[The following is a supplement to Week 4 in my Bay Path College NMP621 class: Introduction to Philanthropy and Fundraising Fundamentals]
The issue of Public and Private Value is important to Peter Frumkin, as we learned in his early work while at Harvard. However, many students have expressed a lot of confusion over what Frumkin is referring to when he writes about these two types of values. Using a 2006 text, I hope to clear up some confusion on this issue.
In Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy (2006), Frumkin expands on his early work and spends a great deal of time discussing the issue of private value and public need:
"All philanthropic activity involves a choice about how to join public needs with private commitments that is both beneficial for the organization and satisfying for the giver." (Frumkin 148) So the goal, then, for the fundraiser or advisor, is to present to the individual an unmet need that, once met, is most likely to give the donor the most satisfaction. Why is satisfaction so important to the donor? Well, according to Frumkin, without a high level of personal satisfaction, the donor loses interest or burns out.
Simple, right? Not so fast.
Rarely do donors have a clear understanding of their own "private value". Who among us, if pressed, could easily define the needs most worthy of our philanthropy? Could you write a mission statement for your philanthropy? Frumkin suggests that helping a donor articulate his/her personal values is an incredibly important first step. Without a clear sense of personal mission, the choices of who to give to can be overwhelming. Sometimes donors need some experience giving money away before they settle on the one or two issues that are most important to them. (Frumkin 148)
How 'public need' is defined, and by whom, is equally important. Is it the donor who defines what the community needs, or is it the government, the advisor, or the community itself? Each one of these groups might use positivistic (measureable) or normative (moral) measures (or a combination). If the community defines the need (which is most common), we tend to see a lot of competing concerns and political pressure, which can be distracting for the giver. If the need is defined privately, by the donor, research can be burdensome which causes the donor to rely on normative measures. So what's the answer?
According to Frumkin, the wisest choice is a hybrid that "pursues a compromise position that combines both the expressed desires of the local community and [the donor's] own convictions, balancing, at the same time, the latest research and science with the most powerful and compelling moral arguments made on behalf of others." (152). Here is an illustration I made to represent the hybrid and the effect of the hybrid:
So what does this mean for you and me?
It means, in short, that we need to understand how the donor is, or is not, defining need. Once defined, we can then help the donor create a system to measure the effectiveness of the gift and then report back on its success (or failure). Assuming for the moment that the gift had a positive effect, we can then safely assume that the donor will achieve a high level of personal satisfaction which will create future opportunities for additional gifts.
Let's continue the conversation in class.
Frumkin, Peter. Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2006
