Does MacKenzie Scott’s Giving Approach Signal a New Era?

It’s too early to tell whether MacKenzie Scott’s approach to giving will create a sea change in how other ultrawealthy donors give or what they support.

When Scott gave $5.7 billion last year to more than 500 nonprofits, the philanthropy world took notice not only because of the eye-popping sum but because she gave seven- and eight-figure gifts to charities that rarely if ever see donations of that size. She also left it up to the nonprofits’ leaders to decide how to use the money, a practice billionaires from the tech world generally do not embrace.

Some experts say Scott’s giving could finally kill some rich donors’ love affair with “strategic philanthropy,” a style of goals-oriented, closely monitored, metrics- and evidence-based giving modeled on business and management practices that is glorified by ultrarich tech donors. Many wealthy donors flocked to this approach in the 2000s, but since then the trend has attracted criticism for its top-down approach and tendency to ignore frontline charity leaders’ expertise. Those criticisms have led to quiet discussions within the nonprofit world about donor arrogance at a time when income inequality has worsened.

Scholars like Megan Ming Francis say Scott’s style of giving could push other wealthy donors, especially those who want to back social-justice movements, away from that philosophy of giving.

The Ripple Effects of MacKenzie Scott's Philanthropy

Scott donated an eye-popping $5.7 billion in 2020. It’s become clear that the impact of her donations extends well beyond the organizations that received the gifts. Read more:

• MacKenzie Scott’s No-Strings Giving Reverberates Way Beyond the Direct Beneficiaries
• Gifts From MacKenzie Scott Put Overlooked Colleges and Universities in the Spotlight
• Updated: MacKenzie Scott Surprises Scores of Nonprofits With $4.2 Billion
• MacKenzie Scott Showers $1.7 Billion on Nonprofits, Mostly Groups Fighting for Equity

“The influence of strategic philanthropy has been so pervasive, and it’s sucked up so much of the oxygen in the room, and in some ways, it’s limited the imagination of what a lot of funders think is actually possible,” says Francis, an associate professor of political science at the University of Washington who studies the intersection of philanthropy and racial- and social-justice movements. “What is so interesting about Scott’s giving is that it adds oxygen to that room and helps to expand the list of possibilities that are actually on the table.”

Francis says that before Scott gave to a number of smaller, Black-led nonprofits fighting for racial equity, she wondered if it was possible for a big foundation or a very wealthy donor to want to give to such nonprofits. Those groups often lack the staff and back-office operations that a big, established nonprofit, like the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, for example, would have.

“Before she funded, for example, Prairie View [A&M University], I didn’t think that was possible,” Francis says, referring to Scott’s $50 million gift to a historically Black university in Texas. “As somebody who focuses on the Black-freedom movement in philanthropy, I probably would have said that’s like a 3 to zero percent chance.”

Transparency Debate

Scott’s generosity has largely been lauded. The criticisms about her giving mostly revolve around whether Scott has been transparent enough about her philanthropy. Scott’s unwillingness to speak publicly about her giving — beyond what she wrote in two Medium posts in July and December — or provide a way for nonprofits to apply for her support frustrates some nonprofit leaders and philanthropy experts.

Courtesy of Chuck Collins

That lack of transparency and infrastructure has also made it much easier for con artists to impersonate Scott and prey on vulnerable people, according to a report in the New York Times. In response, Scott recently added a note to her Twitter profile that says, No one representing her or her giving will ever ask anyone to pay a fee or submit personal information. She also included a link to a Federal Bureau of Investigations website where people can report scams.

“It’s totally MacKenzie Scott’s right to give in this way,” says Phil Buchanan, president of the Center for Effective Philanthropy. “But for nonprofits who want to be able to make the case that they would be a worthy recipient, there’s not really a way for them to do that.”

Ben Soskis, a historian who has spent his career studying philanthropists, says Scott’s approach to giving and her decision to stay in the background as much as she can has positives and negatives that are worth debating — especially since the scale of her giving is so big and will likely grow.

“On one hand, she’s challenging the role of the donor as understood by a lot of contemporary philanthropy,” he says. “On the other hand, she’s still maintaining this veneer of discretion, which is a form of power, as far as what to expose and not to expose. It’s something that I think the field needs to really think about and probably push Scott on as well.”

When Scott signed the Giving Pledge in 2019, she wrote in her pledge letter that she intends to keep giving “until the safe is empty.” So it’s possible that as she gives more, she could become more comfortable talking about her giving. Chuck Collins,
a former wealthy heir who gave his inheritance to charity in 1986 and today leads the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, says the nonprofit world should exercise some patience with Scott’s reluctance to step into the limelight since these are her first public forays into big philanthropy.

“I’d be surprised if at some point she didn’t talk more publicly, but it doesn’t have to be in her first year,” Collins says. “If five years from now she’s still the J.D. Salinger of giving, then maybe we will want to know a little more. Then it becomes a case of she’s becoming a spectacle by her silence.”

For all the debate, what matters most right now, philanthropy experts say, is that Scott is giving large, unrestricted sums to organizations that are often overlooked and serve people who have been marginalized. The big question is what could spur other wealthy people to follow her example.

“I hope her radically high level of giving inspires others who cannot possibly use the resources that they’ve accumulated to do the same and to do so in ways that really prioritize communities and people who have been systematically disadvantaged in this country,” Buchanan says. “That would be huge — and that’s much more important in terms of its effects than whether she should have said more.”