Many contemporary foundations would want to tell you that, yes, unlike their predecessors, they would. But is that right?
The troubling allure of turning philanthropy into consumer activity
"Philamplify" features not only crowd-sourced reviews but in-depth, expert evaluations as well.
This isn't America's first time seeing an infusion of personal wealth getting poured into research, but the last time around, it was done more democratically.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have made it their mission to export American-style philanthropy—formalized, systematic, and professionalized giving done in the public eye—with mixed results.
Once, it was elite donors who courted the president. Today, it's precisely the reverse.
For the foundations that have pledged millions to resuscitate Detroit, does the funding commit them to a long-term engagement or is it a one-time rescue mission?
An aggressive—even at times an antagonistic—engagement between the public and their benefactors shouldn’t be considered a mark of incivility. It should be considered a democratic imperative.
Catholic University's decision to accept $1 million from the Charles Koch Foundation to support the study of "principled entrepreneurship" is like a modern-day reenactment of 1905's "tainted money affair."
The wealthiest Americans donate 1.3 percent of their income; the poorest, 3.2 percent. What's up with that?
GiveDirectly, the brainchild of four Harvard and MIT graduate students, is so simple, it's genius. Give poor Kenyan families $1,000 -- and let them do whatever they want with it.
The Ford Foundation recently pledged $1.04 million to Los Angeles' struggling daily. We might be looking at the future of newspapers.