January 4, 2001

Return to charity, rediscover community

During the holidays our thoughts naturally turn to charitable giving. With the spirit of the season still fresh in our hearts, let's take a moment to reflect on our record of philanthropy. Oregonians in particular can be proud of their generosity. According to a study by The Oregon Community Foundation, charitable contributions in this state increased 24% between 1997 and 1998, and are growing at a faster rate than the rest of the nation.

This is good news, but Oregonians and other Americans still have a way to go before private philanthropy can resume its rightful role in our society.

In the last century we've seen a noticeable shift away from private responsibility for the provision of care and increased reliance on public funds. This shift amounts to more than a change in funding mechanisms; it has served to undermine the strength of our communities. To understand why, we need look no further than the definition of philanthropy: literally, "love for mankind." Private charity allows love for mankind to flourish in a way that government simply cannot.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries most Americans took for granted that charity was not a function of government. Churches and fraternal societies provided a social network, within which neighbors pooled resources for regular benefits such as health insurance, and helped one another in times of crisis. These networks, which were especially important to African Americans and immigrants, emphasized self-help and mutual aid in coping with life's hardships.

Private charities offered a further safety net for those in greatest need. One example of the effectiveness of private aid was during the aftermath of the Chicago fire of 1871, which consumed one-third of the city. Mayor Roswell B. Mason had the foresight to limit government involvement in the relief effort, asking the Chicago Relief and Aid Society, the city's largest charity, to direct relief instead.

Citizens from across America and from 29 foreign countries came to the aid of Chicago residents, donating nearly $5 million (in 1871 dollars) in aid.

Part of the reason the Society was so successful in providing relief was that it practiced "scientific charity," what today might be called tough love. The Society used applications and reference checks to identify those who truly needed assistance and screen out anyone who would take advantage of the system. Most importantly, the Society was careful not to foster dependency within the community; rather, it focused on helping individuals become self-sufficient by arranging work for the victims.

Acts of charity were not unique to the Chicago fire. Historically-and as Oregonians have demonstrated-there is a strong record of generosity in America.

Over the past century, however, the level of government assistance has increased substantially. Let's be clear: there is no generosity at play in government welfare. Taxes are taken forcibly; they are not offered voluntarily as a matter of good will. The difference is significant: coercive systems lead to resentment among citizens, whereas voluntarism fosters community. Further, when the government provides social services individuals have less incentive to offer voluntary assistance, and less disposable income with which to do so.

The tough love that is necessary to offer productive charity is not natural to the government-provider system. Unlike the highly successful Chicago Relief Society, government agencies are designed to behave in an impersonal, value-free and uniform manner. Such agencies can provide for the material wants of those in need, but will have minimal success moving individuals out of poverty and toward self-sufficiency.

Oregonians have shown a strong commitment to the well being of their fellow citizens. Now we can take this to the next level by removing government from charity and letting private contributions, benevolence and civil society flourish like it did years ago. When we allow private charitable giving to resume its proper place, we will return to the true meaning of philanthropy.