Philanthropy Books

I got through the first chapter of this book and then realized there are no sources or citations for the information in this book. I did not bother to finish it because I can hear a million opinions on foreign aid but a good argument is built upon facts/sources.

The Road To Hell has a simple and precise theme: "Blood and guts ... attracting the great whites (sharks) to the warm unprotected shore...". Foreign Aid and International Charity Money will attract more and more "sharks" and hurt those "warm unprotected people". This book is a great read for all development economists and people who want to help the African . Good intension is not enough for good consequence.

Chris Tam
Hong Kong

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Somalia is a failed state and a war zone. International aid in a context like that can not be compared with for example, building a well in the desert of Niger or providing school feeding rations in Laos. Yes some international aid is diverted to war lords or Government fat cats. Yes some projects are ineffective. Yes some people are dishonest.

However, this book does a grave injustice to totality of humanitarian aid. I have been an aid worker in Africa for 13 years and I have seen success stories and peoples lives changed for the good. I have seen children who will die of malnutrition without the help of international organizations.

And by the way before we get too on our high horse about all of the US money that is being wasted, please remember that the US Government gives less foreign aid, as a percentage of GNP than almost any other industrialized nation. In 2006, the US gave just 0.17% of our GNP. Most EU contries give five times that. (It is also interesting to note that total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes.)

This book has its flaws. As other reviewers have noted, it is rambling and disjointed. While I believe that his facts are mostly right, there are points where he may have come to the wrong conclusion because of a lack of familiarity with aid processes. Certainly, he over-generalizes based on anecdotal evidence. Aid in Somalia is probably not exactly the same thing as aid in Chile. The existence of some venal people in an organization does not mean that everyone in an organization is venal.

Maren is too quick to dismiss people as acting only in their own self-interest, even to the point of being internally inconsistent. He spends a lot of time passing out blame, and not always where it belongs. While he is pretty sure that NGOs should be blamed for carrying out bad projects, he doesn't seem to realize that they are under contract with USAID. USAID can terminate projects unilaterally; NGO sub-contractors can't, both legally and practically. On the one hand, he steams about patronizing attitudes towards Africans, and, on the other hand, says that it was "not their fault" that recipients stole aid funds in massive amounts, but the fault of those who made aid available to them. (What could be more patronizing than assuming that adults can't be held responsible for their own behavior?) Does the fact that aid workers have to convince Congress to give them funding by pointing out the advantages to the U.S. and legislators' constituents really mean that the aid workers were never serious about their humanitarian goals?

The fact that it sometimes reads more like angry blurting than balanced or reasoned scholarship is a shame, because there is a lot of good material here and good points being made. But it is important to read, particularly now, where there is renewed clamoring for more funds for aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Maren clearly, accessibly and authoritatively explains why more money does not equal more development; worse, can be destructive. These points are made elsewhere by others, but are usually buried in dry academic papers that speak in euphemisms. Anyone who wants to work in development should read this book. Maren can be forgiven for being angry.

Some years ago I had been wanting to go work in third world countries and was studying nonprofit management. This book seriously counter-balanced my idealism with a powerful real look of what aid and nonprofit work all too often really look like. Some of its images have stuck with me, like I will never see a Land Rover in quite the same way as I did before reading this book. I seriously recommend this book to anyone contemplating any kind of aid work. In my case, this book helped me decide to not leave a lucrative occupation to go work in the nonprofit sector but instead encouraged me to keep my job so that I could continue to do volunteer work in own time. After reading this book I did research into international volunteer work and my son and I both went on to have some great memorable international volunteer experiences (however my son was most recently a long-term volunteer worker in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina--I never knew it would one day feel so much like a third-country in my own USA). Anyway, sorry I digressed, the point is, there are good and bad aspects to providing foreign aid and until one figures out where they really stand on foreign aid (I still have a lot of ambivalence), they may want to do volunteer work in such a way that it is not their principal livelihood. Having said all that, I would not want to discourage anyone from entering the aid industry. Its just that there a lot of things one should first consider. At the least, one should know that its a subject with intertwining complex implications.

Krass's book helped me understand the 'other' side of Andrew Carnegie a lot better. Like most people today, my initial introduction to Carnegie was through the legacy he left by way of libraries and the many references to his role as the catalyst for Napoleon Hill's work in crafting his Principles of Success.

For those who enjoy crisp, brief reads, this book is not for you! But for those of us who love the idea of curling up with a huge tome over a month or more to slowly absorb a deep sense of who important figures in history really were and what circumstances contributed to their development, then I think Krass does his job admirably.

Carnegie's cold, tough side is exhibited in a manner that I thought was unbiased and wholly fair. There is no doubt the steel magnate was responsible for deaths among his lower line workers. There is also no doubt that he spent decades of his life and virtually all his money trying to leave the world a far better place than he found it. The need for redemption runs deep inside each one of us, and in Carnegie's case - based on Krass's writings - he had both the need for and the capacity to try and make amends.

Krass's outstanding word portrait of Carnegie exhibits both the demonic and angelic sides of this titan of early industrialisation. That same tension exists in all of us, so reading about it in this context provides not merely an insight into the mental workings of Carnegie but also into the dichotomies that exist within the very best and very worst of humankind... often in the same person.

This is a book that gives you limited insight into one of the most influential (negative & positive) men since Franklin, Jefferson etc. Filled with many instances were the author inserts his view point, I couldn't help but wonder what he left out in order to sway the readers opinion against Carnegie.

Also it would seem that beside inserting his opinions throughout, Krass used letters from Carnegie and others as his foundation for the book - this takes little effort and seems a bit lazy. If Krass had spent a little time consulting with economic and business historians, he very well could have written a well balanced perspective of Carnegie.

I can't wholly recommend this book unless you have read other Carnegie books and are looking for more insight just remember to cut through the opinion and bias.

Peter Krass's biography of Andrew Carnegie is very well-written; he recounts the waypoints of Carnegie's life: his humble origins in Scotland, his jobs as a telegraph clerk, railroad executive, and steel magnate in the US, and his ultimate metamorphosis into a noted philanthropist and apostle for peace. When you first read this book, you really feel as if you are reading a good book. It's not until you start thinking about the claims Krass makes, and the lessons you think you have learned, that you realize it has gigantic holes.

My problem with this book is that Krass makes claims which are dubious, and doesn't furnish credible historical sources to substantiate his less flattering allegations. He doesn't do justice to the reality that Carnegie lived in a different time, nor does he seem to understand the dilemnas that Carnegie faced. Some examples: In the 1870s, the railroad industry was growing by leaps and bounds. When Carnegie won contracts to supply his own railroad-employer, he was one of the few people that the railroad's management knew to be capable, loyal as far as keeping trade secrets, and to have something to lose (his job), if problems arose later. Today this would be self-dealing and cronyism; back then, it happened all the time and sometimes was practically the only way to get the job done. By not putting this into the proper historical context, Krass portrays Carnegie in a false light. Similarly in the 1870s-1900s, the money supply and US economy oscillated between boom and bust. In bad times, when the sales of rails dropped by 85%, Carnegie had no choice but to lower wages at his mills, which Krass duly bemoans.

Krass's book is full of hints that Carnegie was an abusive employer. This is possible, but I wished he had provided wage data for Carnegie's employees, as well as for workers in the area and in comparable trades, so as to leave the reader in no doubt. Krass complains that Carnegie had his workers work either 56 hours a week in good times, and 84 in bad times, but doesn't mention most farmers could only dream of working 56 hours a week. How was Carnegie able to find employees for decades if he was a slave-driver? Krass makes much of the accidents that occurred in Carnegie's steel mills, and mentions that "Captain" Jones a plant manager who enjoyed both Carnegie's and the employees' trust and admiration, died in such a mishap. Jones was so close to both that when Carnegie offered Jones an equity stake in the company, he declined, lest the workers felt he had "sold out;" at this Carnegie paid Jones the salary of the President of the United States. I find it impossible to believe that a man of Jones' caliber would have let himself be forced to risk his life amidst unnecessarily unsafe machinery.

A serious historian won't discuss the safety records in those plants without mentioning other harsh facts of life in those days; the average life expectancy was in the order of 37 years, and presumably lower in the countries from which the many immigrants working in his steel plants had come. Jobs in the mills ultimately allowed the workers to provide their families with sanitation and other amenities that substantially reduced infant, child, and adult mortality. I can't say whether families were better off having their breadwinner work in workplaces that would be unacceptable by today's standards so that they could get out of unsanitary conditions that would be unacceptable by today's standards. But I can say that Krass, by ignoring that these trade-offs existed, and simply flinging mud, writes anti-history. One of Krass' "facts" is seriously wrong; no serious historian denies that the "Black Hand" was close to - perhaps even run by - influential circles in the Serbian army, but Krass does. Krass writes that the Habsburgs were intent on plunging Europe into war by insisting on an outside investigation of Prince Ferdinand's assassination, but doesn't explain how the Habsburgs could have afforded to let those who masterminded the murder of their crown prince go unpunished. This prompts me to question the extent of Krass's understanding of Carnegie's campaigns for peace.

None of this is to imply that Carnegie was beyond chicanery and reproach, but rather that Krass's case is utterly unpersuasive. The pity is that by consulting with competent economists, business historians, and management experts, Krass could have written a phenomenal book that would have inspired its readers, and many business students. Carnegie and his steel company was the Google or Microsoft of its day, and yet Krass has written a book that leaves its readers less enlightened at the end of the book than at the beginning.

Without a doubt, one of the best biographies about Carnegie on the market. This book provides a good history of Carnegie's upbringing, rise to power, and ultimately the formation and sale of US Steel. What really makes Carnegie's life interesting is what he did with his time out of work (he was hardly ever around his steel mills in Pittsburgh). His world travels and philanthropy really make Carnegie a figure worth reading about today. Although his business tactics were questionable and his fortune made at the expense of cheap and inhumane labor practices, he really saved his image for posterity by giving away most of his money - the first intelligent philanthropist. Peter Krass is a decent writer and this book is a great read for anyone fascinated with 19th century America, the rise of American business, the age of Robber Barons, and of course Carnegie. Love him or hate him, Carnegie truly embodied the American dream. In addition to his life story, it's also interesting to note the social circles Carnegie mingled in: be it most American Presidents of the time, the Kaiser, or British Royalty - the access he had to people because of his wealth is quite fascinating. Carnegie lived a long prosperous life and remained a champion of world peace until the day he died - devastated by the outbreak of the Great War (aka World War One).

I got this boook from local library and have read about 80 of 520 pages.

There is a wealth of information in this book as to the man Andrew Carnegie and how he formed his character / the relationships in his upbringing and generally how he came to be the man he developed into. In the beginning it was a little confusing b/c the author introduced so many names of relatives without clearly defining who each was and their relation to Andrew.

The reason I gave it 3 stars is b/c the author has an undertone that he really doesn't like Carnegie b/c his father worked slave type of labor in Carnegie's steel mills. It's not enough to ruin the book - but he takes some personal jabs at Carnegie as a person based on the author's personal views and hangups. The author doesn't seem to appreciate capitalism and holds that against Carnegie throughout the reading. There is an undertone of the author's feelings throughout the book - and I am more interested in Carnegie than the author's feelings of capitalism / politics / carnegie etc.

Good book - but I plan to read another biography or autobiography to confirm or challenge some of the author's portrayals of Carnegie himself. But definitely a wealth of info to where you can learn ALOT about Andrew Carnegie and the activities / decisions that lead him on path to the Giant he became.

Jake

Careerism is driving the Senate downward. Former House members who have entered the Senate are more aggressive than others. Politics has become difficult and nasty, Drew contends. Each vote affects fundraising. Political institutions are now simply reactive. The decline in civility is caused by fewer people thinking about the whole. Office-holders think in terms of message, not politics, and that isn't leadership. People used to socialize across the aisles. There was an exodus in 1996 of fifteen senators. A substantial body of experience and judgment left. There used to be an interdependence. Senators used to talk to each other. Now they talk to their staff. The role of political consultants has grown. Consultants will always focus on the short term advantage. Virtually all the meaning of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act has been obliterated over time. What has evolved in Washington is a pre-occupation with money. It has transformed politics and subverted values. People now seek to benefit financially from government service.

The Clinton White House engaged in pre-emptive leaking to head-off news during the Thompson Committee Hearings on the 1996 Presidential Campaign. The Clinton campaign engaged in desperate efforts to raise money. The Committee obtained videotapes showing Clinton with questionable contributors. Unfortunately the Thompson Hearings were rendered useless by partisan attacks on both sides. Fred Thompson had believed that the hearings could be conducted in statesman-like fashion along the lines of Watergate and Iran-Contra Hearings of the previous decades. Interest groups sought to defy the Thompson Committee's subpoenas. Evasion and protection produced new lawlessness. The cover story used to shut down the hearings was that the committee would engage in finance reform efforts. Christopher Shays thought that Thompson was a hero. Even with limited exposure the hearings had an impact.

Nothing has contributed more to public cynicism than the hypocrisy of politicians. One of the problems is that there is no financial base for the core issues of the Democratic Party. Clinton enjoyed the political fruits of prosperity but advanced only mini-proposals. Clinton was the most resilient politician in memory, but tactical skills don't constitute leadership. Balkanization in Washington increased. Everything was up for grabs. John McCain has pointed out that influence buying leaves out the ordinary citizen. Fred Thompson reflected that campaign finance reform is difficult because the political class has become professionalized. Being risk averse is one of the characteristics. The House passed a campaign finance reform bill but it did not go before the Senate because there were insufficient votes to shut down the filibuster.

This is an excellent guide to politics on the national scene, new style.

The theme of this book - that political favor can be bought with hard currency in Washington - is neither surprising nor really the point. Rather, one main reason that Drew's book is recommended is the insider access to the banality of it all; how Republicans and Democrats alike feed at the trough of private political contributions, and refuse to reform the system because any such reform will, almost by definition, reduce the power of those who hold it. This is really the key, although often unstated, theme of the book: power. In Washington, money = power, and, as noted, the most interesting aspect of the book is that no one really denies this. They just try to keep it bottled up in committee.

Drew is sometimes charged with that dogmatic descriptor "liberal bias," but her heroes in this book are two Republicans: Fred Thompson and John McCain. So I don't think said "bias" influences this book one way or another (anyone can find bias if looking for it). Rather, the heroes of the book are those who try to "do something" for the public good, and the villians are those who manipulate the policital process to block the do-gooders.

Drew can be a bit pithy and spiteful, but isn't that part of her charm? Any hack can report the facts of a Senate floor debate, but very few (1) have access to the much more important behind the scenes deal-brokering and (2) have the integrity and journalistic chops to gossip about it. Reading her describe a Senator that you've always suspected of being an idiot as an idiot shoud be part of the fun, regardless of your political preference.

In sum, if you follow politics with any sort of a balanced view, you should enjoy The Corruption of American Politics. It's an insider account of how Congress slowly works for the public good, but only to a point. Good stuff.

Campaign finance reform finally passed, and this book may have been a factor. I have been reading Elizabeth Drew since the Nixon years, and am happy to report that she still writes as well as ever and still offers a trenchant analysis of issues that most of the public, regrettably, doesn't give a damn about. Since a campaign finance reform bill finally passed, much of what Drew writes about here will soon be obsolete, and she would probably be happier about that than anyone. But, if history is a guide, some way will be found around the new laws, and Drew will be writing another book about corruption in years hence.

The corruption, she writes, is endemic to the system itself. Its' very simple--it takes money to win an election, and those with a lot of money have an inherent advantage. Those who don't have money need to get it somehow, and this book will tell you how that's done, sometimes legally, sometimes quasi-legally, and sometimes downright illegally. Drew spares no one. Although it is clear that Drew leans to the liberal side on issues, she is equally scathing in her laceration those whose machinations perpetuate the current system. Probably the one person she treats most mercifully is Bill Clinton, deservedly so for what he has done to demean the presidency. She also deplores the intense partisanship and lack of civility that have pervaded Washington in the past decade.

If the book has a hero, it is Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, who, regrettably, just announced he will not be seeking reelection. Other reformers like McCain, Feingold, Shays, and Meehan come off well at least insofar as being principled, if not especially keen legislative tactitians. It is essential, however, for any conscientious citizen to be informed about the issues with which this book deals.

I have enjoyed reading this authors work in the past so I was interested to see what she did with this topic. I was not disappointed with the book, but I felt that the title and dust jacket description was misleading. The book is presented as going to be a history sense Nixon as to the steady decline in American politics. What the book delivered is some history, but basically a complete review of the Fred Thompson 1996 campaign financing hearings and the President Clinton Impeachment process. With this said I was not disappointed because the author is great at adding interesting insights into the personalities of the House and Senate members she talks about. Many descriptions could be called biting, she does not side step comments that could be considered non-politically correct. She also goes after everyone involved, I have heard that some people think she is a bit liberal in her views but judging by the comments she makes on Clinton et all I was hard pressed to find the liberal soft spot.

Overall she gives a very good analysis of the current state of American politics, which comes down to one thing - it takes lots of money to win. Unfortunately that means that the politicians we have spend a great amount of their time asking, begging and anything else to get money. I also found the discussion on the increase levels of partisan tactics to be very concerning. How can anything worth while get done in the current environment? Lastly she also dropped into the book interesting details of the rules of the House and Senate. Overall the book was interesting and well written.

I picked up this book hoping to learn something about the nature of political corruption and the implications of McCain-Feingold. Unfortunately, this is little more than a colorful apologia for Democrats suffering through the Clinton impeachment. It probably brought a warm glow to the intended readers, but hardly offers any guidance for those emotionally less engaged.

Drew outlines her story line very quickly. Chapter 1 is called 'Setup' and describes the impossibility of 'good' people getting anything done in Washington. Chapter 2 argues Washington has become a hateful place. This allows Drew to delight her Democratic audience with 1-liners on Washington luminaries.

The [lack of civility] 'can be attributed to Newt Gingrich' (pg 20).
'Daschle is a great tactician'.
'There are only a few great legislators anymore. Senator Edward M. Kennedy is one of them' (pg 24).
'So, by the time Newt Ginrich become Speaker of the House, the religious right and Republican Party had effectively merged' (pg 34).
'[Mike] Mansfield, always a laconic, modest, unflashy man, did, as he acknowledged, enjoy a majority of 65 Democrats to 35 Republicans,"Think of it!" he said in a rare moment of impishness. '(pg 40).
'Carter himself became an exemplary ex-President; unlike Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan until he became to ill' (pg 62).

What pathos! The evil Reagan persists in his error until Alzheimer's takes away his memory.

After making it clear that most Republicans are evil and most Democrats saints, we return to campaign finance. Chapter 3, 'The First Amendment' argues campaigns finance and free speech are unrelated. Chapter 4, 'The Money Culture', argues that fund raising speech has replaced political discourse.

With this moral framework established, Drew spends the rest of the book being play-by-play announcer for events in Washington between 1996 and 1999. As best I can tell, Drew argues the ideological and mercenary Republicans impeached Clinton because the Religious-Right threatened to stop donating money.

For someone who dislikes both Democrats and Republicans, there isn't much substance. For someone seeking to understand the impact of McCain-Feingold in 2004, it isn't there.

A waste of money as the grant writing examples do not fit non-profit organizations. Workbook style and who has time to do the pages plus write the grant!

Thank you, the book arrived before the required date, which is always a bonus. the book was also in great condition. Again, I thank you!

I have been reading lots of books on how to write grants, being new to the field. They are all good, this one is concise and well laid out, the information is clear and the samples are good. I would recommend it. We will see how successful I am...that will be the real test of how well the book worked.

I am a consultant, grantwriter, and trainer who specializes in technical assistance and training for HIV/AIDS services. I provide a copy of this workbook to participants in my grantwriting ("Bringing Home the Money!) workshops, because it's a good, basic overview of many of the different parts of the request for funding proposal.

What's most useful about Carlson's book is that it provides a summary for participants and another way of explaining some of the things I teach. There are also good worksheets included in Carlson's book, designed to help first-time grantwriters grapple with the different proposal elements. Carlson also includes a CD-ROM with different forms that can also be helpful.

However, there are important limits to Carlson's book, thus the caveat in my review title that you NOT use this book alone.

1. Carlson's book is very general. For certain funders or funding areas (such as in HIV/AIDS), grantwriters need to include and be very familiar with things like public health data and certain standardized evaluation methods. You will not get that kind of information or guidance in Carlson's book.

2. Some of the sections lack sufficient details that can help first-time grantwriters better understand the concepts. For example, the budget and budget justification section are weak. She does not provide any explanation for "priority/target populations," a concept important to HIV/AIDS and other public health programs.

3. Carlson starts off with a good premise: Helping grantwriters understand the writing of a good proposal by having funders--the people who would actually read and decide on your proposal--speak about what makes good and bad proposals. It's a great idea and one that is the backbone to my own workshop. However, it is a thread that Carlson quickly drops and doesn't bother to integrate into the entire workbook.

4. Finally, the different elements are presented in such a way that they remain disintegrated, separate, fragmented from each other. In reality, a good proposal (i.e., one that is most likely to be funded) includes all the required elements (abstract, description of need, work plan, goals and objectives, evaluation, etc.) that are written well, are strong in content, and all work together in an integrated way.

To Carlson's credit on my last point, I should note that very few writers of grantwriting books and guides have succeeded in showing the latter, although I think it's one of the best signs of a well-written, strong, viable program.

In summary, then, this is a good first place to start if you're new to grantwriting or need a refresher. But definitely use it in conjunction with a great workshop and/or other grantwriting resources that are available.

If you come in to our nonprofit management support organization and ask for a book on grant proposal writing, there are two we'll pull out right away: Grassroots Grants and Winning Grants Step by Step. We're often asked which to choose. Of all the books we see, these are the two we most often recommend, but they do have different approaches.

Winning Grants Step by Step takes a pragmatic tone. It accepts the rules of the game and offers to show you how to win within them. "Most funders prefer to give grants for new and expanding programs or in support of special projects and new ideas rather than for the general operating expenses of an organization or the ongoing costs of established programs," it explains. "Because funders have these preferences, this workbook uses the idea of creating a new program as the basis for developing a proposal." (The book does also give examples of core operating support proposals, and does start with a planning guide to help you see which programs fit your priorities).
In the introduction to Grassroots Grants, on the other hand, the publisher shares her qualms about publishing a book about grants at all, preferring that the reader focus first on developing more renewable and less restricted gifts from individual donors. "This book is about two things: money and power," says Grassroots Grants, and calmly analyzes the dynamics of both in the grant proposal process. This big-picture view is in the end more pragmatic - it encourages you to take control of the grantseeking process by searching out those funders and pitching those programs that really best fit with what you are trying to do.

Both books have excellent project planning guidelines. As Winning Grants Step by Step observes, "Generally, organizations will spend approximately 80 percent of their time planning a project and only 20 percent of their time writing and packaging a proposal," so this section is obviously very important. Both books ask questions such as "What is unique about your organization's project?" "Is anyone else working on a similar project?" "What members of your community support each project?"

Both also contain useful information about finding appropriate funders, which is key to the process - much more important than your writing skills is finding the right funder who cares about projects like yours. Although Winning Grants Step by Step puts this information at the end in an appendix, you should really read it first, particularly the excellent section on corporate giving programs. Grassroots Grants contains very helpful guidelines about what to consider when deciding whether a funder is really a good fit for your organization, and detailed information about ways to develop good relationships with potential funders.

The books have different approaches to how they help you with your own writing. Winning Grants Step by Step has a workbook format, with questionnaires you fill out as you go, so that by the time you have completed them you will have addressed most of the subjects covered in a typical proposal, and it will be easy to cut and paste the appropriate bits into the funder's preferred format. It comes with all the worksheets on a CD-ROM so you can fill them out electronically and reuse them. If you like project planning, but get nervous about the writing process, this format may help walk you through. Grassroots Grants has questionnaires throughout the text, and it has more examples of proposals, query letters, and other documents with notes on how they were developed. If you like to write by reading examples to inspire you to your own purposes, this book will suit you.

Ultimately, these books complement one another. Even if you prefer the workbook format of Winning Grants Step by Step, the "big picture" you get from reading Grassroots Grants will help you answer all those questions. Likewise, if you prefer the style of Grassroots Grants, you can still benefit from the excellent sections on overhead costs and planning for sustainability in Winning Grants Step by Step.

This book explains the various, many reasons why people don't give more (or any at all) money to the church. It has several charts giving certain facts to make it even easier to understand.

This book is pretty easy to understand. And it is written without being judgemental. It also says that money alone is not the answer to all the world's problems, even though it is immensely important, but money isn't everything.

The book tells such things as what percentages are given by certain religions, etc. The book has the facts broken down pretty good.

I recommend this book, if you are interested in this type of thing.

It takes money to run a church. This statement applies as much for ecclesial institutions as it would be for any nonprofit enterprise. The difference is that churches have members who use its services every week and naturally should want to support its outreach. But do they?

In Passing the Plate, Christian Smith, Michael O. Emerson and Patricia Snell answer this question with a resounding "not really." Providing a thorough analysis of church finances and church giving in comparison to disposable income, the authors take a long look at the standards of various churches and denominations for responsible stewardship and compare them to the actual figures. Further analysis is given of the reasons commonly cited as to why giving doesn't meet expectations and an examination of each is given and its likelihood evaluated. Finally, suggestions based upon their analysis are supplied as to what may prove effective to remedy the situation.

From a strictly secular by the balance line approach to the question, the authors are right on the money. Everything they say is meticulously researched, financially sound, and supported by the standard approach to cost/benefit analysis applied by any similar nonprofit institution. Yet, therein is the rub. The Church isn't the same as the local YMCA or any other community nonprofit. It is a spiritual organism as well as a physical one and this is sometimes lost in the authors' rush to the balance sheet.

Nor does their analysis of the ratio of giving vs. church membership tell the whole story. The different ways membership is counted among different churches makes such comparisons highly suspect. For example, some fundamentalist churches will remove someone from the membership rolls at any sign of disagreement with the accepted beliefs as a sign of church discipline while declining mainline churches will often not take members off the rolls even if they have not attended for years. Thus the number of active committed members is far higher in the former than the latter.

Also, there is a danger of the authors to see things too much like the world does. Some of the most amazing ministry stories of the last century probably would not have made a bit of sense given the outlook presented here. There is so much emphasis on why people aren't giving and what we could do to make them give more, one wonders if they paused for a moment to think about what God might have to say in the matter. The implicit assumption throughout is that the congregation's balance sheet is as much a sign of success as its fulfillment of God's purpose for the Church.

These complaints should not, however, completely distract from the important work the authors have done. Their research is probably the most comprehensive of any done concerning giving among Christians and should give us pause as to the true nature of the Church in America. Passing the Plate certainly gives a benchmark as to the relative support in relation to the normal congregation in a particular tradition. And it certainly should give pause to those who insist this country is basically Christian about the nominal status of that claim.

This book is shocking. Despite Jesus' commands towards treasure and stewardship "Passing the Plate" shows how we are ignoring much of what the bible teaches about money. Just this Sunday I visited a new church which announced it does not have a collection and that contributions were private. As the book points out money is the new "sacred cow" and Pastors are more reticent to discuss money than sex. As leaders we have abdicated our responsibility to teach and require stewardship. Read this book for the sake of your finances, for the sake of your congregation, for the sake of honor and obedience to the word.

"Passing the Plate" is superbly researched, backed up by extensive data case studies and interviews from every sector of the Christian Community. "American Christians are among the wealthiest of their faith in the world today and probably the most affluent single group of Christian in two thousand years of church history...And yet, despite all of this, American Christians give away relatively little money to religious and other purposes. A sizable number of Christians give no money, literally nothing. Most of the rest of American Christian give little sums of money." 22.1% of all Christians did not even give a dollar to religious or secular charities. 71.7% give less than 2% of their income. "The median American Christian giver thus gave only 0.62 percent of the median Christian annual income - a little more than on-half of one percent of income." The more you read the worse facts are revealed.

We are living far below the widow's mite, far below what we could be doing, far below what (in my judgment) the word and our Lord demands. Fortunately "Passing the Plate" can be a wake up call. The book offers suggestions and solutions, not the least of which is that leaders get their financial houses in order. Read this book and start the discussion both within leadership and within the congregation. The financial world is being shaken right now - could it be to help us become better stewards? Read "Passing the Plate" and start the journey on financial discipleship.

May be the most important book on Pastoral Leadership and Discipleship I've read in a long time. Please, get this book. Read it. Follow it. Do it.

Christian Smith, Michael Emerson and Patricia Snell are brave: they live in two worlds, at the risk of misunderstanding.

Clearly they live in the world of top-flight scholarship. As trained sociologists they have mastered the rigor and precision of careful, objective, detailed research - and aren't bashful to show it. I find this a refreshing alternative to pop religious researchers who appear to turn out reliable, revealing discoveries in rapid, overnight fashion. Smith, Emerson, and Snell have labored multiple nights, releasing their findings with a healthy dose of both confidence and humility.

But in addition to the world of scholarship, Smith, Emerson and Snell also live in the world of practical application. Frankly as a practicing pastor, I was pleasantly surprised to find a precisely researched book including so many practical applications which avoid the stereotype of practicality. Rather than being simplistic or obvious, the applications found in this book are profound, addressing core, systemic strategies for deep change and transformation.

So thanks to Smith, Emerson and Snell for living in two worlds. Though they risk the ire of practitioners who are too surface (thus, repulsed by tables and detail) they also risk the rebuke of scholars who are too detached from the necessity of application and outcomes.

In sum, this book is a gift in the midst of tough economic times, challenging pastors and other practitioners to persevere, challenging their flocks toward paradox; being more generous in a less than generous context and milieu.

I am extremely impressed by Smith, Emerson, and Snell's clear, well supported, and in-depth explanation of a pressing issue both in Christian churches and, as the author's point out, secular society. Some readers may be wary of a book that tackles such a subject because they may be expecting a subjective, "op-ed" style narrative of the declining morals of today's society. This book, however, maintains an objective, straightforward approach to the topic, presenting numerous pieces of empirical evidence to support each of their claims. I am especially impressed by the use of both large survey data and in-depth personal interviews, which allows the reader to connect the larger issues with the personal, "on the ground" perspectives. While this book is clearly written from an academic perspective, each chapter is very accessible to any audience. [For example, one who is not interested in "all the numbers" could get the main points from Chapter 2 from the concise "Fact" statements throughout the chapter.] This book is a vital resource for scholars, church leaders, and those generally interested in human behavior and altruism alike.

Now I feel compelled to respond to several of the reviews already posted. Many of the negative reviews are simply off base. First, one claims the authors assert that selfishness and greed are the cause of the lack of giving they show. Obviously this reviewer did not read the first 3 pages of the introduction, in which the authors lay out a detailed argument why the lack of giving can *not* be explained by greed and selfishness alone. Second, this book does indeed have numbers in it, and these numbers are often presented in the form of charts and graphs. Can anyone imagine the reaction to a book handling such a topic without these numbers?? It surely would be lambasted for whatever arguments it made. These empirical facts are necessary when dealing with such a controversial subject. Also, the statistics are clearly presented and explained, to the point that the vast majority of readers will clearly get the take away message. [And as noted above, if one does not require such substantiation, the authors lay out their arguments well enough that one could still easily find the "nuggets" and simply skim over the well crafted supporting statistics.]

Finally, I would like all people reading these reviews to keep in mind the subject matter of the book. I think some of the impassioned negative comments clearly illustrate why this book is so important. Surely the primary question of this book is going to stir up some emotions, and I believe those have come out in these reviews more so than objective opinions of the merits of the book. I highly suggest everyone read it and decide for themselves.

A well written book but a littany of "look at what I did for the less fortunate" Jane Adams clearly brings out the fact that she was of the upper class and so much better than those she sought to help. Her goal it seems was to bring high society upper middle class values to the poor. She rarely talks about others who had to be involved. If it did not include her she was not interested in reporting. She also failed to show that she actually helped anyone better thier lives. She just crows about how she brought literature and art to the poor masses.

I am doing a History Fair project on the Hull House. I thought that I would just be quickly skimming over the book, but in fact i really enjoyed it and I ended up reading with a lot of intrest.

In 1911 Addams helped found the National Foundation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, and she was its first president. She was also a leader in women's suffrage and pacifist movements. In 1915 she helped found the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. She received the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize (shared with American educator Nicholas Murray Butler).

The Hull House could boast a group of about 2,000 people a week. It had facilities including: a night school for adults, kindergarten classes, clubs for older children, a public kitchen, an art gallery, a coffeehouse, a gymnasium, a girls club, a swimming pool, a book bindery, a music school, a drama group, a library, and labor related divisions.

The Hull House also served as a women's institution of sociology and Addams was a friend and colleague to the early men of the Chicago School of Sociology influencing their social thought of the time through her work in applied sociology, which became defined as social work by academic sociologists of the time. Addams did not, however, consider herself a social worker. She co-authored the Hull-House Maps and Papers in 1893 that came to define the interests and methodologies of Chicago Sociology. She worked with George H. Mead on social reform issues including women's rights and the 1910 Garment Workers' Strike. Addams combined the central concepts of symbolic interactionism with the theories of cultural feminism and pragmatism to form her sociological ideas.

Along with Addams herself, "Twenty Years At Hull-House" inspired generations of US social and political activists. For decades a Hull House sojourn, or at least a visit, was virtually a pilgrimage for all kinds of progressive reformers. Jane Addams came from a conventional Middle American milieu, but was radicalized by seeing the ravages of the Industrial Revolution both in Britain and Chicago. This timeless memoir of the years 1889-1909 documents her wide-ranging concerns, embracing public health, pacifism and feminism as well as philanthropy, working-class education and poverty alleviation. Nationalist hysteria damaged Addams's reputation as a result of her antiwar stance during World War I, but it recovered enough for her to win the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize. Students had mixed views of book and author. To some she is a revelation, but others see her as rather sanctimonious (a fair criticism to some extent). Her prose is accessible but a little archaic now, sometimes appearing flowery or pompous, which deters some readers. While I respect and admire Addams, I waited in vain for the epiphany felt by thousands inspired by her life's work. People who find their own way to "Hull-House" will probably appreciate her more than those required to read her book---but such unsought exposure lies at the heart of liberal education, and brings many rewards.

I enjoy reading about strong women with great vision. I also enjoy this particular period in history, so this was a perfect match for me. I would love to have been part of the Plato club, or study cooking, or sewing, or heard concerts throughout the week. I sometimes think we have so much going on in our lives right now that we don't take the time to slow down and cherish the simple things. This book did that for me. It made me want to study and focus on things. I know we have tons of technology available to us, but I wish we would still discuss philosophy, and I wish more people would read - I mean, really read. Not just the top twenty things out there. But times are different...

I read this book years ago and it opened my eyes about the realities of sending money and food aid and aid workers to countries in crisis. Not to say that we shouldn't but frankly many many times it isn't foreign aid that these countries really need it is government that isn't corrupt or even military action that will stop the immediate killing as in Rawanda. The author knows his stuff and the book is a thoughtful analysis of what works and what doesn't and what CAUSES MORE PROBLEMS even though the donors want to feel good by giving aid. All of these aid programs should be renewed or not renewed on a basis of 'change for the better'. But alas we just keep sending more money & aid and the corrupt people continue to benifit the most. And in the case of Rawanda, by mandating help without prejudice to either side we caused the killers to get aid so they could survive & kill more. A MUST read for proponents of foreign aid. FIRST DO NO HARM.
barb

For me, disenchantment came in the form of Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General for the United Nations. When I was a child, on Halloween, I walked around with my happy little UNICEF box collecting money instead of candy, and through school I learned that the UN was this wonderful organisation that had the intention of creating a perfect utopia of a world in which there was peace and no famine. This, of course, was before Kosovo and Annan's Oil For Food scandal. True, Kosovo was but a blurred memory from middle school, but I was wide awake for the Oil For Food fiasco. The more I read about the United Nations in high school and college, the more I came to abhor the institution.

I'm no stranger to charity and humanitarianism -- I'm spending my summer in Ghana with an aid organisation, will be doing two years in the Peace Corps after getting my Nurse Practitioner license, and after that plan to work for Médecins Sans Frontières as a full-time job. Africa is my passion, one could say, and I'd like nothing more than to be there all the time.

That said, humanitarianism has become bogged down in the mire of politics and utopianism. In A Bed for the Night, author David Rieff not only outlines the beginnings of modern humanitarianism in Biafra in the late 1960s, but also highlights the key flaws in specific cases of humanitarianism in the last decade such as Bosnia and Rwanda. No Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) is left untouched -- he explains the failings of every NGO from the umbrella of the UN to the seemingly infallible Red Cross to Oxfam. Both sides of the issue are covered through interviews with such varied people as Rony Brauman of Médecins Sans Frontières and Jean-François Vidal of Action Contre la Faim. His arguments are absolutely supported in every way; he leaves no stone left unturned, and every reference from his ten years of research in preparation for writing the book are listed in a bibliography for fact checking. Also added after the first publish date is an afterward on Iraq which I found very interesting because it was written before Saddam Hussein was captured -- Rieff even says things like "two weeks after the war was finished" when we all know now, three years later, that Iraq is nowhere near being finished.

Basically though, the book is about how NGOs have made themselves bitches to world governments, something which, you know, basically defeats the point of the 'N' in the front of the acronym. Through this inability to stand up for themselves and be independent organisations, they've lost the neutrality that once made it easy for them to go into war zones and help those who needed to be helped.

This book most definitely is for a limited audience. It reads much like a doctoral thesis, which is something that I love, but most people would probably tire of the vocabulary or perhaps even not know what words mean. I read some passages to my younger sister, a junior in high school with all As, and she had no idea what I was even saying a good chunk of the time. For one to understand this book, one must have experience in reading research papers and theses, I would say. It has a lot of information to delve through and one has to be able to absorb the information from it as if he or she were doing research for his or her own project. Knowledge of history is also very important, though Rieff does generally explain the history behind each humanitarian tragedy. Because I'm familiar with most of the organisations in the book, I'm not completely sure if it would be important to know them beforehand, though I did find it helpful, because Rieff does include a handy little reference in the back of all of the organisations mentioned.

If you have some sort of undying affection for the UN, I'd recommend you stay as far away from this book as possible, honestly. Because of my nearly psychotic hate of the UN, I enjoyed every poke and prod at both the organisation and Kofi Annan. On the other hand, if you're a big fan of Médecins Sans Frontières, dive right on in -- Rieff basically states that it's the only aid organisation that's worth a damn in this day and age. Additionally, if you're one of the people who thinks that humanitarianism is the panacea for all the world's problems, the thing that will bring utopia to earth, get away from this book and get the hell away from me.

There are two quotes from this book that I think basically sum it up, the first from Rory Brauman:

'It can not be an accident that the one thing tyrants and aid workers have in common is their liking for being posed next to children.'

And David Rieff on the topics of 'The Responsibility to Protect' and human rights getting mixed into humanitarianism:

'A few dissenting figures, notably in certain French humanitarian circles, have argued that humanitarianism as a vocation needs to separate itself from this project [The Responsibility to Protect], no matter how worthy the larger goals of human rights, conflict resolutions, and the creation of the conditions for peace and development in the poor world may seem to aid workers, and no matter how fervently, as citizens, they hope for the success of such efforts. Where other NGOs, particularly those issuing from the British and American aid traditions, often assume aid groups could play a useful role if only they could develop further their human rights and peace-building "capacities," many of the most influential figures within MSF [Médecins Sans Frontières] and like-minded agencies such as ACF [Action Contre la Faim] continue to insist that such projects take humanitarianism far beyond any role it is suited for.'

Basically, for humanitarianism to survive, aid workers have to realise that they can't change the world on a grand scale, they can't bring peace, they can't make utopia -- they need to accept that their aid is on a local scale and that despite the fact that the world isn't going to know each thing they do, it's going to make a diffence in someone's life. There must be a return to neutrality so that the work that needs to be done can be done one person at a time.

A credible analysis of the fig-leaf for endless state inaction that these abused, heroic organizations have become. Credible because the author obviously reached his conclusions with great anguish at the fact. Credible because, Rieff is the same author who wrote the Nov NYT 2003 piece, "Blueprint for a Mess" excoriating the administration for its Iraq policy. This is not a Wilsonian / Wolfowitz interventionist itching to let the ship of state set sail, and because of that, his pained conclusions about the reasons for state inaction/ineffective action in the face of pressing needs to act are credible.

The West/America/Europe in recent decades, primarily through the mechanism of the UN, has made a great show of doing everything possible right up to but excluding actually doing anything. Compassion on the cheap. 'We're doing everything possible, the UN is on the job, and as long as all parties agree and have invited them, will show up and defend only themselves rudely in front of people desperately needing defense. The NGOs are on site. We're handing out the blankets and the coffee and the bandaids to rapist and victim alike, so nothing more can be done, and we can all go back to reading our papers and tsk-tsk-tsking and sipping our Capuccinos, comfortable in the knowledge that everything that can be done, is being done, short of actually doing soemthing.'

Find out why that's a fig leaf on the UN seal, not an olive branch. We are all the problem; we don't have the good sense our daddies taught us about when to and when not to lift a hand. Read this book.

The author does point out many of the problems with humanitarian non-governmental organizations. They do plenty of self-promotion. They make deals with a variety of thugs just to be permitted to operate in some regions. In other cases, they make deals with various nations, adopting their political causes. Worst of all, they can be misused by those with truly genocidal plans: they can be assigned to give food and lodging to intended victims, drawing them into camps. When armies show up to murder the victims, the humanitarians obviously get out of the way. But just what service does all this provide?

While I found myself disagreeing with the author on plenty of occasions, I think he's written a good book. He's clearly raised all the main issues with humanitarian aid. These include questions of whether whether neutrality, impartiality, outright support for victims, or none of the above is the most effective way to help people.

In the case of a genuine human rights organization, there's no doubt what the goal is. The charters of such organizations are clear: they never are to support outright opponents of human rights politically. Those charters are often violated, but at least we all know what they are supposed to do. But in the case of humanitarian organizations, there are no such goals. The idea is to provide day-to-day help to the needy, and being misused by people who intend to murder the needy may not even violate their charters.

In any case, Rieff shows how humanitarian efforts failed in a most disheartening way in Bosnia and Rwanda. And perhaps he's at his best when he explains how useless the United Nations has been in protecting anyone from aggressors. He quotes one person as explaining that had the UN existed in the 1930s, all of Europe would now be speaking German.

Rieff is pessimistic about the effectiveness of humanitarian aid in many areas. And I have to agree with him about this. Perhaps the worst aspect of it is that such failures, by giving humanitarianism a bad name, will encourage many people who truly want to help others to do something else instead.

Pulling no punches, Rieff has written a damning insight into the current humanitarian care industry (and it has become an industry) has lost its way in the modern day. While showing great admiration for people who believe they are doing the right thing, Rieff exposes the problems with the current methods and thinking behind humanitarian intervention and aid, especially the loss of neutrality and the growth of advocacy for military intervention.

This is a fascinating book, and one that should be read by those who hold beliefs on either side of the humanitarian intervention debate. While this reader came to this book in the context of studying International Security, including the issue of humanitarian intervention, it would be of interest to anyone who has thought about the continuing humanitarian crises throughout the world and what should be done about them. Occasionally Rieff comes across as hyperbolic, and he almost loses the reader's sympathies, but he has the facts and experiences to back up what he is saying. Covering a breadth of organizations, situations and viewpoints, this is a powerful book that at the very least will make you think next time you hear calls for peacekeepers to intervene or are asked to donate to one of the multitude of relief organizations at work today.

All of Christendom has churned out more stuff on what they think John's revelation is and the mark of the beast, as to throw the entire world into confusion and blindness over many generations. For the first time ever in my 54 years of existence on this planet I feel the truth revealed about Johns revelation in a beautiful and concise manner. It truly AWAKENS the reader if they are an honest searcher of truth to realize they are holding that truth in their hands. No longer the blind leading the blind. Whoever this Christopher guy is, what an understanding of how the world works and how we have given our power away to the corporations and government and lost ourselves in the beast. This book will make you alive again in truth and will empower you to take back what you have lost. I loved it.
Dominic L

I just passed the big 5-0 and have read many books over the years. This book inspired me to write my first review. Let me give you a "heads up", it's not going to be nice. This book promotes globalism and New Age philosophy. It is also very anti-christian. For a couple examples of the nonsence in it, this book states on page 67, "In no way does the murder and shedding of Christ's blood do anything for us,". Whereas, the Holy Scriptures plainly teach us that the shedding of Christ's blood on the cross provided for the atonement for our sins and only because of His death on the cross can we be saved. This author also blasphemes Christ stating on page 66, Christ's "'flesh', or human nature, when revealed according to its true meaning, is synonymous with Lucifer,". This author claims to have gotten this stuff from John, who wrote the book of Revelation. Excuse me, but I think NOT! In my opinion this book is less than worthless and my advice is, DON'T BUY IT. You were warned.

Having just completed the book 666America the Seat of the Beast and the
Apostle John's Revelation Unfolded in its entirety, I am reminded of how I felt when I was about 12 years old and got my first pair of glasses. I remember walking out of the doctor's office when my view of the world seemed clearer, but I felt a little dizzy as my vision had been corrected and I wasn't used to the new feeling.

I'm still getting used to the truth and its simplicity. This book has wiped away all my misconceptions and I find myself toddling a bit as I accustom myself to the reality this book lays out. How wonderful to see through new eyes.

I don't normally write reviews, but felt a balanced opinion might be helpful to other readers. I did not find the book to be an eye-opening revelation. Common sense tells you that many scriptures and ancient words cannot be taken in a literal sense today. I found nothing that backed up the authors title of this book, and felt that was very misleading.
I dont have a problem with people thinking for themselves, more power to them. But I do have issues with someone saying some immortal being "told" him the modern day translations, and what to write under the guise of "truth". I also found some passages in the book to be disturbing in how the author referred to them as being something Jesus would have thought. The quotes had the source name withheld, but I know them to be from a specific religion, which I will not bother to divulge either. I felt then the author had based the foundation of this book on a religion, hiding that fact, and making us poor readers think there was something new here, rather than recycled religious propaganda. Buy it or dont buy it. But be advised, personally its the authors own beliefs, presents nothing in the way of "truth", I am not freed or anything after having read it. The title relates to nothing. And I am out almost $25

This book is an amazing presentation of our world and the evolution of our social and monetary systems. The story flows and builds our understanding precept upon precept, presenting reality and viewing the world's beliefs in a nonreligious, objective manner. This book guides us to understand and accept ourselves, and others without judgement.
It presents a plan that if applied could bring peace and happiness to all peoples of the world--not just America. I feel like this book contains a message the could heal the world and all societies within it. I believe that it would take thousands of years to gain the perspective used to write this book--indeed John must have tarried to personally reveal the key to his Revelation to the world. This is a very valuable tool for gaining insight into TRUTH through REALITY.

I felt compelled to write this review because of the poor content by some of the other contributors -- one who didnt event read the book and the other ranting a personal attack with no focus on the book itself.
As a teacher, Colleen Kyle should know better than anyone else to actually read books before judging them. She might find herself actually learning something from the research of others. This is not a history book, and it doesnt claim to be one. Its encouraging people to re-think philanthropy and the long term impact generosity can have by showing how we have all benefitted from private giving already.
Mr. Chuck Jones needs to spend more time actually giving something back to society and little less time complaining about those who choose to take the personal and professional risks required to be a leader.
I would encourage people to read Gaudiani's book, to learn about how generosity affects society, and then think about what they can do in their local community to improve the lives of the less fortunate.

This book is a manifesto and an operational guideline. It explains the "third force" of our social-economic system: philanthropy, and its pivotal role in insuring the successful functioning of free-enterprise in the economic sphere and democracy in the political sphere.

The balance struck between capitalism and democracy is what matters, she says. And that balance is struck by acts of generosity.

"Generosity is capitalism's open and pragmatic acknowledgement that, since democracy's freedoms enhance capitalism's economic powers, then democracy deserves assets from capitalism that contribute to its strength." P. 23. "Capitalism needs democracy's value to remain defensible in society. Conversely, democracy needs capitalism's wealth creation for pursuing justice and opportunity for all." (p. 21)

Gaudiani makes the point that philanthropy (including volunteerism and giving) has been a critical component to the success of the American culture. It was particularly strong in the earlier part of the 20th century: during the "Progressive Era." Since 1970, however, the philanthropic urge has dissipated in relative terms. Because the distribution of wealth continues to get more skewed, and with the conservative trend in today's politics and zeitgeist fostering further disparities between rich and poor and the dismantling of social services such as universal health and social security, the need for philanthropy is never before greater.

But the need isn't simply for more dollars to be given. The crisis is in understand