Visionary Philanthropy: Looking Back to See Ahead

Professor Dorothy Scott, University of South Australia

Philanthropy Australia Conference, October 10 , Melbourne 2005

We are gathered today on the ancestral home of the Wurrundjeri people. Let us honour
the land and its spirits.

Thank you for inviting me to be part of this special conference. I want to talk today about
how we might go from “effective philanthropy” to “visionary philanthropy”, or from
success to significance in philanthropy.

Effective philanthropy is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for visionary

philanthropy. What constitutes effective philanthropy and what is needed, in addition to
this, to constitute visionary philanthropy?

Back in 1984 Pifer proposed the following measures of effectiveness for all philanthropic
foundations.

! Does the foundation make grants that simply relieve other funders such as the
State, of responsibility?

! Does it aid causes/institutions that benefit only a small/elite group with no need of
help?

! Does it make grants for projects so poorly designed as to have no chance of

success?

! Does it actively seek out opportunities to spend funds in imaginative and

constructive ways?
For large foundations, Pifer proposed some additional measures of effectiveness.

! Does the foundation stand publicly for positive values in society?

! Does it try to play a leadership role in some sphere?

! Is it an effective source for social betterment?

! Is it imaginative in the way it uses its resources?

! Is it a centre for the generation of important new ideas?

! Does its value as an institution clearly transcend its value simply as a source of
funds?

In essence these are the criteria for a performance audit of philanthropy. As far as I am
aware, few foundations ask themselves such questions. If we did, how might we feel
about the answers?
In a recent survey of 1192 US foundations, representing only a third of those who were
invited to participate, 57% responded in the negative to the question “Does the
foundation ever formally evaluate the work that it funds?” yet 96% of respondents stated
that their grant quality was good or excellent. The question that arises of course is, “how
might one know?”(Enright, 2005).

“Critical friends” of philanthropy are saying things we need to heed. For example,
Lisbeth Schorr, Director of the Pathways Mapping Initiative of the Project on Effective
Interventions at Harvard University, has reflected in her book Common Purpose:
Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to Rebuild America, on why so many good
projects funded by philanthropic foundations have never been replicated. This is very
sobering for those of us who have been advocating a model of philanthropy based on
sowing the seeds of innovation, so well advanced by the J.W.McConnell Family

2
Foundation in Canada. I too have long argued for a process of “innovation-evaluation-
dissemination and replication” as the most appropriate use of philanthropic resources.
Lisbeth Schorr challenges us.

On the basis of 200 or so interviews with managers, researchers, funders and practitioners
as well as site visits to over 40 successful programs, Schorr concluded that it is the failure
to bring about the reform within the institutions and systems within which programs must
operate, and on which they depend for resources and legitimation, that is the source of the
lack of success of philanthropic efforts.
“Why do models of excellent schools, effective job training, and wonderful early
childhood programs remain only models? Why do interventions that actually change the
odds for their high-risk participants succeed briefly … and fail the moment we try to
sustain them … or expand them? She answers her own question.

“The history of efforts to replicate, sustain, and scale up from effective programs is
dismal. The single most important reason … is the failure to understand that the
environment within which these programs have to operate, and which these programs
depend on for long-term funding, skilled professionals, and public support, is profoundly
out of sync with the key attributes of success. Scaling up effective services requires
conditions that are exceedingly rare.”

If philanthropy in Australia is to be effective, it needs to give careful consideration to the

sorts of questions raised by Pifer and Schorr. To do so requires both intellectual and
moral capital. That is, effective philanthropy not only needs a warm heart, but a good
head and an honest soul.

By intellectual capital, I am referring to a knowledge-based analysis of the means and

ends of philanthropy. This requires the conceptual skills to assess the impact of
grantmaking in a rigorous way, relative to what may have been achieved with the same
resources. That is, philanthropy needs both a good head and a warm heart. There are

3
some encouraging signs that the intellectual capital in this field is growing but we still
have a long way to go.
Many grants are still made where there is little basis for believing that the activity being
supported bears any relationship with the stated objectives. Without intellectual capital,
“feel-good philanthropy”, will be neither effective nor visionary. It may even do more
harm than good, as there have been instances of philanthropic foundations in this country
and elsewhere funding programs in areas such as youth suicide prevention and drug
dependence which were known in the research community not just to be ineffective but to
be counterproductive. That philanthropic foundations should fund such programs without
going to the trouble of seeking expert advice is very disturbing. Is it ignorance, or
arrogance, or both, I wonder?

By moral capital, I mean honesty, the integrity to pursue the hard questions and the
courage to do something with the answers. The moral capital of philanthropy is easily
eroded, and recent cases of the misuse of philanthropic trusts in Australia for the purpose
of individual and company tax evasion are deeply concerning. I say this not to pass
judgement on any individuals, as who among us has not been tempted at some stage, but
it need to be said that this is a betrayal of the trust of the community and it has the
capacity to damage the standing of the whole philanthropic sector. As well as a warm
heart and a good head, philanthropy needs an honest soul.

We need to ask hard questions about the effectiveness of philanthropy, not just because
of the usual obligation to assess whether any organization of which we are a part is
fulfilling its mission, but because the foregone “common wealth” received by
philanthropic trusts and foundations in the form of generous tax benefits, makes it a
moral obligation to do so.

The moral test for philanthropy is “are we doing a better job than government could have
done with the additional tax revenue?” Governments are ultimately accountable to the
people for how they spend public money but one might well ask to whom is philanthropy
accountable for the public proportion of the money it spends? While we often speak of

4
philanthropy as if it belongs to the private domain, to a very significant degree it is
subsidized from the public purse.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American jurist, once said “I don’t mind paying taxes; they
buy me civilization.” Philanthropy can only be morally justified if it uses its subsidy
from the public purse to buy civilization to a degree not less than that which can be
bought by the State. It is possible to do this because there are some domains in which
philanthropy can afford to take risks and can achieve things more easily than
governments. It is by ensuring that it works effectively in these domains that the benefit
which philanthropy derives from the public purse can be morally justified.

But is effective philanthropy going far enough? What if we were to aspire to visionary
philanthropy? Is this possible? The history of philanthropy tells us that it can be done. Let
us look back then, to see ahead, first reflecting on the evolution of the word philanthropy,
then exploring the concept of visionary philanthropy by examining some historical and
contemporary exemplars, and finally, by considering what visionary philanthropy might
mean in our times.

The Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2003) gives two definitions of philanthropy:
“a love of mankind; and practical benevolence”.

It is important to note that being a “lover of mankind” and practising “practical

benevolence” may include giving money, but that this is not an essential element in either
definition of philanthropy. One can give of oneself in many ways in philanthropy.

The way in which the word philanthropy has evolved from the nineteenth to the twentieth
century is interesting in itself. Philanthropy is now used almost exclusively to describe
donating money for a charitable purpose, yet in the nineteenth century and early twentieth
century the term philanthropy was used to describe a broad range of activities beneficial
to society, including social reform.

5
Philanthropy in the nineteenth century primarily meant an organized response to a social
problem undertaken by individuals and non-government organizations. This included
charitable efforts to alleviate individual suffering as well as social change to address the
underlying problems expressed at an individual level.

Religious values were an important, but not an essential element in nineteenth century
philanthropy. Inter-denominational philanthropic committees were the most common
vehicle for social reform, and were made possible by the donation of time and expertise
as well as money.
Many engaged in what today we would call “advocacy”, ironically now seen as
problematic in relation to the definition of philanthropy and charitable status in this
country.

If we look at the nineteenth and early twentieth century, we can find inspiring examples
of visionary philanthropy.

Lord Shaftesbury is an exemplar of nineteenth century philanthropy. Described as the

“English factory reformer and philanthropist”, according to the Chambers Biographical
Dictionary, there is no mention in his entry about the giving of money. Instead, it outlines
his activities and achievements – his leadership from 1832 onwards of the factory reform
movement which culminated in the Factory Acts of 1847, 1850 and 1859, the Coal Mines
Act of 1842 which prohibited women and children under 13 being employed in mines,
the Lunancy Act of 1845 which helped reform mental health, and the Ragged Schools
Union, which established schools for poor children. That is, Lord Shaftesbury, an
evangelical Anglican, fought for social justice for the most vulnerable people in British
society.

“The future hopes of a country must, under God, be laid in the character and condition of
its children … as the sapling has been bent, so will it grow. The first step towards a cure
is factory legislation. My grand object is to bring these children within the reach of
education.”

6
The source of his philanthropy is best expressed in his own words.
“My religious views are not very popular but they are the views that have sustained and
comforted me all though my life. I think a man's religion, if it is worth anything, should
enter into every sphere of life, and rule his conduct in every relation.”

Shaftesbury’s philanthropy was not just successful. It was significant.

Having had a grandfather who worked for 50 years in a Yorkshire coal mine, first going
“darn pit” as a 14 year old boy after leaving school at eight to work as an agricultural
labourer to support his widowed mother and family, I am very grateful that Lord
Shaftesbury brought an end to children working in coal mines. But the job is not yet
done. Shaftesbury’s vision is yet to be fully realised.

Child labour is still exploited in many countries and the right to an education is still not a
reality for most poor children, and especially for many girls, in many developing
countries. It is our responsibility to help fulfil the Shaftesbury vision.

Joseph Rowntree is an exemplar of early twentieth century philanthropy. This Quaker

businessman from York has left a legacy that lives on in the three philanthropic trusts to
which he transferred much of his wealth and which bear his name. These trusts have been
pioneers in the UK in the fields of poverty, housing, communities, social care and
disability, taking forward the issues about which Joseph Rowntree was vitally concerned
and which were so visible to him in the slums of York in the 1890s.

Rowntree’s religion was also one based on the principle of “Let your life speak”. He was
an enlightened employer and created excellent working and housing conditions for those
who worked in the family confectionary factory. That is, his philanthropy and his
business interests were not two separate domains. He did not exploit workers and then
display his largesse in philanthropic acts, which is akin to modern day philanthropy
deriving income from unethical investments and then giving it to good causes.

7
Nor was Joseph Rowntree’s philanthropy in the paternalistic noblesse d’oblige mode.
New Earswick, the model village Joseph Rowntree created for his employees in 1904,
embedded principles of participatory democracy well before universal suffrage was
achieved in Britain.
New Earswick has also been the source for a century of cutting edge research and action
in town planning, housing and community development. Rowntree’s philanthropy was
not just successful. It was significant.

The principles on which he established the Foundation are still those which underpin the
work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation today.
“…to search out the under-lying causes of weakness or evil in the community, rather than
of remedying their more superficial manifestations” (Joseph Rowntree, 1904).

He was also far-sighted in not restricting the scope of the trusts he established to the
mindset of his era.
“I hope that…these trusts may be living bodies, free to adapt themselves to the ever-
changing necessities of the nation …”.

Perhaps this is a mark of the visionary philanthropist – one who does not dictate from the
grave but trusts those who follow to make wise judgements in response to the times in
which they find themselves.

One of the most inspiring exemplars of visionary philanthropy is the movement for the
abolition of slavery. Coincidentally, this thought first occurred to me when I was in York
in 2000 visiting the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Each morning I walked along a lane
and passed a small plaque on a modest cottage signifying that this was where an
American Quaker and slavery abolitionist had died. I think it was John Woolman but I
am not sure.

8
I was deeply moved by the fact that this man had not lived to see his vision realised, and
this has led me to reflect a lot in recent years on what sustains people in their
commitment to a cause when they know it is unlikely to be achieved in their lifetime.

Perhaps this too is a mark of visionary philanthropy – the quality of “generativity” that
the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson describes as the developmental task of mid-life – to see
oneself as a link in an inter-generational chain and so give generously to those who will
follow, without prospect of return. One might say this is also the criterion of true
philanthropy.

Why do I see the abolition of slavery as the example par excellence of visionary
philanthropy? There are three reasons.

! One, it was visionary because people committed themselves to this cause

knowing that they were unlikely to see slavery abolished in their own lifetime.
That is, visionary philanthropy exemplifies the quality of generativity.

! Two, it was visionary because initially only a small minority saw slavery as
morally wrong, and those who did often suffered as a result of their minority
status. That is, visionary philanthropy exemplifies the quality of courage.

! Three, it was visionary because it was, and is, so fundamental to the dignity of
a human being not to be the property of another (and equally fundamental to
the dignity of a human being not to be the owner of another). Thus the
abolition of slavery marks a very significant milestone in human history,
notwithstanding the fact that to this day it has not been achieved in all
countries. That is, visionary philanthropy exemplifies the quality of
significance.

While the abolition of slavery may have all of these three qualities – generativity, moral
courage and significance, visionary philanthropy does not require all three qualities,

9
thank goodness, or it would be exceedingly rare. I think we should be content with
significance being a necessary and sufficient condition for philanthropy to be seen as
visionary.

And so, can we find visionary philanthropy in Australian history? There is actually little
written about philanthropy in Australian history, which is interesting in itself, as
philanthropy was a powerful social force in so many aspects of Australian society in the
nineteenth century.

For example, in domains such as education, health and social welfare, philanthropy was
there before the State, and was responsible for creating “institutions of hope” which led
to extraordinary advances in these fields. Valerie Braithwaite, from the Australian
National University, has recently written about “institutions of hope” in The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

“Institutions of hope refer to sets of rules, norms, and practices that ensure that we have
some room not only to dream of the extraordinary but to do the extraordinary. Institutions
of hope move us collectively away from a social script that makes engagement in shaping
our futures seem futile toward one in which we are expected to be active and responsible
participants contributing to a vibrant civil society.” (Braithwaite, 2004, p7).

It is beyond the scope of this presentation to do justice to the visionary philanthropists

who created institutions of hope in Australia in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.

Much of this was done by women with exceptionally good minds, warm hearts and
honest souls who overcame the social restrictions placed on them. Here are just two
examples.

Catherine Helen Spence, the South Australian social reformer and convert to
Unitarianism, was a towering figure in several fields. Best known for her leadership in

10
achieving the vote for men and women, she was also a pioneer in the field of education
and child welfare. She and other South Australian women led the world in the 1870 and
1880s in closing institutions for destitute children, where the death rate from infectious
diseases was appalling, and introducing the first foster care programs, run by volunteers
but licensed under a State Board.

Dr Constance Stone, denied a medical place at Melbourne University for which she was
qualified and forced to train in the US, was the first female doctor to be registered in
Australia. She opened a free outpatient clinic for impoverished women and children in
the 1890s in the Welsh Church Hall in La Trobe Street, Melbourne, where her husband
was the minister. This led to the foundation of the Queen Victoria Hospital, an institution
of hope with the motto “by women for women”, which continued to pioneer new models
of services for women for the rest of the twentieth century, from the introduction of birth
control to the support of rape victims in the 1980s, just before the hospital was closed.

One notable exemplar of visionary philanthropy pioneered by men in Australia was

Legacy. Quintessentially Australian in its egalitarian ethos, Legacy came into being after
the First World War. It involved ex-servicemen systematically, not just individually,
providing practical and moral support to the widows and children of men who had died in
war, including providing scholarships for the children to complete their education and go
to university. Legacy is a form of “hypothetical reciprocity” – men honouring their dead
comrade and his family in ways that he would have honoured them. This form of
philanthropy was visionary because it was so different from the charity of the times.

Also in the early twentieth century was the initiative of Sidney Myer
in creating employment for unemployed men during the
Great Depression, as evidenced in the construction of the Kew
Boulevard. This is a notable example of visionary philanthropy in the
field of social welfare, not primarily because it provided work for a
large number of men, as important as that was, but because it helped
create a policy shift in employment creation programs by government.

11
There is also a little known example of visionary philanthropy in the 1930s, arguably the
largest philanthropic grant in real terms ever made in the history of Australia. The
Australian Council for Education Research was created by the US Carnegie Foundation
in 1930 with a 10 year grant totaling $US250,000, or $US25,000 per annum, a massive
amount in the 1930s (Connell, 1980). There were additional grants made by the Carnegie
Foundation to ACER in the following decades of almost the same amount, with the full
sum received by this institution being $US541,000.

The grant resulted from a visit to Australia by the Dean of Education at Columbia
University, Professor James Russell, in the late 1920s. He was concerned about public
education in Victoria and concluded that “the whole State education needs stimulation
from within”. The Australian Council for Education helped provide this and this
organization continues to provide high quality educational research for Australia and
beyond, and has an outstanding track record in the translation of its research into policy
and practice. The longterm impact of Carnegie’s benevolence is very significant.

This brings us to the question - where is visionary philanthropy in Australia in our times?
It is hard to answer this question, as what one sees always depends on where one stands.
It is probably only when one looks back from the vantage point of history that one can
see discern true significance.

A more useful question might be - if visionary philanthropy is that which successfully

addresses significant issues, then what are the significant issues of our times? No doubt
we would all generate a somewhat different list, and again, what one sees depends on
where one stands, but it would be hard to argue that environmental sustainability is not a
fundamental issue of our times.

Those who have been reading Jared Diamond’s new book, Collapse, How Societies
Choose to Fail or Survive, or A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright, who gave

12
the 2004 Massey Lectures, will be left in no doubt about this. Ronald Wright quotes
W.H.Auden: “A culture is no better than its woods” and then goes on to say:

“Civilizations have developed many techniques for making the earth produce more food
– some sustainable, others not. The lesson I read in the past is this: that the health of land
and water – and of the woods, which are the keepers of the water – can be the only lasting
basis for any civilisation’s survival and success.” (Wright, 2004, p.105).

The environment is a relatively new area for philanthropic activity in Australia and some
exciting things are happening. How significant they are only time will tell, but the first
step has been taken on the journey.

At this point I feel a need to acknowledge the vision and the dogged determination of my
mentor Pat Feilman, without whom The Potter Farmland Plan would not have happened.
This initiative in the mid 1980s helped pioneer Australian philanthropy in relation to
sustainable agriculture at a time when problems such as salinity and land degradation
were not high on the national agenda.

What might be some of the other fundamental issues of our times? Professor Fiona
Stanley will be sharing with us at this conference her deep concerns about the well-being
of Australian children and young people.
It is hard to think of an area of philanthropic activity which might have greater long-term
impact on our society than helping to create optimal conditions for the healthy
development of infants and young children. This is not just because of the importance of
early brain development in enhancing the intellectual capital of the nation, but because it
is critical to the very essence of civil society.

The children who have so occupied my thinking for the past 30 years, those who have
suffered abuse and neglect, are grossly over-represented in the drug treatment, mental
health and adult prison populations.

13
Their capacity for attachment and empathy was often corroded to the very core of their
being before they could even talk.
Some were irreversibly damaged before they were born by alcohol and other substances.

Focussing on early childhood is significant to civil society because the child’s capacity
for attachment in early childhood is a precondition for empathy and moral development
for the rest of life. To take the position of the other emotionally, and to act ethically not
for fear of being punished but because it is the right thing to do, has its roots in the
security of our earliest attachments. The child’s early relationships are therefore crucial to
the well-being of any society. We ignore this at our peril.

To care about children is to care about their families and their communities. The
visionary philanthropy of the Bernard van Leer Foundation is a beacon in this respect.
It is a superb example of a philanthropic foundation focusing on one area, early
childhood, and sustaining a commitment to this for many decades, developing a high
level of internal expertise in the process, and seeing the dissemination of its innovative
initiatives as central to its mission.

While modest in comparison, it is encouraging to see the interest in Australian

philanthropy in the area of early childhood in recent years. This has given rise to some
innovative ways of working, especially with indigenous communities. For example the
work of the Rio Tinto Aboriginal Foundation with the Townsville Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Health Service in the development of the highly successful Mums and
Babies program, and the equally promising early childhood education program in
Napranum near Weipa, both of which are being replicated elsewhere, is visionary.

Rio Tinto has set a high standard for other companies in the way it now works with
indigenous communities. It was not always so, of course. That a transformation can
occur in such a company is itself a source of hope. The two examples I have given are not
about corporate sponsorship, as they have not been used to promote the company. They
are genuine examples of corporate philanthropy. The two should not be confused.

14
Creating communities fit for children and young people means enabling children to feel a
sense of personal efficacy, and a sense of belonging to schools and communities.
This can only happen in schools and communities with a high level of trust and
reciprocity, or what Robert Putnam calls, social capital. Efficacy and belonging are the
two most important factors in determining a child’s resilience to a broad range of psycho-
social problems. This true of all children, not just the disadvantaged.

Is it possible for philanthropy to be a catalyst for the development of a sense of efficacy

in children and young people, and for the strengthening of community?

Is it possible for philanthropy to nurture “institutions of hope which not only dream the
extraordinary but do the extraordinary?”

Is it possible for philanthropy to nurture a love of mankind?

I believe so. Why? Because it is as much, if not more, in the nature of our being to
belong, to hope and to love as it is to compete and be in conflict with one another.
Contemporary culture has reinforced competitiveness and conflict so that they have come
to be seen as the most dominant dimensions of the human condition. Yet there are new
grounds for thinking that the capacity for altruism is an essential part of the human
condition at a biological level.

Altruism is not an aberrant and accidental trait overlooked by Darwinian selection. To the
contrary, Nigel Barber, an evolutionary psychologist, has argued impressively in his book
Kindness in a Cruel World, the Evolution of Altruism, that altruisim is a genetic trait in
groups which is strongly favoured by the process of natural selection.

He presents a convincing case that the biologically driven attachment in the mother-infant
relationship creates the capacity to form deep social bonds in kith and kinship groups,
making possible the co-operation which has been essential for our survival as a species.

15
Nigel Barber concludes that the perception of a “dog eat dog world of the survival of the
fittest”, promulgated by the nineteenth century Social Darwinists and inherited by their
counterparts in the twentieth century, must now be modified by the new findings on
altruism in human and non-human species.

I believe that just as our survival as hunter gatherers was based on the trust and
reciprocity of the tribe, so our survival in the environmentally, economically and socially
inter-dependent world of the twenty-first century will be based on our capacity to extend
our trust and reciprocity beyond the boundary of clan and country.

Philanthropy is the role model of altruism and can be a catalyst for fostering altruism in
the community. If our children and young people are to develop a sense of efficacy and
belonging, they desperately need opportunities to be contributors in a community rather
than just being consumers in a market.

Many adults too, have a deep desire to be connected to something bigger than
themselves, to go from success to significance in their lives. The roots of altruism are
waiting to be watered.

If the roots of altruism are to become deeply embedded in the soil of our culture, then
philanthropy cannot remain the domain of the wealthy. It needs to be internalized by
individuals across the social spectrum.

Can this happen? I believe so. There is an inspiring small group of people trying to do
this in Australia. Three years ago they created an organisation based in Adelaide called
FairShare International (www.fairshare.org.au). People who are attracted to its principles
join, either as supporters or as practising members. It is essentially a network of
individuals who support one another in trying to make ethical life choices each and every
day. It is based on individual self-regulation. There are no accolades for virtue, no
sanctions for falling short of the principles.

16
The 5.10.5.10 principles of Fairshare are an achievable response to social inequality,
environmental degradation, and a diminishing sense of community. Fairshare members
commit to a personal action plan around these principles, which are really goals:

! redistributing 5% of their pre-tax income to those in need now and/or to future

generations by providing funds for the conservation of the natural environment
! reducing one’s ecological footprint by decreasing claim on water, energy and
minerals by 10% per annum until they can do nor more
! using 5% of their leisure time to build community through direct interaction with
others
! taking significant democratic action 10 times a year to address social injustice that
harms people and the environment

At the individual level, this is micro-philanthropy. At the collective level, it has the
potential to be visionary philanthropy. We need a lot more vehicles of altruism like this in
order to suit a broad range of people and their situations.

Classes and schools could do something like 5.10.5.10 collectively, raising money to
support children in developing countries, reducing the energy use of their class or school,
reaching out to isolated people in their community such as the residents of nursing
homes, and writing letters to newspapers about issues which concern them.

What a wonderful vehicle it could be for teaching all sorts of subjects as well as the core
values for a sustainable society. Children also have an enormous capacity to influence
adults by doing these sorts of things – they bring to the surface our dormant capacity for
generativity.

Above all, these and other forms of engagement sustain hope in individuals and in
institutions. Hope is the most precious resource in an era in which the spirit of the age is
one of fear and despair.

17
Let me conclude then, with a few questions about a new philanthropy for a new age.

Could it be a philanthropy which returns to the original notion of the love of mankind?

Could it be a philanthropy which is rich in moral and intellectual capital as well as

financial capital?

Could it be a philanthropy which is not just the domain of the wealthy but includes all?

Could it be a philanthropy which is a harbinger of hope?

Is so, could it be the visionary philanthropy for our times?

References

Barber, N. (2004) Kindness in a Cruel World, the Evolution of Altruism, NY,

Prometheus Books

Braithwaite, V. (2004) “Collective hope”, The Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, Special Issue: Hope, Power and Governance, vol 592, pp 6-
15.

Connell, W.F. (1980) The Australian Council for Education Research, 1930-1980,
ACER, Hawthorn.

Enright, K. (2005) “Philanthropy’s New Clothes”, Foundation News and Commentary,

vol 46, no. 3,

18
Pifer, A. (1984a) ‘Twenty years in Retrospect: A Personal View’. In A.Pifer (ed)
Philanthropy in an Age of Transition, NY, Foundation Center.

Schorr, L. (1988) Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods to

Rebuild America

19