Some Philanthropists Turn Their Backs on Voluntarism; K. Dennis

Now imagine yourself a poor, single, twenty-year-old pregnant woman in New York today. Where would you go for assis tance? Chances are you would head to the Ms. Dennis is executive director of The Philan thropy Roundtable, a national association of grantmakers based in Indianapolis. nearest government office to apply for AFDC, Medicaid, and food stamps. What is·behind this shift from voluntary helping institutions to government welfare? The development seems especially ironic ina city like New York where grantmaking foundations, which were virtually nonexist ent 100 years ago, now number around 3,700. One would think the proliferation of foundations would have brought with it the growth and reinforcement of private non profit organizations devoted to the public welfare. Sadly, the reverse has happened. Philan thropists have been one of the main pro moters of the government welfare system.

Their foundations, most of which were made possible by entrepreneurs who accu mulated fortunes without the help of-or even in spite ofgovernment, have been more interested in expanding government's responsibilities than in strengthening pri vate institutions to address social concerns. When private foundations have the ability to develop innovative solutions on their own, why do so many look to governmenta slow, bureaucratic machine-to accomplish their objectives? Perhaps the main reason is that foundation officialshave been attracted by the seemingly vast resources of govern ment. There is a strong tendency for foun dations to try to "leverage" their dollars to influence how government allocates its funds. Many foundations fund pilot demon565 566 THE FREEMAN • OCTOBER 1994 stration projects with the idea that the suc cessful ones will be picked up by govern ment and replicated on a much larger scale.

This is how the Head Start program began. Making Big Brother Bigger Such use of foundation dollars to influ ence and expand the scope of government is apparent on many policy issues. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, for example, made itself a major player in the national debate over health care reform by sponsor ing a series of public hearings in which Hillary Clinton discussed health care issues. And in December 1993, Walter Annenberg announced an unprecedented $500 million grant to support school reform, stipulating that the funds would be used "to show the public what needs to be done" to improve public education. The grant was announced by President Clinton at a highly publicized White House ceremony. There was no men tion of supporting the many private schools that are succeeding where public ones are failing. A perusal of the grants list in any issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy reveals nu merous examples of efforts by foundations to shape and enlarge government's respon sibilities: $300,000to endow a professorship to help advance equality for women in civil and economic rights; $25,000to help neigh borhood groups advocate equitable uses of New York City tax dollars; $125,000 to develop and disseminate national guidelines for sex education of children and adoles cents.

Some foundations have taken their efforts to influence government policy a step fur ther by making grants to governments them selves! The Chronicle of Philanthropy re ports, for example, on a $30,000grant to a city in Ohio to train and educate its workers, and a $450,000 contribution to a city in Minnesota to expand housing opportunities and increase tourism revenue through the development of an 18-hole golf course. By fostering greater government involvement in providing for the common good, the philanthropic sector in this country has unwittingly undermined private voluntary institutions. Where government's growth hasn't usurped voluntary institutions, it has rendered them dependent. According to one estimate, nonprofits now derive some 60 percent of their revenue from government subsidies, grants, and contracts. Libraries that were once supported by private dona tions are now government-funded; hospital services once made possible through charity are now paid for by government; schools that used to be run by religious institutions are now sustained through government grants and scholarships; and arts institu tions built on private patronage now depend on government assistance.

Whilefoundations may think they accom plish more by making use of government monies, in fact they only compromise the long-term vitality of the voluntary sector. What begins as leverage ends up as bond age. The control shows up in onerous re porting requirements for nonprofit institu tions, in organizations that tailor their missions to accommodate government fund ing priorities, and in growing congressional demands for greater regulation of non profits. Now-perhaps the ultimate irony-gov ernments are launching efforts to revive voluntary initiative. Having smothered it, they are trying to bring it back to life. In school districts around the country, stu dents are being required to perform com munity service as a condition of graduation. At the federal level, President Clinton has launched a national service program that makes financial and educational assistance available to those who' 'volunteer" at cer tain nonprofits. But voluntarism can't be bribed or enforced; the whole idea is self contradictory. Government can't resurrect what, by its very nature, it undermines.

Foundations could make a difference, ifonly they'd stop funding the government's ex propriation of the voluntary sector's responsibilities. D THEFREEMAN IDEASON LIBERTY Zsa Zsa and the LitigationExplosion by Ralph R. Reiland T his .time it's big trouble for Zsa Zsa Gabor, worse than when she slapped the Hollywood cop and was sentenced to work at the women's shelter. Now, for a verbal faux pas, a California jury says she must fork over a big slice of what she's earned since World War I in all those movies and marriages. For telling a German maga zine that fellow actress Elke Sommer is a Hollywood has-been who loafs in sleazy bars and makes hand-knit sweaters to sup port herself, Ms. Gabor owes $3.3 million. In less litigious times, before the tort explosion, we could have expected a volley back from Ms. BIke about ancient Hungar ian windbags, and that would've been it. No government involvement, no trial, no houses confiscated, and no gravy train for the lawyers. Not a cent was transferred from W. C. Fields when he called Charlie Chaplin a "--- of a ----- ballet dancer. "