Noted philanthropist Charles Bronfman and philanthropy expert Jeffrey Solomon have co-authored their first book together, titled “The Art of Giving: Where the Soul Meets a Business Plan” (Wiley), which will be released in early November. There, they argue that philanthropy must be strategic, intentional and — perhaps most importantly — fun. The Jewish Week sat down with the authors at The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies office on East 59th Street, where they spoke about the shift from charity to philanthropy, how the Madoff affair has impacted philanthropy and the importance of giving with your mind – not just your heart.

The Jewish Week: In “The Art of Giving,” you argue that “too many gifts are made out of social or business obligations, guilt, or whim,” which “takes the fun out of giving.” What makes giving fun for you?
Charles Bronfman: If you’re going to take tikkun olam seriously, accomplishing is important. You need to find a few niches. For us, those niches are young people — however you want to define young — and pride in one’s heritage. If you don’t love your heritage, it is hard to love yourself.

In this book, you draw the distinction between “old philanthropy” and “new philanthropy.” How do you characterize the basic differences between the two?
Jeffrey Solomon: In the “old philanthropy” model, there was a direct connection between the heart and the check-writing hand. It never went through your head. New philanthropy offers a far greater emphasis on impact.
CB: I’ll give an example. When Katrina happened, my wife was still alive. She said, “Let’s give X to whatever [relief organization].” I said, “How do you know the money will get there?” Sharna Goldseker’s husband, Simon, was working at Jewish Funds for Justice, and he led us to an avenue that went directly to help people build homes. The heart was involved, but the giving went through the head.

The majority of “individual givers” have incomes of under $100,000. What recommendations do you have to help people with lesser means give strategically?
JS: Start by developing a philanthropic budget for charity. Many people give without ever thinking about how much money they have to give away. Then, decide what percentage you want to give to your area of interest. It should be at least 1 percent more than last year. You can’t go totally strategic in one year.
CB: By strategic, Jeff is talking about the soul. I’d say [strategic giving] should be 65 percent of your giving. Years back, we found out, much to our dismay, that a large percentage of our giving was a result of just being asked. Since then, we’ve focused on giving to our core [causes].

How do you define that core?
JS: Last year, 70 percent of our giving went to Birthright Israel, funding 265,000 elementary school students in Israel, Slingshot and the Historica project in Canada. Mount Sinai Medical Center [where Charles Bronfman sits on the board] is also part of the core. Mount Sinai Institute for Personalized Medicine is about thinking toward the future; it’s not for our immediate gratification. It won’t benefit either of us in our lifetimes.

How do you draw the distinction between donors who are engaged and those who cross the line into meddlesome?
JS: We have an expression around here called, “Noses in, fingers out.” What that means is that donors should keep their noses in to make sure impact is happening. Still, they don’t have the responsibility of management. If they try to act like they do, they’re likely to sabotage the very organization they’re trying to support.

In your book, you often refer to the philanthropist as a “she.” Was that intentional?
CB: We wanted to get over the sexism; we strived for balance.
JS: We’ve observed too often, especially in the Jewish community, a lack of sensitivity toward a variety of diversity issues, gender being at the forefront.
CB: Philanthropy used to be totally controlled by men. The women’s campaign really revolved around men telling women what they could give. Now it’s different. The glass ceiling really has been broken.
JS: Before it was called “new philanthropy,” it was called women’s philanthropy. Women are more project-oriented and they understood what it was they were giving to. Men tend to be more competitive with their giving and devote less time to it than women do.

Why did you decide to write this book?
CB: Originally, I had the idea of writing an autobiography. But the timing was bad; my wife had just died and my father was dying. I decided there wasn’t enough there for an autobiography. One day I turned to Jeff and said, “What you and I know about could make for a hell of a book.”
JS: If you walk into a bookstore, you’ll see a whole section on investing. Yet there are no books on how to invest to change the world. If people made money the way they give it away, we’d probably be one of the poorest economies in the world. Philanthropy is not done with purpose.

You talk about a gradual shift from “charity” to “philanthropy.” What do you mean by that?
CB: It used to be you’d give charity to fulfill an organization’s mission. Philanthropy is giving to fulfill your needs. This is huge. People got a lot smarter.
JS: It helps that information is so readily available. Twenty years ago, there wasn’t a GuideStar [the online source for financial and other data about nonprofit organizations].

The non-donor makes up 30 percent of the American public. Do you think it is the same percentage in the Jewish world?
JS: My guess is that it may well be lower. There’s a great sense of tzedakah even in poor, larger Orthodox families. It’s built into the fabric.

You had the opportunity to invest with Madoff, but wisely chose not to. What are the lingering effects of the Madoff affair on the wider philanthropic world?
JS: Fifty-one foundations died as a result of Madoff, and 143 were injured. It was a philanthropic tsunami. It’s wrong to see it as a Jewish problem; it’s an American tragedy. Research showed that an organization was much more likely to be affected by Madoff if it had a small board. The lesson, though, has been learned. No more than 10 percent of assets should be with any given money manager. And the money you set aside philanthropically is not money you own, but money you steward for society and for the future. It should be treated more conservatively.

Due to the leverage of partnerships, The Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies have produced more than $200 million worth of programs each year with an investment of under $20 million.
CB: It’s less than that now, about 35 to 40 percent less. We didn’t get caught with Madoff, but we were affected by the general recession.
JS: The total philanthropic field lost $200 billion and will reach 2007 giving levels in 2017. We’re a spend-down foundation and we’re going out of business in 2016.

Email: Tamar@jewishweek.org