancer research are bound to help other cancer research efforts.  Hopefully that is true.  Yet maybe in a world where curing cancer is the primary goal, regardless of the type, we will focus more on all the needs rather than just one, bright pink ribbon.  

Will charities and non-profit organizations have trouble raising money this year because of the financial crisis?  And if the U.S. falls into a lengthy recession, will that affect next year’s ability to operate non-profit businesses?

Those are questions that NPR recently examined, interviewing many non-profit and corporate represetatives to try and understand how the nation’s economic climate impacts non-profit operating budgets.   If you run a charity or non-profit organization, then you depend on the philanthropy and gift-giving of both individuals and corporations.  In challenging economic times, it’s not surprising that financial donations are reduced.

From an individual perspective, it makes sense.  If you’re struggling with a budget at home, cutting back means a little bit everywhere.  I certainly applaud those who try very hard to keep giving to charity even while they’re struggling financially at home.  One of the keystones to philanthropy in America however is that the greatest amount of financial assistance usually comes from the wealthy and bigger corporations in local communities. 

One example: Washington Mutual Bank, that was taken over by the FDIC and sold to J.P. Morgan used to give over $50 million dollars each year to the local community in the Seattle area to help with homelessness, kids and community outreach.  Will J.P. Morgan continue to provide such enormous charitable donations?  They’re closing over 400 branches and are sure to conduct extensive layoffs.  More importantly, they have little allegiance to the west coast since they’re an east coast bank, formerly the giant investment institution.  It is doubtful that they will consider a similar degree of philanthrophy which is a shame. 

I have another concern.  In recent years, opponents to “globalization” have taken a politically charged viewpoint that large corporations are the enemy, or institutions to be feared.  They have been blamed for everything from global warming, to poverty and to making slaves out of their employees.  And there may be aspects of truth depending upon what part of the world those corporations have operations or factories in.  But demonizing the corporation devalues the positive aspects of what that corporation brings to society, and in my view makes it less likely to achieve necessary reforms.

Many communities are also now realizing is that these large corporation not only are the largest donors from a philanthropic perspective, but that the jobs and services they support have immense value for that community and the state or region in which they are based.  When a company like Washington Mutual goes bankrupt or is sold to another company, all of those relationships change.  And the communities may later suffer without the jobs, services and charitable outreach that once existed.

I believe one of the basic strengths of capitalism begetting jobs growth is the support it provides to people and communities in a myriad of positive ways.  Rather than finding out the hard way how important these corporations are to a local region, we must find a way to balance corporate profits and community conscience.  They are not as bad as anyone might make them out to be, nor are they perfect citizens. But business and corporate development are necessary essentials to growth, and as we are realizing more than ever before, they are essential to a vast array of charitable community services and outreach support.  Let’s work with businesses in our local communities to improve relationships and philanthropic goals, and work with state and local government in order to foster strong business growth. 

Something we must not forget is that in times of great financial challenge it is those at the margin of economic struggle that suffer the most.  Those living in poverty and near the margins of poverty such as the elderly and children are challenged greatly in the best of times, and we must remember to support those organizations and community structures.

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.”

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.

Sometimes it’s hard to decide where to give money or volunteer our time. Really there are so many people and organizations in need that any little bit helps no matter what or where you decide to give. I was talking with someone about this recently and we remarked on how some charities receive a lot of attention and support because people are attracted to their cause. The Humane Society for example. Who doesn’t want to help animals, right? But there are many other charities and causes out there that are not quite so cute or fuzzy, and they still need our help just as much.

But giving money or time is an individual thing, and we are often attracted to helping a charity because we identify with their cause or need. Finding a cure for cancer is something just about everyone desires, and the American Cancer Society is working hard to support the research. One of the more popular charities for supporting cancer research is the National Breast Cancer Foundation. We see countless charity events and publicity about the organization and even a separate non-profit entity supporting the same cause with the Race for a Cure. But even with such wonderful support for these causes, there are other equally dire needs for those afflicted by cancer.

Did you know that there are more dollars going into breast cancer research than for prostate cancer research? A strange comparison to make, but with more men suffering from prostate cancer, some researchers view this as a gender gap in cancer research.

“This year (2007) 218,890 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. By comparison, 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women. Not a huge difference, but a new report finds that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there are seven used to treat breast cancer, and federal spending on breast cancer research outpaces prostate cancer spending by a ratio of nearly two to one.”

If you are interested in supporting prostate cancer research and awareness, you can look at the Prostate Cancer Foundation or the National Prostate Cancer Coalition.

I don’t think anyone is going to start complaining about which charity or research need is getting more money or awareness. When you think about it, awareness and research success for any cancer or other disease is a positive step forward to solving all cancer and related disease issues. Personally I think breast cancer awareness is greater in society because women are probably a lot more involved than men in these issues (and men don’t like to talk about it much).

But there’s more to it than that. What about cervical, or ovarian cancer in women? A good family friend passed away last year because of ovarian cancer. She might have lived if a cancer researcher at any research organization could have found a cure.

It doesn’t really matter what you call it, or how you support it. What is most important is that we find the time, resources and money to support people and organizations that need our help. Personally I try to help people before animals, but that’s just my preference. I love to help animals too. When I’m giving money or financial support, I also want to see if I’m making a good choice.  So I do a little research to make sure the money is being used effectively by the non-profit organization I’m giving to.  There a lots of choices and lots of needs to fill.

We can’t do it all, but we can do something. And there’s always somewhere we can help if we just look around a little.  Giving of ourselves in any way is a good thing.  We may have time, talent or resources that others need.  Does one charity matter more?  No.  How we give, and who we give to, can be a very personal thing.  What’s most important is that we simply give.

Inspiration and change takes many forms. As I write this tonight while watching American Idol’s “Idol Gives Back” special, I am astounded to see how quickly we can really help raise financial resources if we really try. It’s only the first hour of Idol Gives Back and they’ve already raised $18 million dollars! Amazing… If you feel you can help, here is the link to the donation page.

What is the Idol Gives Back Foundation?
The IDOL GIVES BACK FOUNDATION is a new U.S. 501(c)(3) charitable organization, working to help young people living in poverty in the U.S. and around the world. The Foundation is teaming up with American Idol to present the second annual star-studded special, Idol Gives Back.

For more information, click here. To view answers to frequently asked questions, click here.

Where will my money go?
Your money will help change and save the lives of children and their families in the U.S. and around the world.

For more information click here.

There are countless millions around the world, and within the U.S. that need our help. We may not be able to do everything, but we can do something. Anything we contribute will help. I’m inspired by American Idol and hope that those who are watching around the world can find a way to contribute too.

For a show that reaches millions of viewers, it’s just astounding to think of the reach that American Idol has for “doing good.”  The annual show special begins next week and promises to bring millions of dollars to fulfill charitable needs.  Idol Gives Back is a wonderful effort by the show and entertainers, and provides an inspiring example to so many other corporate and media entities. 

For those of us who enjoy watching the show, this is just an extra benefit.  Who’s going to win this year?!   David Cook has my vote!  But for a charitable event, I’m proud the organizers put such effort into a real sense of purpose and giving back.

 Good job American Idol!

When thinking of charitable giving we know there are many ways to “give back” to others.  For some, giving is best accomplished with money, and for others, time.  Philosophically it really doesn’t matter whether we contribute dollars to an organization or contribute our time and personal effort on their behalf.  However when someone needs help, or food, or clothing- there are few substitutes for the real thing.  No amount of opinion, belief or even political thought is going to change the situation of a starving child in the short run.  That child needs food or clothing, now!  Getting money and assistance to the right organization can help target these identified needs.

Over the long run however, charitable giving and philanthropy is a hot-button issue for many people.  Some see “social justice” as being paramount within a society, and leading to a more equal society that is less dependent upon financial giving and the largesse of others.  But it’s really not a simple issue and goes beyond rhetoric into the personal beliefs and values that each of us holds.  Realistically, “the long run” never quite gets here.  We are always faced with children and families in poverty, and others who need our help.  The act of giving something to another human being has been a part of human life since human life began. 

I had been considering how different people “give” to charity when I came across this article by columnist George F. Will.  He recently wrote Bleeding Hearts, but Tight Fists, an interesting article about the contrasts in charitable giving based upon political persuasion.  Nothing is ever so simple perhaps, but he makes a strong case  based on the evidence:  Conservatives tend to give more money to charity than do Liberals.

His article is based on the research conducted by Arthur C. Brooks, a Syracuse University professor who has published a book titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

Among the research findings:

• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

“Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.  The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion.”

Using the comparisons in terms of political orientation does not explain the entire story however, because I think ”charitable giving” goes beyond that.  The explanations are not so easily distilled into “religion versus no religion” either.  

Does the research account for personal time and energy, causes, volunteering, activism, etc?  Not if money was the only thing considered as a basis for the research.   But it does make you stop and consider the impact that money does play with respect to charitable giving and help for the needy.  And for those who have a greater income, why might they tend to give less than someone else?  

I deeply believe in giving to others, and that the act of giving can take many forms.  For those who can and do give financial support, we should all be thankful.  As we continue to face economic challenges here in the U.S. and across the world, charitable needs are only going to increase.  It’s hard to send a bag of food to someone, so in that sense, the need for real dollars to get to the right organization, on behalf of those who need help, is very important. 

What does Philanthopy mean to you?  I always viewed the term as something that only the very rich, or very old would do based on a lifetime of building assets… eventually making a large “bequeath” to some noble cause.  But these days philanthropy is more about redefining life goals for those who have succeeded in other areas of their lives.  Many of these people are younger entrepreneurs and business leaders who have decided to give back by starting or working with charitable organizations.  Perhaps its a trend, or maybe just the nature of how society in many nations has evolved.  Even for those of us who may not have millions of dollars to invest or apply to our charitable goals, there are countless opportunities to apply ourselves to good causes.  Every little bit helps… people helping people and changing the world.  What does it mean to you to “contribute to charity”?  The more I look, the more I see both need and opportunity.  As the world grows closer… perhaps smaller in terms of perspective and communication, we will increasingly have the opportunity to help our neighbors.  I read an historical statistic recently that essentially said that 75% to 80% of the wealth in the world is concentrated in 20% to 25% of the population.  An amazing number if it’s accurate, but it probably is and is based on centuries of human progress.  There will always be those who need help.  I’m not sure I see it as our fundamental obligation, but rather as a moral imperative.  We can always do more!