Her approach to giving—personal, practical, rooted in place—offers a striking contrast to the ambitions and methods of America’s largest foundations.
Dolly Parton’s passing at the age of 80 has been front and center in most news outlets. Even The New York Times had multiple stories on the life and music of this amazing entertainer. High praise for a performer whose values were not always in sync with elite journalism.
Parton was a singer and songwriter, but she was also a formidable philanthropist who gave away millions of dollars over the course of her life (see here, here, here, and here, for example, among many others). The amount and range of her charitable work is well known, but how she went about her generous giving has received less attention.
Parton focused much of her giving on very concrete issues and needs. She did not engage in grand “theories of change,” but rooted her giving in real, immediate problems.
One of her biggest efforts centered on literacy. She paid for the distribution of millions of books to kids all over America. Her motivation was simple: her father never learned to read, and she did not want any child to have that fate.
Similarly, she was a major donor to medical research on cancer and other diseases. It may be more complicated than buying books, but there is a clear purpose, and you can tell if your money is making a difference.
Her philanthropy also had strong ties to the impoverished part of Tennessee where she was born and raised. While many might snicker at Dollywood in Pigeon Forge and the many other projects that she undertook, there can be no doubt that her philanthropy and her businesses made a difference for one of the poorest regions of America.
When that part of the world was devastated by severe flooding caused by Hurricane Helene in 2024, Parton donated millions to address the immediate housing needs of her neighbors. She did not ignore other parts of America, but she felt she had a special obligation to the place that made her who she was.
She guided her philanthropy through a simple sense of Christian charity and compassion, combined with two other key elements. First, she avoided politics and political labeling. She has to be the only person to ever turn down a Medal of Freedom from two presidents, one a Democrat and the other a Republican. She did not want people to attend her performances or buy her recordings because of her politics, nor she did not want her philanthropy to carry any kind of political taint.
Second, while she eschewed politics, yet she was unabashedly patriotic. She once described herself as having “an All-American heart.” She believed in America and its values and felt no need to apologize for it. She acknowledged American problems, such as the poverty of her hometown and the failure to teach every child to read. For her, though, these weaknesses were not failures but rather challenges that American ingenuity could address.
A contrast
Now, compare Parton’s philanthropy and the values behind it with how the biggest foundations conduct their business. Some, like Lilly and Gates, focus much of their donations on very-concrete problems. However, most invest the bulk of their money in complicated efforts to change regional, national, and even global social structures and cultural values where the consequences are unclear at best. Parton focused on changing the circumstances of life, but not on social change per se. Big Philanthropy generally turns that formula backwards and focuses on promoting social change even if its efforts do not change the circumstances of life for many people.
Most big donors, with a few exceptions, have also lost their connection to the communities and regions where their wealth originated. Lilly and Mott do invest in their hometowns and home states. Most do not. The Ford Foundation had to be threatened with legal action before it was willing to make Detroit and Michigan parts of its program.
Even those donors that have made major investments in local economic development, like Ford and Mott, can rarely show the kind of results that Parton’s combination of charity and entrepreneurship produced in eastern Tennessee. Yes, the star quality behind Dollywood was certainly an element, but my guess is that she accomplished significant results with a fraction of the money that Mott has put into Flint or Ford has put into the South Bronx.
While every major donor is quick to claim political neutrality, the fact is that most are heavily invested in promoting progressive politics. These “nonpartisan” institutions have increasingly become involved in electoral politics and in supporting efforts to directly shape policy. They may do so by cleverly stretching and bending current law and regulations, so as to maintain their actions are still legal. Nonetheless, they are unafraid of politicizing their work in a way that runs completely contrary to Parton’s approach to philanthropy.
Finally, how many of the biggest foundations show any hint of patriotism? There may be a few, but most are heavily invested in a scathing critique of America’s failings here and abroad. Whether seeing every aspect of American life as imbued with racism and intolerance or endlessly questioning the fundamentals of a market economy, these funders will only be proud of America when its most-basic elements have been destroyed or replaced. This is a far cry from Parton’s belief that anyone, including a poor girl from Tennessee, can achieve great things in this country.
Many good things have been written about Dolly Parton since her death. Her generosity has been mentioned often. Yet, the real lessons from her philanthropy are rooted in how she gave away her money—the goals and values behind her contributions—rather than the size of her donations. Other donors should take note and perhaps reflect on how their work could be improved by emulating her, maybe just a bit.
