Four traditions of American giving
Each of these traditions is still prevalent, and they each have their merits. Which characterizes the way you choose to give?
What kind of philanthropist are you?
Americans have been giving to causes they care about since the earliest days of the country—but not everyone gives for the same reasons, or in the same ways. Scholars of philanthropy have identified four distinct traditions that shape how people give, each rooted in a different set of values and a different theory of change. Understanding these traditions isn’t about judging which approach is “best.” It’s about helping you give with intention.
Most of us give across more than one tradition without realizing it. We drop canned goods at a food drive (relief), fund a scholarship (improvement), sign onto an advocacy campaign (social reform), and join a neighborhood coalition (civic engagement)—sometimes all in the same year. The question worth sitting with is whether that mix actually reflects your values, or whether it’s simply the result of habit, convenience, or whoever happened to ask.
Try it for yourself
Imagine you have five dollars to allocate among the four traditions below. How would you divide them? You might put three in one column and split the rest—or spread them evenly. Then ask yourself a harder question: does that reflect how you actually give today? And if not, is there a tradition you’d like to lean into more intentionally? Use the chart below to explore what each tradition stands for, what it does well, and where its limits lie.
Four traditions of American giving
| GIVING AS RELIEF | GIVING AS IMPROVEMENT | GIVING AS SOCIAL REFORM | GIVING AS CIVIC ENGAGEMENT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principle: | COMPASSION | PROGRESS | JUSTICE | PARTICIPATION |
| Example: | Food pantry Crisis relief Religious services Shelters | Education and mentoring Job training Building homes Personal growth and spirituality Purchasing books and computers Scholarships | Policy/legal reform Advocacy Public education reform Research Campaigns (e.g. stop smoking) | Leadership programs Community development corporations (CDCs) Community organizing Giving circles Convening Coalitions |
| Impulse: | Alleviating Human Suffering | Maximizes Human Potential | Solves Social Problems | Builds Community |
| Philosophy: | Feed the Hungry | Teach the Hungry to Fish | Attack Causes of Hunger | Why Does This Community Tolerate Hunger? |
| Advantages: | Draws attention to key social issues Alleviates urgent and critical needs Responds quickly to unforeseen events Offers simple and accessible ways to relieve donors’ urge to “do something” | More lasting efforts Builds people’s assets to become more effective in directing their life and meeting their own needs Encourages self-responsibility rather than dependency | Deals with root causes of problems Most lasting and comprehensive impact if successful Highest leverage of philanthropic dollars Innovative—experiments with alternative solutions to social problems | Fosters collaboration through conferences, networking, and coalition-building Empowers organizations and communities Builds trust Builds more reflective and resourceful local communities Recognizes local assets |
| Challenges: | Need is limitless Fails to address root causes Focuses on symptoms Typically short-lived Can disempower people through dependence | What if there is a fence around the pond? Often benefits the well-situated or highly motivated Receptivity to training varies Must guard against the “we know better than you” attitude | Who decides what must be reformed? Highest risk of failure Hard to identify & implement comprehensive solutions | Does discourse lead to action? Difficult to render into measurable outcomes Takes time to create visible impact |
Turn information into impact
Explore the Mid-South data map, connect with nonprofits, and support causes you care about most at LIVEGIVEmidsouth.
