No mirror bright
begging transparency delight will help me see
the percent that goes to thee justifiably. ErnestO

Transparency in donation reporting may help. Sadly, it’s hard to build a relationship with a donor if the charity has to spout facts and declare all decimal points of previous spending.

Should donors only give money to local organizations where they can see the effects? Consider it an investment for their own community, creating an endowment of sorts to make the greatest impact in their own neighborhoods. At least the donor would be able to keep closer tabs on their investment and see the cause and effect relationship take hold.

GREAT question! I’d like to change it just a bit … “of whom are we afraid?”

I’m afraid of the people in charge … the ones REALLY in charge (at least in theory and law), the volunteer Boards of Directors.

It doesn’t take a terrorist to crash a plane. It can happen as the result of amateur pilots flying jumbo-jets, the same amateur pilots trusting auto-pilot, quasi-trained flight controllers (who only show up when there is no conflict with a personal engagement), or so many pilots on board that each is convinced there is someone else flying the plane.

Volunteer directors are lovely people, smart people, rich people, committed people, etc. But they are often uninformed about their role, their power, and — most importantly — their social responsibility, what I refer to as the “ethical imperative” of stewardship.

As long as volunteer boards have no one to whom they MUST answer for their decisions, actions and impact on the community, (however “community” is defined), as long as there are really no fundamental certifications required for election/appointment to a voluntary leadership position, as long as there are no consequences for letting the plane drift or crash, I say, “Be afraid … be VERY afraid.”

Okay, that might be overly dramatic, however, all the universities, think tanks, trade associations, consultants, watchdogs, Sarbanes-Oxley threats, and, yes, even charity mavens such as myself, are whistling into the wind as long as voluntary boards
continue to exercise their crucial roles as they currently do.

After 25 years in this sector, I firmly believe that until the issue of un-accountable voluntary leadership is addressed, the sector will make but tiny advances in changing the world.

In my home community, not a terribly large one, there are over 250 charitable organizations meeting vital, and some not-so-vital, needs. What a force for community impact!

Nearly three thousand volunteer leaders hold the reins (and the pocketbooks) that could change this corner of the world. And I can guarantee that virtually none of them have been touched in their leadership work by the many studies, conferences, books, blogs and blue-ribbon commissions, cooperatives, collaboratives, and white papers that our sector so highly values and respects.

Until that breach is somehow addressed — or until community changemakers move away from a board-meeting mentality — each of us as donors has the burden of assessing whether any given board is comprised of individuals whom we trust as dearly as we do our family’s financial advisory team.

You can call this approach tactical, strategic, philanthropreneurial, or any other nifty term. I call it common sense, smart generosity, and minding the Ps and Qs that matter.

I hesitate to get on a jetliner flown by amateurs and guided by untrained controllers who have nothing to lose. Every donor and funder should hesitate, too.

Jeff, thanks for asking a great question!