[matdehaast]

I find it a very interesting approach to what she is doing.

The problem with most philanthropic organizations is that they come to rely on a constant stream of money. I've heard the Gates Foundation have to be very intentional with how they deploy capital. Because whole ecosystems come to rely on that money in an unsustainable way. So when they have met their goals or decided its not working and pull funding, those that relied on the funding basically collapse overnight. Which could lead to even worse outcomes.

With her approach, I do wonder if this will occur with many of the organizations she is giving large amount of money to.

EDIT: Reminds me of the saying "Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".

[graemep]

It depends on the terms of what she does. Things like the gates foundation want control over what is done and provide a stream of money. That creates continuous dependence on funding.

IMO this is deliberate - it means you can "give away" the money but keep the power and the status which are the only benefits for having that much money.

If she is making a series of large one off donations that problem does not exist.

[ZeroGravitas]

Part of the (slightly vague and confusingly written) message is that she's also investing in for-profit organisations that have overlapping goals with the charities.

[dbacar]

IMHO, I dont think this is her responsibility.

[Vecr]

Is is a donor's responsibility if they're seeking better outcomes.

[jajko]

If she cares which she most probably is, she / experienced people in charge should put this fact into project planning.

But there are limits and nobody sees future, dont expect impossible miracles just because it would be nice.

[Vecr]

If she just wants it gone/the responsibility off her chest she could send it to one of the really big re-granters.