As a class we have
been highly critical of the Salwen’s, we seem to be annoyed at them for the
same reasons; we think their writing style is too preachy and that their method
of giving away half only works when you already have excess. I agree with this
and found the Salwen’s hard to relate to, they are of course an upper class
family living in the South who are extremely philanthropic while I am a middle
class female from Brooklyn just being introduced to philanthropy. I agree with
all the criticisms about the Salwen’s and have found myself eye rolling as I
read through the book, but one thing I cannot critique them on is how they
chose what organization to donate money to. I thought their whole method was
very effective and thought out and I hope our class goes through a similar
process when deciding which organizations to give money to. It seems that
everyone who decides to be philanthropic and give their money away faces the
same fears and are forced to answer the same questions: which organization
should I give money to? Am I giving enough or too little? Should I help a lot
of people a small or a small amount of people a lot? Should I give direct aid
or donate money that encourages people to build their own futures? There seems
to be no right answers but I definitely like the idea of giving money to people
that will help their future rather than their present.
Yes the Salwen’s may
have been overly holier than thou but I think they made the right choice by
donating their money to the Hunger Project. The Hunger Project recognizes that
people need to take charge of their own futures and that indirect aid is better
in the long run than direct aid. It would be ideal as a class to donate money
to charitable organizations that provide direct aid as well as organizations
that provide indirect aid, but since we have to choose I think indirect aid is
the way to go. We have to think long term-it would be better to donate our
money to cancer research that will hopefully one day eradicate the problem
instead of donating our money to a company that provides wigs for individuals
or pays for one individual’s medical treatment. I’m not saying that Locks of
Love isn’t a good company or that giving money to a homeless person on the street
corner isn’t helpful but if we all worked towards more effective ways to solve
the larger problems that are causing this hair loss or hunger and dedicated our
time and money to the organizations that have long term goals I think we would
have better results.
I recently watched a
TED talk that supported my view about charities long-term goals which inspired
me while writing this blog post. The link to the TED talk I am referencing is: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong/transcript?language=en
. Dan Pallotta, the speaker of the TED
talk discusses the disparities between for-profit organizations and non-for
profit organizations. One of the points he brought up that really made me think
was that we don’t criticize the for-profit sector to spend money on advertising
but we are absolutely against the notion that our charitable donations to
non-for profit organizations go to advertising. We don’t want our money to be
spent on advertising without realizing the potential benefit advertising could
have to increase donations. He also brought up the point that we think about
time differently between the two kids of organizations. Individuals were
willing to spend their money investing in Amazon without receiving profits for
six years but god forbid if a non-for profit organization spent money on
building a scale that would spend six years to see results, even if those
results would be magnificent. People want to know where their money is going
right away when it comes to charities-blame it on the identifiable victim idea.
More people are willing to give when they know exactly who their money is
helping and when it is helping them but it is evident that it not always the
correct route to go to. Giving your money to an organization that has long-term
goals of eradicating the issue at hand more beneficial and will take your
dollar further than organizations that help people directly, and I applaud the
Salwen’s for doing exactly that.
"The proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gifts."-C.S. Lewis
I totally think you're on the right track with both of your points here. It is always imperially better to solve long term issues rather than simply work continuously to alleviate the here and now symptoms of those larger issues. For most people it is always more attractive and fulfilling to work on the here and now, because they receive that instant gratification. If everyone were to stop focusing on the here and now though, those suffering here and now would be lost.
ReplyDeleteThe key I think is to find organizations, or encourage the ones your work with, to try to focus on both. Work to alleviate the here and now, and to solve the root of the issue down the road. Yes, it takes more time and money and requires a larger operation. But that's where the second part of your argument and the Ted talk come in.
We cannot, CANNOT be afraid of overhead in nonprofits. Not just because nonprofit workers deserve to make living wages, and not just because advertising is actually a useful tool in attracting people to your campaign, but because without expansion, the problems being worked on will only continue to grow while your organization remains stagnant. There are few issues that exist frozen in time and do not continue to increase over time. Nonprofits need more workers. They need bigger offices. They need websites and they need advertisement/media campaigns and they need travel budgets and they need consultants. Without these things, considered to be so normal to any other company, a nonprofit simply cannot be expected to grow and to fulfill their goals. They need to both feed the hungry every day and work with officials to come up with solutions to prevent the hunger in the first place. They need to be able to both proved bed nets to prevent Malaria, and work to find cures and improve health infrastructures. They need to be able clean the rivers, and work to prevent them from pollution in the first place. Otherwise, the voices and efforts of nonprofits will be divided or incomplete. They will not be able to accomplish their goals without a reasonable overhead.
Celine, I think that your points regarding the lessons that are learned from The Power of Half really reflects what most of the class has taken away from the book, at least from what I’ve heard in discussion. Many people find it hard to relate to the Salwens because of their amount of wealth, allowing them financial flexibility that most people do not have the luxury of having. Many people cannot afford to donate massive amounts of money, and so must strive to be philanthropists in other ways. However, you point out that the main thing that the class has taken away from the book is the Salwens’ methodical way of evaluating charities. The questions that the Salwens raise are all questions that we should be considering as a class when we reach the step of evaluating charities and eventually choosing candidates.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about finding organizations that are long term. Solutions are always better than remedies. It is far better to think of our donation as an investment in the future welfare of human society than as simply a charitable donation. I think that it is important to choose an organization that is working to improve societal problems such as poverty, hunger, and discrimination of all kinds.
I enjoyed the TED talk that you posted. I think that it is intriguing to consider this double standard in the economy with the non-profits and profits. Many people shy away from donating towards organizations that spend on advertising. However, if they knew that for every $1 spent on advertising an extra $10 came in in donations perhaps they would be swayed to change their minds. Well run fundraising organizations with advertising campaigns can often times get more money for donations than non-profits with no advertising campaigns. I think someone in the discussion on Tuesday mentioned not wanting to donate to an organization with high overhead costs, and I think that this TED talk could be the base for an excellent class discussion.
I definitely understand all the disdain towards The Power of Half, as the Salwens do seem to be an unrealistic and idealized family who believes that the common American could afford to give away half their money. Most likely unintentionally, the story does teach an extremely important lesson, though, that I believe most people overlook. I believe The Power of Half provides a ideal example about what true philanthropy is.
ReplyDeleteThe average person sees philanthropy as an act the extremely wealthy and those who are god-like. We couldn’t possibly imagine the average Joe Schmo would give away a large portion of his wealth. What the Salwen family was able to show us that philanthropy isn’t necessarily an act of complete selflessness and humanitarianism. They used philanthropy as a means to better their family and become closer to one another. They said at the end of the story was that the most important part of their work was that it was a family project. For them, strengthening their family as a unit was placed before actually helping people. Philanthropy doesn’t have to be a completely selfless act; we can use it for personal goals, but that shouldn’t matter if you are doing good for the world. That’s the main takeaway I got from this story.
I also entirely agree that their decision making process was very informative. They did not choose an organization solely because it they felt a personal connection to it or that it was really effective. They took the time to find an organization that met a perfect equilibrium of the two. I believe that that approach is ideal for finding organization to which to donate. You want to make sure your money makes an impact, but you also must identify with the goals. I believe that this is what separates a good philanthropist from a bad one - being able to differentiate the emotions and the logical of choosing where you one goes and being able to find a good balance. This definitely ties into the immediate effect vs. lasting effect donations - immediate effects fulfill our emotional needs, but lasting effects are logically better, but in order to be a philanthropist who keeps giving, you must be able to meet your emotional and logical needs in the same organization.
I definitely find the TED talk interesting and brings up a serious problem. We constantly place for-profit and non-profits in different categories, but in the end they both do the same thing - they make money. Obviously, how they use that money is very different, but a business is a business. There are many tried and true ways of effectively making money that businessmen figured out long ago. Effective advertising is proven to be enormously beneficial to a company’s profits. There is absolutely no reason that a non-profit shouldn’t advertise if it means they are able to make more money in the long term. This discussion definitely ties in to the emotional vs. logical philanthropy. The reason that people dislike when non-profits advertise is that they feel their donations are being “wasted” on commercials. They want to see their money go to curing cancer or eliminating world hunger, but these advertisements aim to do that exactly. The only thing that advertisements do is add an extra step to the process wherein the organization can use their investment to increase capital greatly. People don’t understand this concept, however, and they just want to see immediate results in order to gain emotional satisfaction. In essence, donating your money straight to the cause of something like curing cancer may actually be *less* effective. If you donate you money to a commercial, there is potential for your initial investment to grow tremendously, which in turn generates more money to donate to the cause. The Ice Bucket Challenge is without a doubt a prime example of this.
I agree with you, and I really appreciate you starting the discussion of for-profit versus non-for profit organizations. I specifically joined this class because I was interested in learning more about what it actually means to be a non-for profit organizations and the various advantages and disadvantages of them. I recently started thinking about the possibilities of starting an international philanthropy as my future profession and as soon as I came up with the idea, I started telling people that I was interested in "international nonprofit work" because, without even thinking about it, I associated philanthropic work with non-for profit organizations. I agree with you that there is an assumption that a non-for profit organization should be 100% about charity and not focus its efforts or received donations on the business aspect of things the way a for-profit organization would. And on the flip side, I think that there is an assumption that a for-profit organization cannot be pure in its intentions and must ultimately only care about making money. However, as you pointed out, as we consider what place to give our money to, we want to choose somewhere that has the tools it needs to last a long time and to actually carry out its goals, and an important aspect of that is the strategic, managerial, business aspect of things.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me in particular about the TED Talk that you linked to was when he said, "We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make very much money helping other people. Interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people." I had never considered before the irony of how critical we are of people who make money from doing good while we simply accept the fact that many people make money by doing harm. If someone has a good business head on his/her shoulders and uses it to build a strong organization that both helps people and blossoms should we not reward his/her success? Why do we have this tendency to be so critical of those who are on the right track and so dismissive of those who are not? Going forward I would like to continue to think about your argument and delve deeper into the various merritts of for-profit vs. non-for profit.
I agree with you, and I really appreciate you starting the discussion of for-profit versus non-for profit organizations. I specifically joined this class because I was interested in learning more about what it actually means to be a non-for profit organizations and the various advantages and disadvantages of them. I recently started thinking about the possibilities of starting an international philanthropy as my future profession and as soon as I came up with the idea, I started telling people that I was interested in "international nonprofit work" because, without even thinking about it, I associated philanthropic work with non-for profit organizations. I agree with you that there is an assumption that a non-for profit organization should be 100% about charity and not focus its efforts or received donations on the business aspect of things the way a for-profit organization would. And on the flip side, I think that there is an assumption that a for-profit organization cannot be pure in its intentions and must ultimately only care about making money. However, as you pointed out, as we consider what place to give our money to, we want to choose somewhere that has the tools it needs to last a long time and to actually carry out its goals, and an important aspect of that is the strategic, managerial, business aspect of things.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me in particular about the TED Talk that you linked to was when he said, "We have a visceral reaction to the idea that anyone would make very much money helping other people. Interesting that we don't have a visceral reaction to the notion that people would make a lot of money not helping other people." I had never considered before the irony of how critical we are of people who make money from doing good while we simply accept the fact that many people make money by doing harm. If someone has a good business head on his/her shoulders and uses it to build a strong organization that both helps people and blossoms should we not reward his/her success? Why do we have this tendency to be so critical of those who are on the right track and so dismissive of those who are not? Going forward I would like to continue to think about your argument and delve deeper into the various merritts of for-profit vs. non-for profit.
I think its great that you were able to reflect on your own as well as the group's opinion, as well as take a step back and consider why they might be valid or not. There is a lot of truth to the harsh judgment that we've been facing, however its not necessarily effective on our part, or up to us to judge someone's charitable actions. It is a very convoluted subject, in my opinion, because it is human nature to judge, but i think we can focus on making some rational and proactive judgements, rather than offering our negative and ineffective comments. I do not know everyone's background or financial situation, however Binghamton is a public school and finding someone who is here not just because this a good bang for the buck is kind of tough. For the majority, we can not put ourselves into the shoes of this family, but i think that morals and ideas can still be taken away despite that. I agree with your discussion of Pallotta's TED talk as well. It is important to think long term and consider what would make the most powerful impact when donating money. This is where people need to step away from their need for an immediate reward, as well as consider organizations more carefully when donating money. It is not always about the direct percentage of one's donation that goes directly towards the cost, a lot of times it is more efficient in the long run for money to be invested in advertising, marketing, or further fundraising aspects of an organization. In this sense, i think the Salwen family was extremely careful about their efforts, and hit the nail on the head. We should consider their careful choice, their long-term plan for the money they donated, and the donation's efficiency. These three factors are key in making this sort of a decision, and instead of focusing about the negative or unreliable, we should only be paying attention to this lesson that should be taken away.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you made, Celine. While you mention that you like that the Salwens chose the Hunger Project, I particularly liked the way in which the Salwens chose this charity. Since the family was donating a significant amount of money, they wanted to make sure they chose the right charity that would use the money most effectively. They went and sat down with a representative or a panel from the organizations and asked questions. Even though long meetings were tough for the kids, the process was very effective. They ended up choosing the Hunger Project because they liked what the charity stood for and got a better understanding of that by meeting with the organization. I think that we as a class can learn from this because we are also donating a significant amount of money as well. It may not be $800,000, but the $10,000 we are entrusted to give is enough to make a significant contribution to a local charity.
ReplyDeleteI therefore believe that we as a class should take a similar approach as the Salwens. When we meet with our finalists, we should ask as many questions as we can to make sure our money will make the kind of significant impact that we all want to make. We must also be confident in the company's representatives because they represent the company, its personnel and their mission. If we take the approach that the Salwens did when choosing their charity, I am sure that we can not fail to make a lasting impact on our local community.