Calling it “A Capitalist Jolt for Charity,” the New York Times breathlessly told the story on the front page of its Sunday Business section of a pair of married philanthropists who took the nonprofit they were supporting and transformed it into a for-profit venture because, shock of shocks, what they were funding was costing them money. After pouring $10 million into In2Books, “a philanthropy that used books and online tools to enhance skills of inner-city students,” Miles Gilburne and Nina Zolt watched their “costly venture [grow] only gradually, classroom by classroom,” which compelled them to solicit angel investors for funding to purchase a for-profit company “to expand on the original mission and support the foundation.”
Today, the once-struggling venture has morphed into a primarily for-profit enterprise. And the striking transformation of In2Books is emblematic of a larger trend: charities are changing their spots and making use of some of capitalism’s virtues.
The process is being pushed forward by a new breed of social entrepreneurs who are administering increasing doses of bottom-line thinking to traditional philanthropy in order to make charity more effective.
Oh, please.
Mr. Gilburne is a former AOL executive, so he’s used to watching large sums of money disappear online. And Ms. Zolt is a former lawyer, so she’s used to believing that a J.D. automatically confers upon her unlimited knowledge and expertise in every field imaginable.
Look, nonprofits were “making use of some of capitalism’s virtues,” whatever the hell that means, well before Mr. Gilburne and Ms. Zolt realized they were in over their heads. And the story’s mighty strain to discern a trend — “Various versions of efforts like this are appearing across the philanthropic landscape as business-minded donors … have treated their charitable contributions more like venture capital investments” — is simply old news. I’d argue that most foundations, not simply those founded, funded, and run by former entrepreneurs who want to feel less guilty about their wealth, have sought “programs that can be catalysts for broad changes in fields like health, education and the environment, … measure[d] performance and results, and … encourage[d] nonprofits to become more self-sustaining” for a long time.
I don’t disagree that nonprofits can learn much from their for-profit brethren. But, please, spare us the white-knight rhetoric. It just ain’t so. | 501(c)
Tags: ePals, In2Books, Miles Gilburne, Nina ZoltShare This
