Is Social Impact a Mathematic Problem?

As far as I am concerned, the suggestions in Catalytic Philanthropy, written by Mark Kramer, are that donors should start their own “nonprofit programs” based on specific social problems in order to make more direct, effective and substantial changes. Kramer proved his point of view with many examples, most of which goes with convincing data, especially the case of Thomas Siebel, who made effort to combat meth abuse. It seems that catalytic philanthropies are more effective based on the obvious changes they made (such as the sharp decrease in meth use in Montana).

I rarely disagree with the reading materials, however, I would put a question mark on this point of view. This semester, I am increasingly surprised about how result-oriented nonprofits can be. Finally, Kramer article makes me to reconsider this perspective: Are we going too far in evaluating results? While it is true that specific problems, such as meth abuse, might be better solved by catalytic philanthropies, because they have more passion and clear targets, and evidences clearly show how effective catalytic philanthropies can be, I don’t think it is plausible to say that “most philanthropists have achieved modest and often indiscernible results”. For one thing, many nonprofit organizations and traditional philanthropies are dedicated to make social impacts that are hard to measure, or the problems they supposed to solve are much more complicated than a specific one. For example, how should we collect data to show whether Grand Street Settlement, a nonprofit organization in New York City which dedicated to “expand opportunities for low-income families and individuals by providing culturally relevant services that support community-building, advocacy, self-determination and an enriched quality of life”, have made effective social changes? If we find little improvement in satisfactory of low-income families, can we conclude that the organization is not effective? Success of several catalytic philanthropies cannot deny the effectiveness of traditional philanthropies. For another, not all donors have the time and energy to arrange a campaign or run a program as Thomas Siebel did. For example, can we expect successful businessmen, who have large amount of money to donate and are willing to make social changes, to make strategic plans, seek partners, evaluate results and handle all the problems that might exist during the process of carrying out catalytic philanthropies?

I respect the changes that catalytic philanthropies made and I do believe donors should be encouraged to make changes by themselves, but I think nonprofit organizations and traditional philanthropies will remain the main stream and the biggest strength of making social impact.