It takes resources to do anything, so a fair compensation for organizing, promoting, logistics, etc is to be expected. So I have nothing against giving to big agencies, and I don't need to see results with my own eyes, nice as that might be. But I understand the point, we've all heard of charities that misuse funds. At Ms Scott's level of giving, I expect she has a whole team of finance & accountant experts to advise her.

For me, I would like to actually SEE my money going directly to the cause, and this would not happen giving money to an organization.

Organizations, in order to do good in the world, need to have a way of getting the money/services to the people they're serving. This usually requires some sort of infrastructure (employees, office equipment, etc.), which does not come free. There are of course small organizations or individuals who do this on a completely volunteer basis, and that's wonderful, but the larger organizations reach many more people. Both approaches are valuable.

Doing some due diligence before donating to any cause is always a good idea. You can see details of how many nonprofits use their money by using Guidestar (guidestar.org). A basic search is free to sign up for, and includes the latest 990s for the organization.

I thought it was just a " poke" at her ex, Bezos, while he spends money on himself.

I agree Eld. I remember when Oprah Winfrey went around to small African villages and installed wells. Within a year the pumps had failed. I'd like to see ALL the pumps replaced and have fresh clean water flowing again....for instance. Fresh water in ALL 3rd world countries would be a BIG goal....but....billions of dollars could handle a bit of it.

Adopting a high school in a poverty struck area....giving college scholarships.....WOW! I did hear about that. A most worthy cause!

I heard of another case, where instead of buying a 2nd home for themselves....a well-to-do family sponsored a whole family escaping from another country....gave THEM a home....and helped integrate them into our culture.

@Uptown Gal ???? strange comment to make.

Jeff Bezos tops list of biggest charitable givers in 2020.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charity-donations-richest-lowest-9-years/

maddielee.....I think she has MacKenzie mixed up will Bill Gates ex wife?

@User that would be just as strange. Bill Gates has contributed billions to different organizations.

@maddielee Yeah...but Bill Gates is being personified as a self absorbed sex offender. So a wife would want to get-back-at him. Bezos hasn't made the news.....yet.... for doing anything. (the fact both donate billions is a fact that is missed among the hoopla surrounding the divorce)

She would have to investigae each of the people she gives to were she to give on an individual basis, there are plenty of individual scammers who would take advantage if they could.

I do understand concerns about giving to charities, there are bad ones that retain most of the $, but she could investigate charities too.

She has a team that vets all the organizations that meet the qualifications she has set and after receiving the donations, the organizations must report on how the donation was spent. She is one smart lady.

No, Nicole, I don't have her mixed up. When Bezos started planning his space trip, she started

donating more money. (this particular path for her isn't new...just more). And, yes, Kris,

I agree! :)

@Uptown Gal, maybe you are just hearing about his upcommg ’space trip’? It’s taken years of planning and building to make it happen.

He purchased property for the launch site and started hiring a team back in 2000.

"We all know that the vast majority of the money goes to the big-wigs at the top."

This is untrue for major, important non-profit operations. Reconsider the word choice - the "vast majority"?

Large grants typically have strings attached as to accountability and how money is spent. This is standard practice and not the result of the donor's personal smarts. Most wealthy people (even those with much lower magnitudes but still substantial wealth) - use experts to give guidance and ultimately implement their wishes of all kinds. Including charitable giving. Experts with experience who know what to do and not do. Assume that to be the case here.

I always check the administration costs/fundraising costs percentages of charities that I'm considering donating to and I'm assuming that they are as well.

As an aside - I didn't realize that she had remarried.

No, the vast majority of money doesnt go to the bigwiigs. Some of the heads of nonprofits make a very good salary. Thats how they attract topnotch people who will run the organization well and meet goals. Foundations do not hand over money and trust the nps to use it well. The recipients must submit periodical reports that are backed up by demonstrated results. Charity Navigator and Guidestar are great sites for investigating how well chharitable dollars are being used. You can even see their 990s.

I love that Mackenzie married a high school science teacher!

I would certainly call $30 million to a community college commendable.

We aren't privy to the deals she's made with the organizations she's donating to. She most likely has great say in how the funds are spent.

I find her charity commendable. I am not educated on the specific causes she has given to because I feel like its really none of my business. I have, on several occasions, been shamed for giving to one charity over another that someone else thinks is more deserving, works with causes that THEY find more important, or something like that. Its annoying. I do not care if she gives a billion dollars to powerwash the rainforests, its her money and she is very generous with it.

If I were a billionaire, I would be very happy to give charitably, but I would NOT just give cash or property to people in poverty just because they are in poverty. And she would be ill advised to do so too. Giving to larger, well established, experienced, non profit organizations is a much better way to reach more people that are actually in need of real help more efficiently. She has the money, and is very generous with it, she is well advised to let the professionals handle the logistics.

Having worked with a large foundation whose name is recognizable, I will say that the willingness to accept significant conditions on how money is spent depends on how needy the org is and how much money is involved.

Imagine something like a university in a $2 billion endowment program (not an unrealistic program for a large school with well off alums). Let's aim high - they reach their goal with 20 contributions of $100 million each. While $100 million is a lot of money, it's not a lot relative to $2 billion or relative to a presumably larger endowment. There's no way a university would agree to anything more than general guidelines, programs, interests of the donor for how the money will be applied. It would be unworkable.

You want us to name a building or a grad school after you and devote your money to that part of the university? Great, we're happy to do that, thank you for your generosity. You want your money focused on scholarships for first in family college attendees? Sure we'll do that gladly. But anything more would be very rare. Money is given to non profits to allow them to do their work and to do more of it, not to have donations buy outsiders honorary CEO or Board Chairman status. For large amounts of money,

if the mega donors really wanted to have hands on involvement, they could have their own foundations do it themselves. That's not so common.

This was in our paper this week-

MacKenzie Scott, the billionaire philanthropist, has given $40 million to the University of Central Florida — an investment the school said was the “largest gift in the university’s history.”

UCF described the donation from Scott and her husband Dan Jewett as an “unrestricted gift,” which the university plans to use to “focus on fostering social mobility while developing the skilled talent needed to advance industry across our state and beyond.”

"UCF described the donation from Scott and her husband Dan Jewett as an “unrestricted gift,”"

Exactly. The term restrictions means a situation where a gift has rigid guidelines attached as to how the money is spent - for the English department, to build a new Alumni Center, for an endowed chair in the Education department, etc.,

Donors with the most generous and outward facing motivations make unrestricted gifts as much as possible. In such cases the intent is often to simply give worthy orgs more money to do what they do and stay out of their way.