Philanthropy Today
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
3 gefällt mir•1,223 views
This document provides an overview of the history and evolution of philanthropy from ancient times to modern initiatives like impact investing, pay for success programs, and a specific example in South Carolina. It traces philanthropy from Greek philosophers and the rise of Christianity to major figures and developments that shaped modern philanthropy like Adam Smith, the Industrial Revolution, the New Deal, cause marketing, and impact investing. The document then focuses on pay for success programs, outlining examples, benefits, challenges, and South Carolina's initiative to use pay for success funding to expand the Nurse Family Partnership program.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (11)
Ähnlich wie Philanthropy Today
Ähnlich wie Philanthropy Today (20)
Mehr von Children’s Trust of South Carolina
Mehr von Children’s Trust of South Carolina (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Philanthropy Today
- 1. Philanthropy Today Joan Hoffman Sue Williams
- 2. Children's Trust of South Carolina 2 Philanthropy Yesterday – Today - Tomorrow Greek Philosophers Renaissance Wealth of Nations Industrial Revolution New Deal Cause Marketing Social Responsibility Impact Investing Pay for Success
- 3. Children's Trust of South Carolina 3 Philanthropy literally means “love of man or humanity.” • Different from charity --which is giving time or money for relief of some hardship: think hurricanes, fires, new building, scholarships • The practice of giving time and money to promote the welfare of others.
- 4. Children's Trust of South Carolina 4 Ancient History • Aristotle – Plato • Rise of the Christian Church • Renaissance
- 5. 1700 – 1800’s Children's Trust of South Carolina 5 Adam Smith Scottish social philosopher writes Wealth of Nations Benjamin Franklin American entrepreneur Herbert Spencer English philosopher and scientist
- 6. Industrial Revolution and the new Philanthropists Children's Trust of South Carolina 6 Andrew Carnegie Henry Ford John D. Rockefeller
- 7. The New Deal Children's Trust of South Carolina 7
- 8. Cause Marketing Children's Trust of South Carolina 8
- 9. Children's Trust of South Carolina 9
- 10. Impact Investing Children's Trust of South Carolina 10
- 11. Children's Trust of South Carolina 11
- 12. Pay for Success Children's Trust of South Carolina 12
- 13. Balancing Impact Advantages Transfer Risks Fund preventive services Overcome silos Scale Up Challenges Need high net benefits Must be measurable Defined population Credible Impact assessments Unsuccessful performance Children's Trust of South Carolina 13
- 14. Pay for Success Transactions Completed Children's Trust of South Carolina 14 1. US – New York City Recidivism Reduction 2. US – Salt Lake City, Utah Early Childhood Education 3. UK – Peterborough Recidivism Reduction 4. UK – West Midlands Workforce Development 5. UK – Manchester Workforce Development 6. UK – London Homelessness 7. Australia – New South Wales Child Maltreatment/Foster Care Prevention Institute for Child Success
- 15. Children's Trust of South Carolina 15 Pay for Success in South Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation Edna McConnell Clark Foundation Laura and John Arnold Foundation The Duke Endowment Children’s Trust of South Carolina SC Department of Health and Human Services JPAL @ M.I.T Nurse Family Partnership – National Service Office First-time, low income, pregnant, women and their children ---------
- 16. Pay for Success South Carolina • Enroll 3,200 pregnant women • Four years • Impact Goals - Preterm births - Healthy birth intervals - Child hospitalization from acute injury (0-2) - Recruit participants from low income zip codes Children's Trust of South Carolina 16
- 17. Children's Trust of South Carolina 17 • Develops a scalable model of NFP • Provide modern evidence on effectiveness • Measure the long-term effects of NFP • Advance the Pay for Success Model Importance of Project
- 18. Children's Trust of South Carolina 18
- 19. Children's Trust of South Carolina 19
- 20. scChildren.org Children's Trust of South Carolina 20
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Throughout history, business and philanthropy seem to have been at cross purposes. Even recently, we heard a lot from the 99% --about the 1% and their lavish lifestyles while others were out of work. Yet, the very people who have done most of the giving throughout history have been people who have made great fortunes in business and have often been accused of ruthless or, worse, unethical business behavior. Today, we’ll review the history of the connection between business and philanthropy through time and a couple of leaders that have influenced modern business and philanthropic thinking. Last, we will also explore some new strategies that have spurred opportunities for the two entities to engage more closely toward common goals.
- So starting thousands of years ago, Aristotle and Plato began the indictment of business by casting a shadow on the need and reason for business to exist beyond society’s subsistence living. Plato believed people had an insatiable appetite toward the pursuit of money. Aristotle believed happiness was the ultimate goal of life, not pursuing wealth for its own sake. Together, their teaching shaped the thoughts of their society toward thinking that being prosperous in business was not only a lesser form of virtue but, in extreme forms, an actual perversion of the soul. Further compounding the case against business, Christianity advocated being prosperous in business was a lesser form of virtue than merely subsistence living. Happiness was the ultimate goal in life Mark 10:25 Blessed are the poor for yours is the kingdom of God. Luke 6:20 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. Like the Good Samaritan, a Christian was obligated to provide help to any person in need. And with the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, the church established itself as the primary channel for assistance to the poor. But fast forward and things begin to change. Travel and trade expanded. During the Renaissance Martin Luther and John Calvin both proclaimed that work was a means of serving God and if a person became rich through his own hard work, then surely God was smiling upon them. And so capitalism --and philanthropy was born. But as traders and business families began to expand their fortunes, there was an expectation that these new wealthy people would give some of their growing fortunes to the poor…and this is where the first notions of philanthropy were born. As so it went for a wile until the plague. It was during the recovery from The Black Death that European countries saw an enormous outpouring of donations and generosity from the wealthy survivors. But this is also where the wealthy began to abandon the idea of giving alms to the poor and began to give in ways that sought to genuinely change lives. They started looking for solutions to social problems, not palliatives: social housing, education, working capital for apprentices to start businesses became their focus. And they also began to establish charitable trusts with enough capital to provide a steady stream of income to spend on good causes in perpetuity.
- A couple of hundred years later, Adam Smith published his famous book called “Wealth of Nations”… Long considered to be the bible of capitalism. His “invisible Hand theory of economics is based on the idea that the individual works for his/her own interest creating an equilibrium of supply and demand. Tthis theory is directly related to his belief that the government should not directly support the poor as it interfere with the natural forces of supply and demand. Therefore, government should be discouraged from getting involved and only worry about protecting it’s citizens from foreign invasion. But people generally ignored this notion and still focused on the church as a means for alleviating the ill of poverty. Benjamin Franklin wrote Poor Richard’s Almanac, a self help book, particularly about how to succeed in business. In this book he supports the idea of industry and being rich is God’s way of smiling on you. He actually met Smith during his travels in Europe and together they supported one another’s writing about the virtues of capitalism. And though it seemed radical at the time, it was gaining momentum…in part because the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take shape and these ideas supported the newly rich. Then along came Herbert Spencer. He supposedly coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” and created a term called Social Darwinism. This principle espouses: The strong, the wealthy, the intelligent, should reproduce themselves and spread their good genetic material to future generations. The weak and stupid – and the poor, because poverty is sufficient evidence of weakness and stupidity? – should be allowed (encouraged?) to die off, so that they can do no further damage in retarding society’s evolutionary progress. In fact, any attempts at interfering, through helping the poor, would only delay the natural progression to a smarter society.
- The Industrial Revolution pushed the oeconomic growth in America toward commerce and away from the Agrarian life of the early years. Several young men became very wealthy during this time and in turn, helped shape not only American business, but also the world of philanthropy. Andrew Carnegie was considered one of the wealthiest men of the 19th century, making his fortune in the steel industry, and personally gave away over $350 million in his lifetime. However, he was considered a ruthless businessman with questionable tactics. On one hand, he proclaimed the rights of laborers but required his steel workers to work long hours for low wages. And further, he didn’t believe in charity or helping the poor. He was a believer in Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” idea of Social Darwinism. Carnegie believed 95 percent of charity was ‘unwisely spent’ and ‘indiscriminate,’ because the givers were too often driven by gratifying their own feelings of avoiding annoyance. This kind of giving only encouraged ‘the slothful, the drunken, and unworthy.’ Carnegie believed that inequality was the unavoidable price of the rapid pace of economic growth that benefitted everyone saying, “It is much better this great irregularity than universal squalor.’ ” Instead, Carnegie believed that big fortunes should be used for grand purposes such as endowing universities and building concert halls. “They should not be wasted on paying higher wages to workers or giving gifts to poor people that would not, in the end, elevate the culture of society.” Henry Ford also ranks among the important figures of the industrial era. He founded the Ford Motor Company, which pioneered assembly-line production, driving down costs and making automobile ownership a staple feature of middle-class American life. By the mid-1920s, his net worth was estimated around $1.2 billion and in his lifetime gave away approximately 33% of his wealth. Ford seemed almost indifferent to money and all it could buy. A dry cleaner once returned a $125,000 check that he had accidentally left in his suit pocket. He once declined a dinner invitation at the White House to honor the King and Queen of England. His wife, he explained, had a previously scheduled meeting of her garden club. His charitable giving was just as idiosyncratic. He distrusted organized charities, although he created a few himself. To Ford’s mind, charitable giving should be “a private and individual act,” one that was “spontaneous on the part of the giver, unanticipated and unsought by the beneficiary, and a gratuitous gesture without any element of calculation.” By contrast, Ford despised virtually all institutional charity. To his mind, it “degrades recipients and drugs their self-respect,” while creating a “feeling of resentment which nearly always overtakes the objects of charity.” He preferred to give money to individual people, face to face and with a firm handshake; barring that, he was willing to fund a cause of his own creation. Rockefeller started from humble beginnings in upstate New York, the son of a very straight-lace Baptist mother and a flamboyant traveling salesman father – who, today, might be called a flimflam man. Rockefeller was somewhat humorless by nature, being much more influenced by his mother. A lifelong adherent of the northern Baptist church, he neither drank nor smoked. He was a natural businessman, making his fortune in oil, with a strong moral sense and intense religious convictions, as well as a very distinguished philanthropist. Within his lifetime, Rockefeller helped launch the field of biomedical research, funding scientific investigations that resulted in vaccines for things like meningitis and yellow fever. He revolutionized medical training in the United States, and built China’s first proper medical school. He championed the cause of public sanitation, creating schools of public health at Johns Hopkins and Harvard, and helped lead major international public health efforts against hookworm, malaria, yellow fever, and other maladies. He vigorously promoted the cause of education nationwide, without distinction of sex, race, or creed. He created the University of Chicago, virtually from scratch, and within a decade turned it into one of the world’s leading universities. Rockefeller had a clear conscience about how he won his fortune. “God gave me the money,” he often said. Believing that, he felt a profound obligation to put the money to good use. By the early 1880s, he was receiving thousands of letters a month asking for help. Rockefeller regularly gathered his family after breakfast to review the merits of the petitions. “Four-fifths of these letters,” Rockefeller noted years later, were “requests of money for personal use, with no other title to consideration than that the writer would be gratified to have it.” In these first years of large-scale philanthropy, Rockefeller favored a few causes close to his heart: He was the single-most generous donor to the northern Baptist conventions, and he underwrote the work of missionaries and relief workers at home and abroad. He took a deep interest in higher education for African Americans. In 1882, he began a series of gifts to the Atlanta Baptist Female Seminary, a struggling school for African-American women. As Rockefeller’s contributions grew, the school took the maiden name of Rockefeller’s wife: Spellman. Similar gifts were soon directed to two other black colleges—the Tuskegee Institute and Morehouse College. In his memoirs, he wrote, “About the year 1890 I was still following the haphazard fashion of giving here and there as appeals presented themselves. I investigated as I could, and worked myself almost to a nervous breakdown.” It marked an important turning point in his career as a philanthropist. Rockefeller made his fortune through shrewd consolidation, careful cost management, and economies of scale. Those instincts were reflected time and again in his charitable giving. Rather than make thousands of small, scattershot contributions, he preferred to make large donations to institutions that he believed had great promise. “The best philanthropy,” he wrote, “is constantly in search of finalities—a search for a cause, an attempt to cure evils at their source.”
- About 100 years later, The Great Depression of the 1930’s changed the landscape of economics and philanthropy. Over the next couple of years, the economy continued to get worse which helped to usher in a new president, Franklin D. Roosevelt. During Roosevelt’s first 100 days in office, his administration passed legislation that aimed to stabilize industrial and agricultural production, create jobs and stimulate recovery. When the Great Depression began, the United States was the only industrialized country in the world without some form of unemployment insurance or social security. In 1935, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which for the first time provided Americans with unemployment, disability and pensions for old age. This marked the creation of the US welfare state and meant that aid for the unemployed should be provided not as a matter of charity from the rich, but as a matter of social duty from the state. Henceforth, philanthropy was to be relegated to an important --but secondary role, mostly in education, research, and the arts. Today, Americans have come to rely on these “New Deal” safety net programs. While they were originally intended to rescue people when they fall on hard times, by giving them a hand up and not a hand out, many of these programs have expanded to include more people for longer periods of time. Consequently, they are viewed by many as “entitlements” for which the public desire to continue funding is waning.
- In the early 1970’s, “cause marketing” was born with a partnership between Marriott and the March of Dimes. Marriott's objective was to generate highly cost-effective public relations and media coverage for the opening of their 200-acre family entertainment center, Great America in Santa Clara, CA. The March of Dimes’ objective was to greatly increase fundraising while motivating the collection of pledges. This cause marketing campaign and partnership raised an unprecedented $2.4 million for the March of Dimes and was the most successful promotion in its history, while also providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity and stimulating a 2.2 million person attendance, a regional theme park record, for the opening year of the Marriott entertainment complex. Cause-related marketing has flourished ever since. Today, companies donate money, products and volunteer hours during company time in return for greater market awareness and brand loyalty. People want to buy things from companies that “do good” and time has demonstrated that people will, in fact, consider a company’s charitable works before purchasing goods.
- Cause marketing is now the norm. Customers want to know that you share their desire to make the world a better place by supporting an important cause. In response, more and more, companies are making an explicit statements about social responsibility in their outreach to the public, and/or they are embedding social responsibility in their products by using organic ingredients, curbing energy and waste, and addressing social ills. The true meaning of corporate social responsibility is that organizations have moral, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities in addition to their responsibilities to earn a fair return for investors and comply with the law. A traditional view of the corporation suggests that its primary, if not sole, responsibility is to its owners, or stockholders. In fact, a number of years ago, a woman sued a corporation from who she owned a lot of stock, because they gave money to a community entity rather than the stockholders…saying it was her money. CSR requires organizations to adopt a broader view of its responsibilities that includes not only stockholders, but many other constituencies as well, including employees, suppliers, customers, the local community, local, state, and federal governments, environmental groups, and other special interest groups. Corporations must and do undertake a range of social initiatives – and must respond to multiple pressures for social action. Many companies now engage in formal or informal dialogue with a range of stakeholders, those entities that can affect, or that are affected by their activities. But understand - They are driven less by an ethical duty to be open than be a desire to avoid disruptions. For the newest generation, known as Millennials, who have been raised with cause marketing since birth, corporate social responsibility is an important factor in their consumer behavior. Studies show they consider that it’s up to them to assume the responsibility of making a lasting, positive impact on the future. Millennials have grown beyond wanting to simply support causes and are starting to demand that others, and especially companies, do their part. A new kind of philanthropy, instead of more charity, may be what is needed to begin to tackle the root causes of poor education, unemployment, teen pregnancy, and affordable housing.
- *Collection and access to outcome data along with 24/7 media coverage *Highlighted the multiple issues such as -poor and hungry - the effects of pollution and global warming - the oppression of women and minorities in the US an abroad - and countless other concerns that pull on the heart strings. *While many social service programs strive to have impact, little can be done impact the underlying causes of these problems, interrelated *Governments lack resources, or long term commitments for prevention approaches. *Politicians debate two questions: What are you going to do and how much money are you going to spend on it? *Too little attention is given to what is most often the most important question: How are you going to do it? *Philanthropist of the new century desire to be more like the for-profit capital markets. They are used to achieving success on a grand scale, to thinking big and going for it. “As the property of the many” is“for the common good to dignify their own lives. Carniege Published today as The Gospel of Wealth, Buffet gave Gates a copy.
- With this new generation of philanthropists comes a vocabulary knitting social goals into their operations: benefit corporations; social entrepreneurism venture philanthropy social impact bonds fourth sector. *Philanthrocapitalism is a term born to describe the very wealthy who want to use their business acumen to “invest” in solving social problems. *Some - hands-off, diversified “social investors” - others as hands-on, engaged “venture philanthropists” *Today’s philanthropists want to use their business expertise to address the problems that plague our society motivated by maximizing the “leverage” of the donor’s money. *See themselves as social investors, not traditional donors. *Charitable giving to social entrepreneurism is difficult. *Social return versus good intentions conflict especially when there is a demand for measurable outcomes *Problem is what is used to ‘quantify’ the performance and the impact of social entrepreneurship. *Some argue most elements of social value stand beyond measurement and quantification.
- *One venture we want to discuss today Social Impact Bonds or Pay for Success. *Social Impact Bonds require 1) cooperation between government agencies, social service providers, impact investors, and intermediaries. 2) positive impact on social and environmental issues and 3) reap positive financial returns. *Rockefeller and Robin Hood; Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch are already involved. *Social Impact Bonds are not actual bonds in the sense of the traditional, fixed-rate securities, but instead are modeled after bonds. *Money invested yields a return on the initial investment plus a fixed, agreed upon amount if outcomes are achieved. *Social sector held to measurable results rather than just paying for programs. *It rewards programs that work, validates progress, and attracts private capital to causes that can take them to scale and achieve greater impact. How they work: A government agency determines specific, measurable outcome they want to achieve for a specific population over a period of time -like reducing recidivism for a certain population of prisoners, or reducing the infant mortality rate in a specific geographic area. The outcome needs to be tied directly to receiving a program or service, result in some measurable cost savings to the agency, and improve the outcome for the individual. The government agency then contracts with an external organization that agrees to deliver the desired outcome, by using their services or program model, with the understanding that the government agency will pay them only if they succeed. Sometimes the external agency will subcontract with a nonprofit service organization to deliver the service or program. The external organization then turns to socially minded philanthropic or private investors to provide the working capital needed to deliver the service or program, which is given to the nonprofit agency if that step was taken. If or when the outcome is achieved and verified by an outside evaluator, the government agency releases the payment to the external agency who then uses the money to repay the investors’ principle, plus an agreed upon return for shouldering the risk. If the outcome is not achieved, the government agency does not pay out – and the investors lose their principle.
- Advantages of Social Impact Bonds? 1. Transfer risk away from government and taxpayers. Failed outcomes = no payment 2. Fund preventive services that will save government money down the road. 3. Overcome the “silo” problem in government where agencies find it difficult to pool resources or direct money toward effective programs. 4. “Scale up” effective interventions from one city or state to other areas of the country. Challenges: Need high net benefits for investors to earn their required rate of return. Lack of impact evaluations and lack of strong research, achieving a sufficient level of success will be difficult. Programs must be evaluated by reliable performance measures. Must be highly correlated with program’s social net benefits. The treatment population must be clearly defined so it cannot be manipulated by the service provider. Avoid creaming. Must be able to measure outcomes but also be able to assess what the outcomes would have been in the absence of the program. Must be able to rely on existing assessments such as randomized control trials and quasi-experimental techniques. All Social impact contracts should include continigency planning for performance and finance failures to that the program is not shut down stranding the service population. Avoid harm.
- *The UK Justice Ministry contracted with a social impact bond-issuing organization, Social Finance, to provide services to prevent reoffending by 3,000 short-sentence male prisoners at a prison in Peterborough, England, over the next six years. *About 60 percent of prisoners released from U.K. prisons of this type reoffend within one year of release *Social Finance, is raising $7.9 million from social investors to finance service delivery by another nonprofit, the St. Giles Trust. *The government will make payments to Social Finance only if the reoffending rate falls by at least 7.5% compared to the recidivism rate in a comparison group of similar prisons. *The greater the reduction in reoffending rates beyond 7.5%, the larger the government payments. Maximum 13% return for reduction in reoffending at 12.5% *Payments will be the fourth, sixth, and eighth years, based on outcomes achieved in working with prisoners during three consecutive two-year periods that comprise the term of the contract. *There’s a four-year lag between the start of the service period and the first potential payment because it takes time to deliver the services, observe and measure recidivism, and then analyze the data to determine the program’s impact. * Estimated that reductions in incarceration costs would more than cover the cost of the services.
- Total Costs $341.2 million *Medicaid $9.2 million *State $8.5 million *Private Funders $17 million *Private Funders pilot $1 million CTSC – Success Fund Administrator NFP – Program Intermediary Social Finance US – Project Manager Harvard Kennedy School SIB Lab – Technical Advisory
- This project offers the opportunity to determine: - whether it is possible to maintain program quality at scale better target the program at the highest need mothers develop a Medicaid-based financing model that might form the basis for much greater expansions of NFP services nationwide than have been possible to date. NFP’s randomized experiments took place 20 to 40 years ago in specific geographic locations, enrolled only a few hundred participants, and were conducted by the program’s founder. *Evaluate long-term impacts of NFP on outcomes such as educational achievement, child maltreatment, and juvenile criminal activity. *First time that Pay for Success has been applied in the U.S. to an early childhood intervention outside of pre-K. *Demonstrating that outcomes that can be measured during the first few years after birth can serve as proxies for benefits later in life. *First time a Medicaid agency has spearheaded a PFS project as a way to inform future Medicaid decisions about which services to cover. *It provides a test of a mixed model in which a portion of services are reimbursed directly by the government and a portion are re-payed only if impacts are achieved.
- Some criticisms are: Turn the social sector into a competitive marketplace? Privatizing important government services? Can we guard against fraud? Can we balance goals of equity, efficiency, and efficacy?”30 Will service providers do things they might not otherwise to influence the payout? What are the for participants if the program is unsuccessful? Could participants have achieved success elsewhere but were coerced into the program by providers looking to meet quota? Governments expertise in negotiating pay-for-performance contracts that require specific sophistication? Is there capacity to deliver social impact bonds across communities? Is there an entity with an arms-length relationship to the government and investors who can assist with raising capital? Additionally, ethical concerns about private investors and big business getting involved in the public sector raise questions. Should corporations be aiming for anything but profitability? Does a company deserve credit if giving maximizes profits or only if it makes the firm willingly makes less profit in order to “do good.”? Do companies have particular capabilities that can be used to solve societal problems that even wealthy individuals or governments cannot? Are companies an integral part of philanthrocapitalism?
- When one considers the ill gains of Bernie Madoff who was known as a philanthropist. Tough questions should be asked about whether the wealth was created legitimately, whether a reasonable amount of taxes have been paid on it, and whether the giving is done in a thoughtful way designed to make a genuine difference. Ethical questions remain such as why should the rich determine society’s priorities? Many people are suspicious of how the rich made their money, and mistrust them accordingly. Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates and most successful business leaders have, at one time or another, been accused of questionable business dealings, exploitation, creating a monopoly or financial market manipulation.
- Clearly, there are many things to consider before we go “all in” on business ventures in the social sector. Current strategies are paving the way for perhaps a new paradigm in expectations for programs from the people they serve and the sources of financing, whether it is government or private. The social problems we face are not getting better on their own or through the government interventions of the last century. And there is not enough private charity or philanthropy to fix the enormity of the issues. We have to find a way to work together, in a combined effort if we are to make a lasting difference. President, Bill Clinton states, “Our interdependent world is too unequal, unstable, and because of climate change, unsustainable. We have to transform it into one of shared responsibilities, shared opportunities, and a sense of community.” In conclusion, this growing interest in corporate influence in philanthropy gives rise to many ethical questions: is the balance between a firm’s duty to its shareholders to make a profit and its responsibility to society to “do good.” We have seen throughout history that the early merchants of the Renaissance, business leaders of the American Industrial boom, and today’s corporations intersecting with the social sector through philanthropy, cause related marketing, and now social investing. While Carnegie and others from the 19th and early 20th century created great impact in business, with their philosophical writings and their philanthropy that literally built iconic American institutions; a new generation of philanthrocapitalists is using their business expertise to not only benefit society, but their own investment returns as well. Unlike the business tycoons of yesteryear, this new group is less interested in building a monument to their success than sincerely using their talents to improve important social issues across the globe such as the eradication of malaria, safe drinking water, waterless toilets, and more.