comments_image -

With Success Comes Responsibility

As a foundation's wealth grows, the people they are aiming to serve suffer the consequences. Two philanthropic leaders confront this contradiction.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Last year the endowment of the Marguerite Casey Foundation grew by $121 million, thanks to the start of a market rebound. At the same time, the number of American families living in poverty increased by more than 400,000.

Sadly, these two statistics are not unrelated.

It is nearly impossible to get a grip on how many bags of groceries or heating bills $121 million might buy, or to envision 400,000 new households (more than the entire population of Miami or St. Louis) joining the ranks of the nation's poor all at once. Like so many statistics, numbers this large can seem abstract, incomprehensible, far removed from our day-to-day lives.

But the truth of the matter is they couldn't be more real.

The Marguerite Casey Foundation has been blessed with a sizable endowment (worth more than $600 million as of this writing), and like other foundations, we manage these assets as carefully as possible, trying to maximize the return on our investments. As the stock market grows, so too does our pool of available grant dollars, which we devote to efforts to help low-income families and communities.

But what is the true cost of this type of financial gain? The foundation's bottom-line growth is plain to see year after year. But what successes can low-income families, the very people our foundation seeks to support, claim? And how is it that our investments can be performing so well, while millions of working families in this country are falling further and further behind?

Such questions, uncomfortable as they are, deserve more debate and discussion than they usually receive within the philanthropic world.

Our foundation has struggled with this irony since its inception, at both the staff and board levels. We are emboldened when the market performs well, yet we know these profits come with very real human consequences. Publicly traded corporations in which we have invested streamline here and downsize there, maximizing for efficiencies one day, merging and acquiring the next. And with each transaction applauded by Wall Street, the lives of hundreds or thousands of working families can be irrevocably changed for the worse.

Recent trends bear this out. While the stock market has slowly inched its way back up from the bursting of the bubble, low-income families and the working poor have seen few, if any, meaningful gains of their own. Among the key trends:

  • Job losses and slower wage growth resulted in a decline in median family income of nearly $1,500 over the past two years;
  • More than 43 million Americans (15 percent of the population) did not have health insurance in 2002, and the amount of premiums that insured employees pay for family coverage has increased about 50 percent over the past three years;
  • Since 1997, the number of hours worked by dual-earner and single-earner couples has increased an average of 12 hours per week. Americans work longer hours than people in any other developed country, including Japan, and have less time to spend with their families as a result;
  • Over the past decade the average amount of credit-card debt for low-income families has risen by 184 percent.

These pressures are worsening by the day. Single-earner families are less likely to stay above the poverty line than ever before. Unemployment continues to rise. And we have no method to accurately count the number of unemployed workers who have given up their job hunts altogether.

Yet unlike the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange -- whose tickers, technologies, and trend watchers let us measure second-by-second ebbs and flows from the comfort of our laptops -- we have no such national index for family well-being, no scientific metrics to assess the human costs of buying low or selling high.

We watch nightly as the evening news reports on what the Dow Jones industrial average did that day. But when was the last time your favorite news anchor reported on how many single parents took on a second or third minimum-wage job just to cover the mounting interest fees owed to their neighborhood check-cashing outlet?

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Republican NLRB Member Accused of Leaks to Romney Campaign Resigns

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos Labor

 
 
Record 45% of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Have Filed for Disability

By Muriel Kane | Raw Story

 
 
President Obama's Memorial Day Address: "Honoring Those Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
"Tubes": What the Internet is Made Of

By Laura Miller | Salon

 
 
Students at Stuyvesant Take Issue With Sexist Dress Code

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Chris Hayes on Memorial Day: Glamorizing and Justifying War with the Term "Hero"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
Cory Booker vs. Philly Mayor Michael Nutter on Mitt Romney

By BooMan | Booman Tribune

 
 
How Florida Governor Rick Scott Could Steal The Election For Mitt Romney

By Judd Legum | ThinkProgress

 
 
Renowned Economist Simon Johnson Calls for a National Safety Board for Finance Ticking Time Bomb

By Lynn Parramore | AlterNet

 
 
Veterans' Gap

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]