Site Visit to Family Planning

Hi guys, this is just a quick additional post about the site visit that I made to Family Planning with Jen last Friday, since we didn’t have time to talk about it in class today. We visited the center downtown to find out more about their organization and what they did with the $2,500 grant our class gave them last year. When we got there, they had just set up a new, medical refrigerator for their HPV vaccines, to replace their old household fridge which could not reliably keep the vaccines safe (they actually had to send a batch back to the manufacturer). They bought the new fridge with a grant from another organization.

 They needed the grant last year because the government funding for condoms was cut. Luckily, funding has now been restored. Last year, they used the $2,500 to buy 29,000 condoms. Since they’re a nonprofit, they get a substantial discount.

They distributed the condoms at several of their centers, including the one in Sidney. Condoms are really important because many of the people who go to the center don’t have access to any other means of birth control. Many of them don’t have insurance or a primary physician. We talked to the director of fundraising (who’ll be coming to our class on Thursday) and four educators (all of whom were super friendly and approachable) and they told us about how they make sure each person who comes in has access to condoms and how they foster conversations about other methods of birth control and safe sex. They also give condoms to school nurse's offices, which are often so low on condoms that they'll only give out one at a time. They told us that it's really important for youth in particular to have an anonymous way of getting condoms, because in a small community like Sidney, the cashier might be a peer or someone who knows your parent. 

Another thing they mentioned that struck us as important for our class to know is that people often find out that the center offers condoms through word-of-mouth. We took this to mean that if people learn about the center primarily through what they hear from others, they might hear that the Sidney building is not in the best shape. That might make them think that the center offers sub-par care.

I’m really looking forward to learning more about their organization this Thursday.

We come to our final stages in our Philanthropy class during the last section of the semester.  We have been through some decision making and lots of group discussion throughout this class.  However, some of the hardest decision making and discussion is yet to come int he upcoming weeks.  Many of us have illustrated that we are nervous about potential gridlock between individual beliefs.  So far I have not seen a huge disagreement with beliefs and ideologies.
Reading several articles and books throughout this class our eyes have opened to different ways to provide philanthropy.  We have asked ourselves, how much is enough? Who do we give to? What is the money directly going to provide?  These are all important questions to ask during our class discussions and presentations.
Knowing that we will potentially have ideological gridlock, are there any strategies we can use to prevent gridlock from occurring in order to provide a more effective group?  If we can avoid gridlock we should be able to decide on what organizations to fund in a more effective manner.  As a class, what are you're thoughts on this topic?
Every philanthropic group has this issue and it can hinder effective decision making and cooperation. We have seen people disagree respectfully but as we get closer to the end of our course I am sure decisions will be harder to make, especially with the large class that we have.  What past experience do you have with enhancing the cooperation and coordination of groups and organizations? Please share what was effective and ineffective with your past experiences.

Best,

Pat LaBuff

P.S - My apologies for the late post.  Professor Campbell reminded me in class today.

The Ones We Didn't Choose

I’m sure many people in class would agree with me if I said that I’m happy we have finally started to take a look at our organizations.  One of the main reasons I decided to take this class was that we would be donating actual money to actual organizations in the area, and I’m very excited to be finally looking into the places that we could be helping in the coming months.  In spite of this feeling of excitement for our five finalists, I can’t help but think about all the wonderful organizations that we did not pick.  And past that, I can’t help but think about all the wonderful local organizations that did not even apply for our grant.  I would be lying if I said that I didn’t feel a little bit rushed in this part of the process, and if I said that I was 100% happy and confident with our decisions.  I wish we could have had a more thorough discussion about our candidates before we chose the finalists, or even before we did our presentations.  I did read through the applications, but I felt like that was not enough.  I wanted to know more about the groups I chose to support and I wanted to know more about the groups that I wanted off our list.  Other than the few organizations I looked at and immediately decided I wasn’t interested in, I felt that I wasn’t giving each one a fair chance.  As completely impossible as it would have been, I wish I could have heard from each organization in person before I even had to choose groups for my presentation.

One thing that really stood out to me in choosing the finalists was how quick we were to select organizations that have recently received grants from this class.  Four of our five finalists have gotten grants from this class before and two of them got grants just last year.  Maybe I was the only one that felt this way, but I was shocked to see two organizations in our finalist list that had gotten a grant from the class so recently.  Especially when we did the second vote, I was really expecting people to reach out to new organizations that this class has not dealt with in the past.  I suppose there’s nothing wrong with giving more money to an organization if they are doing good work and have a use for it, but I just keep thinking about organizations that rarely get grants and were also left out of our final selection.  Another thing I noticed through this process was that a lot of people seem to agree with the “no arts organizations” feeling of some popular philanthropists.  Although we had several arts organizations apply, we really didn’t talk about them at all, and if we did, they were shot down rather quickly.  Music and the arts are very important in this county (probably unusually important for a community of this size and geography) and I thought it was interesting that nobody was keen on supporting these organizations that could really use the funding.

I know it is impossible to make everyone in the class happy, and that it is equally impossible to fund every deserving applicant, but I wish I could learn more about each applicant and speak with each one of them about the work that they do in this area.  Even though these finalist organizations are our “top five” and we will definitely be giving to at least one of them, I have different issues with each.  I almost wish we had a chance to discuss the issues with each organization alongside its strengths.  As I said before, I’m still not entirely confident about our finalist decisions, but I don’t know that I ever will be.  If nothing else, I think that the process so far has been a real lesson in personal giving and in choosing the organizations that mean something to you.  I watched organizations that I loved get ignored and I watched ones that I really didn’t like make it into our finalist group.  I have seriously reflected on the organizations that I loved and the reasons why I loved them and, even though they will not be receiving a grant from this class, they have shown me exactly who I want to be as a philanthropist.  Some of them will probably receive financial support from me in the future because this class has introduced me to them.  I can’t wait to hear more from our organizations in the coming weeks and to finally decide where our donation will be going.

Selfless or Selfish

On Tuesday, we embarked on our first major decision as a class, we are decided how and where will we distribute the $10,000 the class has to give away. Professor Campbell gave us an assignment in order to facilitate that process. We were ordered to identify and rationalize finalists for our presentation, all the while incorporating the following three elements: the criteria used in our selection, how we applied said criteria, and a discussion about our reasoning in our selection. At first this assignment seemed pretty straight forward. In fact, it seemed too easy. After all, throughout the entire semester, we all have been working on our individual core values and our class core values. Going into this project, I thought I knew exactly the types of causes I wanted to support and how to persuade people to vote for the organization I wanted.

However, I realized something in our class last week that I feel I overlooked when I signed up for this class. Whatever the causes that I believe in are, and regardless of how much need there may be for that specific cause, from the very beginning of this class I have been selfish. My intentions for joining the class were good, but it wasn’t until last week sitting in my group discussion that I realized how removed I was from the Binghamton community. Maybe it’s just me, but every time I’ve talked about this class, I have mentioned about the organizations that I want to win. With the exception of the last assignment, how much do we all truly know about Binghamton? Even that assignment tended to be specifically tailored to our own interests, as we were granted the freedom to pick our own topic.

In the midst of trying to win tweet of the week and trying to advance and semi-impose my own core values in this process. I truly wonder if we are really helping the Binghamton community or if we are all just stroking our own egos. I care a lot about drug and prison reform, and admittedly Binghamton is troubled by both, but are these two issues truly the most pressing matters for the community? Throughout the semester, I have emphasized the point that no one issue supersedes one another. All the issues are equally troublesome, but can we truly say that all of them our worth our money? I feel uneasy about it, to say the least. On one hand, like I’ve said many times before, no one issue is more important than another, but for me the question has become: what issue can the $10,000 have tangible effects that at least helps diminish the other issues? What issue can empower this community to help them help themselves? To be honest, I don’t have an answer. All I can offer is my own confusion and the hope that at the end of this process, we as a class make the right call. I want our donation to make a lasting effect on the community’s issue areas, not our own. Perhaps in future years there can be a way to get a survey out to the local community. There is a missing piece in this process and I think its the voices of the people we are trying to help. Obviously due to logistical reasons, it would be difficult to coordinate a survey, but there has to be a way to get community input outside from the organizations we contact. So if anyone has any ideas, please do share them in class!

Reflection of the Group Process – Are We Effective Philanthopists?

The process of choosing finalists in my group was quite surprising and unexpected in my opinion. I’d have never thought that we could shave down 55 organizations to 6 with no argument whatsoever. Is it that the 6 organizations my group chose were obviously the best? No one stood up for any particular organization after we rejected it. Everyone seemed to accept the group mentality. When I first met with my group, I wasn’t about ready to eliminate my top pick from the list (not actually Kopernik) and was ready to argue for it. Once I showed my interest in this organization, everyone agreed without hesitation. It’s certainly worth discussing the possibility of group-think and how it could come into play. Is this group process any more beneficial than individual giving? Are we held at the mercy of public opinion and unable to express our individualism?

There were certain criteria that were mentioned more than a few times that don’t make too much sense. It feels as if they are applied because they're “obvious.” These particular criteria seem to give an immediate return on investment rather than a long-term investment in the future. As philanthropists, we really need to decide what the benefit and detriments of these criteria might be, but most of us used them to some extent without reflection. The first criterion, in my opinion, is illogical and counterproductive to the process: give to the organizations that need money to survive. It seems like a unwise use of money from the philanthropist’s viewpoint. The potential for that organization to fail is much greater than a stable one. This collection of snippets from several articles gives a decent summary of the argument (http://www.alliancetrends.org/nonprofits.cfm?id=56). If you donate the same amount of money to a successful organization, then it will be able to use that money to immediately take steps towards its goal and do so with little risk. In addition, organizations that have trouble getting funding are most likely unable to due to poor leadership or a disorganized, ineffective administration. Organizations that have no choice but to beg for money will never earn my trust.

The second criterion that I find a bit backwards in many cases is elimination based on what the grant will be used towards. Even if a grant doesn’t go towards directly furthering an organization’s goals, most donations bring them closer in some way, whether it’s known to us or not. For example, money given to administration allows for a stronger leadership and a more effective “business.” A largely uninformed group that eliminates an organization using this standard seems presumptuous. We’re basically deciding that we know what an organization’s needs are more than the organization itself. I’m sure that many nonprofits have a good idea where the money is most needed and most effective. Obviously, this argument doesn't apply in many cases, but this criterion should not be applied across the board. However, if we support an organization’s goals, then we need to decide whether it deserves our trust. If they haven't yet earned our trust, then it’s much better to see the organization’s past performance to judge if they'll make good use of the grant. It doesn't necessarily matter in what manner they use the money; it's much more important to extrapolate if their decision will have a positive impact based on the organization's previous track record.

I’m curious about anybody who may disagree with this. In what ways could these criteria be more beneficial than detrimental? Do you think using them would go more along the lines of emotional giving or logical giving? I definitely welcome and encourage any differing perspectives.

Learning By Giving - accessing the landscape

LANDSCAPE OF THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY:

Forty years ago Broome County was a beautiful place.  I know this because I was born here and what a shock to return after 25 years and see what has become of this community. It really saddens me when I look around and see despair and hopelessness virtually everywhere.  How does one begin to clean this mess up?  Sometimes things can get so bad that it is really difficult and frustrating to find a starting point.  How did we get here?  Broome County was the birthplace of the flight simulator and was arguably the first “silicone valley” as IBM was born here.  Ironically, in 1853 the first drug and alcohol treatment center in the United States was opened on the eastside of Binghamton, called the New York Asylum for the Inebriated – later becoming State Hospital for the mentally ill.

There are many factors that have led to the state of regional economic despair that we are now experiencing.  Some of measures contributing to the problem were “necessary”, such as the federal municipal status of Binghamton being in jeopardy, while some measures were just bad luck and the result of rising costs and declining tax base.

In studying the list of applicants to narrow the field I realized that none of the applicant organizations have taken on the task of evaluating and meeting the needs per se.  While there were many, many fine applicants and all seemed to be doing something worthwhile there was not one organization that was taking on the needs as a whole.  Perhaps the United Way or some other large institutional organization takes on that role on a macro level but there were no applicants where I said, “Ah ha!  This is the one who is really tackling the issues”.  The important thing for me to keep in mind is that every organization is doing something and each group believes in what they are doing.

One of the greatest underserved needs in the Broome County area is the rising use of opiates, specifically heroin.  There are many organizations across the country that treat addiction and most of these organizations charge between 30 and 45 thousand dollars for a 28-day stay.  Surprisingly our area, where the country’s first treatment center was built, has a need far greater than our ability to address it.  According to Broome County Health officials we have an estimated 2,100 people (about 1% of the population) that uses heroin 5 or more days per week.  At the same time we have only 18 beds available for treatment.

“OUGHT IMPLIES CAN” (Emanuel Kant)

How can we expect people to “get better” if we don’t have ample and necessary services available?  They are addicted!  They have a disease (according to the WHO, DSM, CDC and AMA).  How can we hold people accountable to an impossible standard?  Our government is supposed to protect us.  Our government is supposed to implement policies and laws designed to maximize the most good for the greatest number.  Our public-private partnerships through research universities and hospitals are supposed to serve the “needs of the community”.  What do we do when they fail us?  This is where I believe philanthropy plays a most important role.  Philanthropy seems to take on a civic responsibility to bridge the gap between unmet need and services.  Where educational and governmental organizations leave need philanthropy has accepted the calling of addressing.

Addiction is a disease where a person has a compulsory inability to stop doing something. 

Here is the apparent logic: As a society we say-

1.     We know you can’t stop, AND

2.     We are not able or willing to help you to stop, SO

3.     Therefore, we REQUIRE you just stop.

BTW: If you can’t stop (and we know you can’t (see given #1)) - we are going to force you to choose between 1. a certain and painful death (withdrawal) or 2. the commission of a serious crime (robbery = temp cure withdrawal).

Either way you are going to end-up in jail (generating federal funds that help fuel our “criminal justice economy”)

or dead (and not costing society any more money). 

Somehow, I don’t think this is what our forefathers had in mind when they established and settled this country.  Our great nation was founded on the ideas of autonomy, liberty and happiness.  Liberty implies choice and addiction is her enemy.  An untreated addict has not the capacity to engage in acts of autonomy, the exercise of liberty nor the happiness derived therefrom.

Broome County, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s interactive website, has a giving ratio of 2.34%, which is on the low side of the national scale. All of the neighboring counties to Broome are within that same range varying from 2.08% (Chenango County) to 2.64% (Tioga County).  This indicates the competitiveness of local charitable giving.  When an area has a growing number of unmet needs combined with a highly competitive fundraising environment the results seem to be a large gap between need and services.

It troubles me that there are not more programs to inspire “grassroots” entrepreneurship by truly teaching people to fish.  Until such time as small business people learn how to attract revenue from other markets into our area versus creating business that sell goods and services within our area, growth will be non-existent.  National organizations like the Kaufman Foundation (check them out at: http://www.kauffman.org) believe in an education and entrepreneurship approach to addressing regional economic problems.

It has been both rewarding and educational to work with a team of motivated, intelligent, and thoughtful people in narrowing down our list of candidates this week.  Binghamton has a long way to go to get to where we once were but with good strategic planning and investment we can get back to the community that we once were and so much more!

To give, or not to give?

Having skimmed the grantee applications several times as they were coming in, I wasn’t thinking about which of them I would choose at those moments, instead I was confident in the fact that there would be a wide array of applications and that the selection process will be relatively simple. Meeting with our groups in class to discuss our core values, their intersections, and the types of organizations that we will be giving to was also very helpful and left me feeling that my principles would allow for a very simple and quick choosing process.

When I sat down to read thoroughly through all of the applicants I faced some serious internal debates. Were the issues we were addressing the most prominent? Am i biased in choosing one focus group over another, or one organization over another? Are we really making an impact, and working to eliminate an issue? What makes one organization more worthy of our money verses another?

Extremely torn, I read through the whole list completely still not knowing where I stand, however recalling our group discussion helped me out a bit. We ended up focusing on youth related and educational causes as a tactic of preparing kids for the real world, aiding them when they are in need, and eliminating a lot of other issues by addressing them early on and helping children develop habits and lifestyles that would prevent other problems.

As during the last group presentation my team presented on the issue of education, I knew that graduation rates in Broome County were higher than the state average, and that class sizes were relatively smaller than the average as well. However, these were not the issues that we are trying to address this time around. The numbers of children living in poverty or facing disenfranchisement are tremendous, and are the real issue. If these youths do not have any support system, the county ends up raising people that are not built to succeed and are, in fact, constantly brought down. The youths are less likely to pursue a higher education, therefore find a better paying job, are more likely to resort to criminality ending up incarcerated or impoverished.

Our goals became childhood and youth development because of the long-term prospects we saw in addressing these issues. After recalling our conversations, I felt way more confident in choosing the non-profits I found the most productive and promising. 

Of course, all of the decisions we make are biased, so I am certain that specific experiences of mine drove me to pursue this issue, but they also allow me to constructively evaluate the necessity and potential success of an organization of this nature. 

When meeting with my group again, I think that we achieved our goals to address a prominent and relatively urgent issue within the Broome County community through giving to an organization that is realistic with its goals, hopes to achieve them through a needed outlet, is working to eliminate issues long-term rather than just alleviate them short-term, and is transparent about their finances and execution model.

Visit to Mom's House

Last Friday, Amanda and I visited Mom's House to follow up with the donation they received last year from this program.  After speaking to Executive Director Laura Bowen, we learned that the contribution was largely used for rebranding.  The money allowed them to replace their old, dull sign with a logo bright enough to bring a smile to each visitor and staff member that drives up to their door.  Laura expressed how their current budget and base donations are used to fund the services they supply day to day, leaving very little money for supplementary needs such as a new sign or a brochure.

From this experience, I have learned to trust the organizations that we choose with the freedom to utilize the money as they see fit.  While legally we have the authority to determine the allocation of our donation, what makes us qualified to determine the greatest needs of an organization?


I have attached an image of their revamped sign, as well as the old one for comparison.

Does Identity Matter?

            There is a common saying that’s been resonating with me over the last week and half, that ‘you don’t know what you have until it’s gone’.  In this case, I didn’t know how lucky I was to have what I have until I saw it cruelly taken from someone else.  Since the accident on Parade Day that unfortunately resulted in Meghan Madden losing one of her legs due to the negligent act of a drunk driver I have definitely changed my outlook on life.  I think of the times we act carelessly, especially as teens because there is a belief that were all invisible.  But last weekend proved to me that we aren’t invincible, even when we are completely innocent and doing nothing wrong. 

            I’d always wondered what it would be like to win the tweet of the week competition and where I’d donate the money. However, there was no need for decision making last week, for the cause that helped me win was directly where it was going. After winning the tweet of the week competition last week my perspective on this class has changed as well.  It’s nice to sit around and talk about all the good we can do for the community and the world, however until the grants are finalized we haven’t done anything except talk.  Last week I was overwhelmed with joy seeing that we truly are a community that supports each other within our classroom and that anyone can really make a difference.

            As I told Meg the good news in that $83 dollars would be supporting her from our class I began to wonder if the money really should have gone to her. I’m not the best tweeter and there definitely were better ones than mine, so I wonder why I won. Was it that I had a personal connection to Meg? Was it that this event occurred in our community?  Is this idea of an identifiable victim the reason that persuaded the class onto my behalf?

            With these questions circling my mind I began to do some research on the concept of identifiable victims.  This phenomenon has been proven that people will be more inclined to donate money to an identifiable person rather than unnamed victims or charities. This way of giving is tied close to the heart rather than the head, but is there something wrong with this? Are we missing out on bigger causes due to the bias we create?

            While exploring this topic I came across an interesting article that really changed my view on this idea of the identifiable victim. This heart based donating is due to a provoking of our emotions. I thought this concept was concrete, however in India a study was conducted that represents that this stereotypical idea of the identifiable victim does not add up and instead show something very different.  In India there is a belief in caste systems and often low-ranking groups are not seen sympathetically like they are here. In the study the higher castes represented the effects of identifiable victims in the same way we view this concept, however the effect was reversed for the low caste levels. Participants in this study were less likely to donate to low caste members rather than high members even when the identifiable victim was represented.  Furthermore we see that identity plays a huge part in our emotions, at least in India where they still take caste systems seriously.  This really got me thinking, did Meg win because I truly deserved to win the tweet of the week or did her middle class title and similarity to us give her the upper hand? Perhaps it is because we know where the money is going rather than donating to groups, but I remain skeptical.