It's a little bit strange to think that we are so close to the end of our semester. It feels like we just began our hypothetical discussion of how to best give and what giving really means for us individually and collectively as a society. But now with only three weeks left of classes we have to turn our months worth of hypothetical questions and answers into reality. We have chosen five amazing organizations, all of whom do great work for this community. There is not question that all of these organizations and the 50 others we passed over are deserving of this money. But now we are faced with the daunting decision of how we choose. As we scrutinize each organization we should leave our emotions aside and decide based solely on fact, need and our individual subjective assessments of the organizations. I look forward to hearing about each individual sight visit because I think it will give us more of a full picture of each organization and the work it accomplishes.
I have to admit I am already a little bit nervous about the organizations we choose to be in our finalists. In theory and maybe even in practice they are all great organization, but I can't help looking at the downfalls they each possess. For example Kopernic, a great organization that fosters the love for science into local youth does great work. But will a new imaging system really help them get closer to achieving their mission. Furthermore, should we give money to them just because we know our grant will be matched. I believe that while making our decision we should leave not consider the fact that the money we could give would be matched. This fact has been mentioned various times during class discussion, and though it is great that our small grant could help acquire them an even larger one, it has no baring on the merit of their request.
We can then look to Family Planning, a great organization that provides essential medical care to those who would not otherwise be able to afford it. However, is a clinic that is only open once a week really in need on $10,000 in repairs.
Does the Southern Tier Alternative Therapies require that we pay for each child to receive a new IPad, or is their a more cost effective route that would allow for the same outcome?
Should we support an organization that requires its recipients to attend and participate in Christian services when there is little to no other option for men of lets say a Jewish or Muslim faith?
These are the questions that I cannot help but ask myself. I know that in the end we will make the right choice. But I am anxious to find out how we will make that choice.
I realized yesterday that I have been running into this issue where I'm looking at the finalists, and I'm looking at all of the issues that we can point out and the holes in their projects or their organization, and rather than looking at our grant as an opportunity to help these charities achieve their goals, I find myself looking at it from the perspective of how can our donation improve these organizations' flaws. Essentially, I am looking at how I think the finalists can make themselves better rather than how the finalists think they can make themselves better. This isn't necessarily a horrible thing though. I think that it allows me to better narrow down which causes I do and don't want to support. The ones that I find too many issues with and have too many ideas of how they should be doing things different is a clear indication of which finalists I do not want to give our grant to.
ReplyDeleteFor example, my first thoughs about Southern Tier Alternative Therapies are whether or not their methods for acquiring ipads, how much they are spending on them, and where they are seeking that funding from are the best methods. I am not an expert. But I have no proof that those running these non profits are necessarily experts either. So, at this point in our research, without proof that the finalists plans are truly the best plans. So if I am able to come up with ideas that I think are better, such as finding cheaper ipads, I think it means I should just move on and consider the next finalist.
Interesting post Hannah.
ReplyDeleteI am in no way trying to bring down our finalist organizations, but I do feel like a great chunk of them are misinformed. I think that a lot of the organizations are unaware of some information and resources that exist for them. I do not know the cause of this, maybe the initial lack of funds, or only input from an older generation. However, I feel like a lot of them are seeking help that is achievable from other organizations, or resources specifically for the aid they need, as you and Jason mentioned.
I do not mean to rant, and it is not our job to address this issue. But i think it is important to keep in mind how not every organization has the knowledge that we possess, or a business model that we find the most efficient simply because of lack of funds. We should not look past them, but try to reach out and maybe redirect their focus or at least provide them with our ideas if we are capable of helping and making the experience more beneficial and fundraising more efficient for them.
I too have been experiencing the same issues that you and Jason have discussed. , While I think points of these arguments are valid, I am not always convinced myself that it is the best way to approach the situation. I believe it is crucial to investigate and make sure an organization is running efficiently. However, part of me has been feeling pessimistic throughout this entire process. Yes it is our responsibility to ensure that our $10,000 is being put to good use, but what is the line between this pursuit for effectiveness and an unreasonable expectation for perfection. I feel as though I have started to ignore the true value of these organizations because of my fixation on what I believe can be improved upon. I think a balance needs to be found between the two, but finding it has proven to be difficult.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your insight Hannah!
ReplyDeleteThe Family Planning group actually just had their site visit today and as I was walking back with a couple of my group members to the bus back to campus, we were discussing more so the flaws that we saw than the amazing things that they accomplish. It's difficult to say whether or not our grant is going towards the place where it is most needed or could be most effective and sustainable, but I feel like this debate is something that will always be a problem for donors. We are seeing these organizations from an outside perspective. We only go off of what is made available to the public and we don't really see the ins and outs, the daily on-goings of these organizations. On Sofia's point, its hard to say that organizations are misinformed or unaware of the resources available to them. I do think that this is true to some extent, but like I said, we don't really know what their needs are fully and we don't know their process either. I intern for the Multicultural Resource Center and one of my tasks was compiling a list of possible donors to fund an up and coming program for translators to help international students in emergencies. I ended up having to put donors on the list who, though were somewhat related to our cause, were very much random. What I'm trying to share from this example is that basically when an organization needs money, they are going to find new and different ways to do that. Our specific grant might be a reach for these organizations who can all find other funders, but money is always efficient, no matter how big or small the donation is. It may be different if we had one or two finalist organizations who don't have that kind of access, but that is not the case here. As long as we see to it that our finalists want to use the money to further their mission and to address what they feel is their most pressing issue at the moment, I don't have a problem with them being able to find money elsewhere.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
You pointed out many of the critiques I had about the organizations. I'm going to zero-in on Southern Tier Alternative Therapies. Let me just give a quick disclaimer, I think the cause is noble and a much needed relief for the families it helps, but i was really annoyed and disappointed when I asked her if she had tried other ways of obtaining the ipads. It seemed pretty easy and straight forwards to see if she could get some ipads donated. I felt that there are creative ways to meet the needs they had, but they just weren't thinking outside the box.
I also asked her about getting the ipad at a cheaper price. She said that what listed in the form was the lowest price, so I was curious. I googled it and she was wrong.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/ipad
It just goes to show you that while the organization may be good at having an impact, it doesn't make up for lack of creativity in terms of programs and development. I do hope the lady takes some of suggestions and puts them into practice. I'm considering creating a list of recommendations and creating a new ask/quote.
I know this is a little bit late, but I was just looking over the budget that the director from STAT sent me and apparently they are also purchasing 2 years worth of insurance for each iPad they buy (I don't think this was mentioned at all when the presenter was sharing the financial information).
DeleteI would be more than willing to ask them today why they are buying new iPads instead of used or refurbished, as that was one thing I was curious about as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGreat post, Hannah! It’s very interesting that you point out the potential flaws with giving to each organization, and I agree with you that we should acknowledge these things. I share Sarah’s line of thinking: we should focus less on the organization’s flaws and more on the good they can do with the money we give them. Throughout this process, we must remain open-minded to all of the information we receive about each organization.
ReplyDeleteI was a big supporter of Southern Tier Alternative Therapies in our initial finalist selection and, as you know from our group meeting, will be participating in the site visit for this organization. I love STAT’s mission and admire what they aim to do. However, I will admit and agree with you that the idea of our money going towards iPads seems unsatisfying. However, as we discussed in class, we need to ask our questions and pursue information to either verify or falsify our hesitations. Perhaps we will speak to a mother who tells us that the iPad has changed her child’s life. Although an iPad may seem frivolous to me now, maybe after our site visit I will understand its necessity.
Our preconceived notions about what is good and bad will not help us in making a decision here. Our site visits will be very telling, and as we have been learning in class we have a plethora of resources at our fingertips, from Form 990s to sources like Charity Navigator and beyond. For a nonprofit, every little detail can make a difference. An article entitled “Nonprofit Mission Statements- Good and Bad Examples” demonstrates how unconvincing marketing alone can break an organization (http://www.nonprofithub.org/starting-a-nonprofit/nonprofit-mission-statements-good-and-bad-examples/). An example in this piece is Springboard for the Arts, an organization that aims to connect and inspire artistic communities. The organization has a great goal, how its mission statement is long and unclear. The author of the article points out that a shorter mission statement would be easier to understand, more interesting to someone looking to donate, and more easily share-able on social media. Springboard for the Arts may do amazing things, but they won’t receive the support they need until they can communicate better with potential donors.
My point here is that we must be careful not to overlook an organization simply because we can find flaws. If that is how we were to handle this process, no one would get our money. No nonprofit is perfect- doesn’t GiveWell only recognize four organizations as worthy of donation?- and we need to embrace this. We should view Southern Tier’s focus on iPads and Family Planning’s limited schedule as indications of what these organizations are able to handle and what they need for future success. Rather than dismissing organizations because of their flaws, we should use these obstacles as windows to understand the organizations on a better level.
I agree with you, Hannah. Although I feel like our finalist choices were rushed, I think we picked some of the best organizations that applied for the grant. However, none of the organizations I was really pulling for was left out of the final five, which may not be the case for many other people in our class.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I have many concerns about the organizations we chose. I hope to have these concerns addressed in the finalist presentations. My concern for Kopernik, like you had mentioned, is that many of us are hung up on the fact that our grant will be matched. I just hope that this can be addressed and that we don’t make our decision solely on that fact. While I really like what Family Planning does, I was not entirely convinced with what they asked for from their presentation. Although the group didn’t visit the facility as it was far away, I hope their presentation can convince us that these repairs will be well worth the investment. Like Stephanie mentioned in her comment, I was disappointed to see that STAT has not thought about other ways to get cheaper iPads. While I admire that they don’t need the latest and greatest devices, I was hoping she had at least reached out to some people or programs that would donate iPads or possibly give discounts. Lastly, I just need more convincing that the curriculum Mom’s House is looking to purchase is cost effective and will work for what they need. I am assuming their group learned all about it at the site visit, so I am excited to hear the final presentations.
I know I have voiced my concerns on all of the finalists but the Rescue Mission. I know that I may be biased because I am the liaison to the Rescue Mission, but going on our site visit answered all of my questions about them. I think that our investment would be well spent and would give the sustainability that our class is looking for. However, I will wait to give all of the details until our group presents. I hope that each group answers all of the concerns we have to we can give our money most effectively. I am looking forward to everyone’s presentation next week!
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI already posted my blog comment for the week but your post really interested me - I had no idea that Rescue Mission requires attendance of Christian services and that is a huge negative for me. Even though I was fairly against them from the start just because I don't think the bins are really necessary or a good use of our money, now I am positive I will not be voting for them. An organization that is supposed to help people out of the hardest parts of their lives and foster individual growth should allow for different beliefs. While I understand that they are a Christian-based organization, people need help regardless of their religious beliefs, and those who need help most should get it first. Also, like everyone else has said about the iPads for STAT, they were one of my favourite organizations because I think they are different and do great things, but what Stephanie pointed out really ripped a hole in my confidence of their administration. If they have so much need that they are applying for grants and needing to cut children out of the program, they should have looked into lessening the cost of the iPads a long time ago. I'm not completely decided about STAT yet because I think we could guide them in the right direction and still have our money go towards something extremely worthwhile that obviously works. I'm not wary of the iPads as a whole, for speech delayed children they make a huge impact. I just want our money to be spent effectively, and I want to have faith that the organization has management that takes the time to figure out what is best for it.
They don't require attendance in Christian services - patently false.
DeleteThank you for the post, I really enjoyed reading it! I share many of your same concerns and then some. Over the past 25 years I have been involved in many organizations, locally, regionally and nationally. I have served as a Director of Development, the Chair of a successful five million dollar capital campaign, and have served on several boards. In sum, I would not fund any of the organizations that we have reviewed as their “flaws”, in my opinion, are indications of more fundamental problems. The greatest “need” that all of these organizations share in common is the need to employ qualified professionals to assist them in correcting their ways.
ReplyDeleteYesterday our group visited the Rescue Mission – an organization that I really liked. The employees were very nice and gave us a tour of both their residential facility and their retail operation. At one point in the tour, I asked Mike, the Executive Director, to help us by giving us some data so that we could build a strong outcome v. output for their organization. I was somewhat surprised by his response. He explained that some people who receive benefit from their program go on the lead successful lives, some even wind-up “passing it on”. Others, on the other hand, fail miserably after leaving the program and there is really no way to know who will make it and who won’t. That didn’t really help my output/outcome argument.
Later, we explained how competitive the process is and we wanted something to demonstrate what a difference our “gift” will make for their organization. He responded by saying that our grant would just be a very small drop in the bucket and wouldn’t even cover the cost of their monthly food bill.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a really good thing for Mike that I am a student representing Binghamton University and Professor Campbell and not a board member or individual donor or Mike would probably be reevaluating his career path.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, the executive team at Planned Parenthood would have a lot of answering to do as to the planning, coordination and implementation of their obviously mismanaged capital campaign.
I am certain that my comments here today will be less than rewarded but this is how I really feel. In the past when I have felt less than enthusiastically about a topic being blogger about I keep my comments to myself but since I have missed two I can’t afford to remain silent. I would love to see what Give Well or Charity Navigator would say about our finalists. I’m sure they would be less than rewarded for their less than enthusiastic opinion.
It is very difficult for me to be disingenuous and there is no way for me to manufacture fake feelings of positivity when I see so many problems. I am not new to this and I have far too much experience to just walk around telling everyone what a great job they are doing. I would suggest that most of the NPO’s that I have experienced in this area are HORRIBLY mismanaged and many have no idea what their mission is much less how to accomplish it. It seems that the primary purpose of some organizations is to keep their director and staff employed. There is a solution. The solution would require a great deal of humility, training and consultation. My sense is that many of these groups are not ready for that transition. The fastest way to get to that point is to cut funding until organizations can correctly identify and address their stated mission and understand the formulation of output/outcome. If a small business doesn’t know, without a second of hesitation, what their customer acquisition cost is they will NEVER EVER receive funding from anyone other than naïve (or well intended) friends and family.
I apologize to my fellow students for missing two blog posts and for frequently being late. Of all of my assignments each week this is the most DAUNTING for me. I would rather have dental surgery than post my comments each weeks and I often feel that my post would be counter-productive. I really want to participate but I also don’t want to compromise your experience by being negative. Unfortunately for me, I have way too much experience with successful, well-managed, and well-funded organizations to continue my disingenuous attempt to remain positively optimistic.