Companies can make a significant contribution to the resilience of communities, and they need not do so only for philanthropic or regulatory reasons. At times, it makes good business sense.
Giving away big sums of money is supposed to make the world a better place. So, why are so many deep-pocketed donors getting themselves and the causes they support in trouble?
Institutions that benefited from donations from benefactors such as Epstein are facing hard questions. In a somewhat similar ethical debate in 1905, a pastor argued for return of a Rockefeller gift.
Their initial grants do not insist upon filing reports that might indicate what works best. And without more affordable housing, the problem is sure to continue.
For International Day of Charity on Sept. 5, a history of how the Christian Herald mobilized Americans in the late 19th century to give millions for the relief of global suffering.
Billionaire Robert F. Smith made a big splash when he told Morehouse grads he would pay off their student debt. Yet his generosity adheres to a long African American tradition.
A recent gift by billionaire Robert Smith to pay off the student loans of 2019 graduates of Morehouse points to the potential of America’s black elite to pay off all black students’ college loans.
Although far fewer Americans took the charitable deduction on their tax returns, giving stayed fairly steady, according to the annual Giving USA report.
Melbourne and Sydney are members of 100 Resilient CIties, which the Rockefeller Foundation has said it will no longer fund. So what has the global network achieved? And what can we learn from this?
Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies and Donald A. Campbell Chair in Fundraising Leadership, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University
Professor of Economics and Philanthropic Studies; Associate Dean for Research and International Programs, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University