Jun 26, 2007

Differing Views in Charity Work Splits the Funds

by Laura Starita

The New York Times ran a very sad philanthropy story last week about a charity called called Autism Speaks. The charity was formed by Bob Wright, former NBC/Universal chairman and grandfather to an autistic child, and his wife Suzanne. Autism Speaks has the dual goal of finding a cure for the neurological disorder and stopping the splintering within the autism community between people who believe the disorder is genetic and those who believe it is a result of environmental causes, such as mercury in infant vaccinations. They had some early success: within two years the Wrights had managed to merge with two other Autism charities to create what they call a “big tent” approach to research into the disease. Yet this year, there is a new rift, as the Wright’s have fallen into a family conflict with their daughter, Katie, who believes vaccines are to blame, a position the Wrights do not share. (Autism Speaks has granted funds to researchers addressing both sides).

Beyond the ugly, public mudslinging and intra-familial anger, there is a broader story here about the splits that often arise in charity circles. Almost every field of interest contains conflict, with well-informed people taking different stances. And while debate is healthy—and necessary to the creation of credible research—when a field is too widely splintered it can result in dozens of different organizations all with a different approach or angle or priority on an issue. This can create the wrong kind of competition within the nonprofit sector, where the focus is on proving other groups wrong instead of on finding what works.  When organizations compete with each other for limited cash they can create a wide-but-shallow pool of funds which allows no field of inquiry enough traction to do anyone any good, exactly a dynamic that the Wrights, ironically, were hoping to end in the autism community.

New York Times: Autism Debate Strains a Family and Its Charity