Let’s hope Ted Turner can now make billion-dollar philanthropy as cool as an invitation to Herb Allen’s Sun Valley retreat. Turner is only one of more than 150 billionaires in the United States; 10 years ago there were 49. If you spent all day counting fast, it would take you 90 years to reach 1 billion. A billion yields at least $2 million a week in interest. These guys had better start giving it away faster. Imagine that one of them gets hit by a truck and has to leave nearly half his money to the IRS. The poor rich man would end up having worked all those years just to help the Pentagon buy a couple more B-2 bombers that can’t fly in the rain.

Eighty percent of all estates of more than $1 million leave nothing to charity, so it’s ungrateful to carp about those who give generously. But let me try anyway. You see, I have this problem with certain kinds of philanthropy, and it’s not just the sticky fingers of all the middle men. Americans are extraordinarily supportive of the nonprofit sector, which dwarfs that of other countries. And yes, as Joanne Scanlon, executive vice president of the Council on Foundations, says, ““We have such a range of interests in this country that there’s good that comes from any gift, anywhere.’’ Even so, we may be routinely misallocating not just government money but charity. We may be forgetting that not every worthy cause is a genuinely needy one.

Let’s break down the collection plate. Nearly half of the $150 billion in total annual charitable contributions goes to churches and other religious organizations, some of which ends up helping the poor. But only about $12 billion goes to ““human services.’’ In other words, direct help for the poor amounts to less than 10 percent of all philanthropy. No wonder I’m so cranky on the subject.

Nearly $20 billion annually in charity goes to education, but three quarters of that is devoted to higher ed. Slate magazine’s online list of the largest individual contributions reflects this; almost all of the biggest gifts went to colleges. It’s not just sentiment, or trying to get little Johnny in. Donors feel they don’t have to worry as much about how the money will be spent as they would if they gave to human services. And there are larger reasons. We boast the finest system of higher education in the world; those donations are one of the big reasons why.

Unfortunately, the money too often goes for bricks and mortar at the expense of people. New buildings are pleasant for the privileged students lucky enough to use them, and those big plaques are a nice ego reward for the benefactors. But are they really what society as a whole needs most right now? Many wealthy alums show their gratitude to their alma mater with scholarships, which are terrific for helping people move from the middle to the upper rungs of American life. But how about what happens before college? It’s fair to ask whether enough private money is being used to help kids get from the lower rungs to the middle ones. Moreover, the most prestigious schools now have endowments that have doubled in the bull market. In short, your college still wants your money, but it doesn’t always need it most.

Teens and younger children, on the other hand, do need it, as the philanthropist Walter Annenberg realized when he devoted $50 million to innovative schools, many in at-risk communities. Bill Gates, just beginning to give away some of his $36 billion, is getting the message, too. After bestowing his largesse on the wealthy and decidedly unneedy Seattle private school he attended and on gold-plated Harvard, Gates is giving $200 million to low-income communities for computers and for library workers to train people to use them. That’s the right idea, and it should mark the beginning of a fundamental redirection of resources toward at-risk kids.

So far, even the best-funded, most reputable groups are badly overmatched by the social problems they face. The Boys & Girls Clubs of America, for instance, is the largest and arguably most effective youth organization in the country, serving 2.6 million young people, mostly in inner-city neighborhoods. But that’s out of a universe of 15 million poor kids, most of whom have no place to go when they’re out of school. They roam the streets for hours each day, while college kids get the fancy new gym. Last year scores of wealthy Americans gave a million or more to American colleges and universities. Many were generous with local youth activities, but only one benefactor, Dwayne Andreas, gave the Boys & Girls Clubs of America more than $250,000.

I love Ted Turner’s glorious guilt trip, even if his choice of the bloated United Nations as his big charity could be a recipe for historic waste. Now his goal should be to move people beyond just ponying up. His fellow ERPs should be urged to connect their giving–as he and Carnegie did–to some diagnosis of what ails society. If the wealthy complain about welfare, they might consider supporting nonprofit welfare-to-work programs; many spend the money much better than they suspect. If they say kids can’t read or write, they could help fund a charter school. If it’s crime that worries them, try backing after-school youth activities. Commitment to some principles–what a radical idea! Maybe it’s even beginning to catch on a little.