Most organizations should be pro-active, but philanthropists concerned with poverty should deliberately be reactive, learning from the efforts of ordinary folks who tired of looking the other way as their communities fell apart.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We often have an exaggerated sense of what nonprofits and governments are doing to help the poor, but the really inspiring thing is how much the poor are doing to help themselves.
Philanthropy should be voluntary.
I have seen that traditional approaches to charity and aid don't solve problems of poverty. In fact, too often they create dependence.
At CARE, a leading humanitarian organization, we recognize people live their lives in a holistic manner. Issues such as health care, education and economic empowerment cannot be addressed in a vacuum. Thus, effective programs need to tackle the multiple root causes of poverty.
For our welfare reform efforts to be successful, we must empower local charitable organizations with the resources to address their local community needs.
Nonprofits are the intermediaries between generosity and social change.
Most philanthropists want to be effective altruists. But the problem isn't intention: it's measurement. Unlike financial investing, which has reporting standards, audit processes, and educational requirements, social investing is notoriously tricky to evaluate.
Most philanthropists would still rather donate to elite schools, concert halls or religious groups than help the poor or sick.
One of the most crucial kinds of intervention is in advocacy. We can think about charities in the context of delivering services, and indeed that is part of their job, but advocacy is also getting governments to step up to the plate. They can also give more voice to those who don't have one.
Anticipate charity by preventing poverty.