I saw this headline as well and am totally perplexed by it. Like the traditional methods of philanthropy that involve a shit ton of paperwork, busywork, and justification by the recipients is somehow *more* sustainable? WTaF? - ThreadSky

mmasnick.bsky.social • 63 days ago

I saw this headline as well and am totally perplexed by it. Like the traditional methods of philanthropy that involve a shit ton of paperwork, busywork, and justification by the recipients is somehow *more* sustainable? WTaF?

Reposted from Evan Sutton

Ah yes, I see it's the time of year when the Philanthropy Industrial Complex (Big P for short) seeds negative stories about Mackenzie Scott because everything about the way she gives money undercuts their entire model...
fortune.com/article/mack...

Comments

drjamesjteeth.bsky.social•63 days ago

The sustainability of the endless pledge drives perhaps.

dtwyman.bsky.social•63 days ago

Too often the hoops you have to jump through for the grant take time & energy away from the mission which defeats the purpose of the grant. Grant money can be used to leverage additional grants - funders often look at who else has given you $ to determine not just viability but also sustainability.

djurdjapadejski.bsky.social•63 days ago

ahaha they hate her because she actually gives money directly to people who need it, instead of locking them in those un-taxed funds like DAFs where you say you will give millions and don’t pay taxes on it but you end up giving only thousands.

kiwired.bsky.social•63 days ago

They mean *their* method keeps them employed.

elfprince13.mumak.app•63 days ago

My wife is a program director for a nonprofit (and we started dating when we were running another nonprofit we started together) and I cannot in a million years imagine her or anyone else I know in the nonprofit world complaining about no strings attached cash

bexone.bsky.social•63 days ago

Yeah, it’s not the people *getting* the money complaining, it’s the rest of the people *giving* the money getting big mad that she’s setting a “no actually, I don’t need you to grovel and kiss the ring” example

circlecityslicker.bsky.social•63 days ago

Foundation managers would rather invest the money anyway, and making the process of getting the money more difficult makes it easier to invest more of the Foundation's money. The IRA has very few "jeopardizing investments" that would risk a Foundation's exempt status

judith-ip.bsky.social•63 days ago

Presumably a multi-year commitment is more sustainable in some ways. For example, a non-profit where I'm on the Board has a grant that is going to be giving them some amount of money every year over the next 5 years.

But I suspect everyone complaining didn't actually get the money.

danitinkov.co.uk•63 days ago

The article explains quite well what the headline refers to. This type of “parachute philanthropy” where someone just dumps a lot of money isn’t great for charities because they can’t operate properly this way. What charities need isn’t necessarily large grants but continuous support for projects.

danitinkov.co.uk•63 days ago

The complaint is that a lot of people just dump money to big charities pat themselves on the back and move on while meanwhile smaller far more efficient ones struggle.

mmasnick.bsky.social•63 days ago

I get it. I also think it's nonsense. Having worked with many non-profits, I can't think of any major one (note: Scott only donates to charities that already have over $1 million) that couldn't put that money to good use.

danitinkov.co.uk•63 days ago

I’m left with the impression that the person wanted to talk about people donating consistently over longer periods and used this opportunity to do that. Probably has nothing to do with Scott, but without her in the article no media would talk about it due to lack of sensationalism 🤷‍♀️

eriksherman.bsky.social•63 days ago

Maybe it's long-term stability for their jobs?

kenmuldrew.bsky.social•63 days ago

"Conspicuous Philanthropy" is undermined by those who just give money to worthy causes without demanding recognition.

eiggen.bsky.social•63 days ago

It is difficult to get a person to fix a problem when their job depends on the problem continuing to exist

pocono.bsky.social•63 days ago

It's a planted story. Probably from some billionaires who don't like what she does

nomnomnomdeplumb.bsky.social•63 days ago

Probably makes more sense when we take a step back and realize most of rich philanthropy is just reputation whitewashing mingled with good old fashion tax avoidance and corruption.

darkest-timeline.bsky.social•63 days ago

Yuuup. They want their name on that building, not the actual mission accomplished.

jimj.bsky.social•63 days ago

I think the point here is most "philanthropy" is about making a sustainable way of giving away other people's money while charging a service fee for coordinating it. She just gives away her money, and it undermines that industry.

knight427.bsky.social•63 days ago

It’s almost as if a lot of philanthropy administrators are in the business of maintaining the status quo which creates the need for their help.

4quad.bsky.social•63 days ago

Their salary and perceived class answers that question, imo.

vivekr.bsky.social•63 days ago

Every 501c3 I have advised would wade through five football fields of shit like Andy Dufresne for an audience with Mackenzie Scott and her foundation. Literally for just the check and the associated signal value, fuck the advice (though they’d gladly hear that too I’m sure)

douglassfrisk.bsky.social•63 days ago

Given that every other grant application is like wading through six football fields of shit that sounds delightful.

vivekr.bsky.social•63 days ago

(Federal) grant applications are something an entity like DOGE actually *should* look at!

douglassfrisk.bsky.social•63 days ago

We went after some state money. The requirements were so convoluted, it required us to partner with multiple community colleges and businesses. Our grant writer died halfway through so we dropped it. When the grants were eventually announced they had nothing to do with the stated requirements.

douglassfrisk.bsky.social•63 days ago

The money was specifically for High School robotics. Most ended up buying equipment for a college. Hundreds of hours spent attempting to jump through MN DEED's flaming hoops and in the end, we could have just said "We robots, STEM, give money" and we would have received money.
Not that I'm bitter.

emueller.bsky.social•63 days ago

Cash seems like pretty solid support.

izzos.us•63 days ago

I love the line suggesting it's a bad thing she doesn't want a say in operations and that generally donors want to "lend their expertise..."

What expertise?

sarapod.bsky.social•63 days ago

Oh that fucking sent me. I'm a social worker, career nonprofit staff, and LISTEN. L I S T E N. The stupidest shit I've done in my whole career was because the funders wanted it.

izzos.us•63 days ago

How many of your donors had "expertise" in your actual area of operation?

I'm guessing it's a...small...number

sarapod.bsky.social•63 days ago

Based on their proposed interventions my guess is the number was none

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply