How does budget affect where you donate?
When I was younger, I always thought that the only way to help people and consider yourself a philanthropist was to donate hundreds or thousands of dollars. I thought people like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey were considered philanthropists, but I never considered myself a philanthropist. I had a jar full of coins when I was younger, similar to a piggy bank. Whenever the jar would get full (or close to it), I would go and donate that money somewhere. I was never sure where to donate to, so I put it in the trust of my parents to donate it to a cause they supported on my behalf. It wasn’t much I was donating (probably wasn’t even more than five dollars), but I always felt good when I would give the coin jar to my parents and they would come back with an empty jar and smiles on their faces.
As I grew up, I began to think more about where Iwanted to donate the money, and cut my parents out of the equation (though I always appreciated their help). I would often donate locally, as I grew up around these organizations and they meant a lot to me. They also didn’t have the biggest pockets, with some of them just getting by. Me donating that jar of money to them felt like I was giving back to the community, and it felt even better than when I would donate money with the help of my parents, because I knew where I wanted the money to go, and I knew that it was going to help those people very much.
What do you think would help more: giving a dollar to a person with ten dollars, or giving a dollar to a person with one hundred dollars? You probably chose the former, because that person has less money than the latter. What made you donate to them? Was it because they had less money, or did you think they needed the money more? This is the same as donating to businesses with smaller budgets compared to businesses with larger budgets.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have discussed in class what differences can happen between donating to an organization with a large budget, and an organization with a smaller budget. This idea, for me, was reinforced when we broke up into groups and had to take the organizations assigned to us and split them up into finalist recommendations, considerations, and not recommended.
I personally have always cheered for the smaller guy. Maybe it’s just the Mets fan in me that has to go against the big, money-spending Yankees every year in our New York rivalry. But donating to the smaller guy tends to help them out much more than the bigger guy. One point that really stood out to me in Dr. Campbell’s class was when he mentioned how people will donate five hundred dollars to a small organization and it will mean everything to them, and the people it affects will send back hand-written “thank you” letters. Then, Dr. Campbell would compare that to big organizations that would get donations in the hundred-thousands, and rather than get a “thank you” from anyone, they would be asked to donate again, since they need ‘a little more money for the medical equipment. This struck a nerve with me. While I do understand the bigger organizations needing more money for their bigger projects, like research, an organization should never not thank someone for donating their time, money, etc. towards their cause.
One thing I found interesting was how some of the organizations my group was assigned to were on complete opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of budget. I remember how the Ross Park Zoo had a budget greater than $1,000,000 and wanted to use the money we would give them for a sloth exhibit. I thought that our $10,000 wouldn’t really make as large of a contribution to them considering their budget is much greater. In addition, I realized that the money would only go towards a single animal in the whole zoo; I personally would rather it go towards something that could benefit the zoo as a whole, as well as those who visit the zoo.
Contrary to that are organizations with budgets less than $250,000 like Kali’s Klubhouse. Kali’s Klubhouse’s purpose is to provide therapy and education to support people experiencing challenges, and the money would go towards creating a sensory trail that would help the riders and, overall, help the people who need Kali’s Klubhouse’s services. If I had to choose between Kali’s Klubhouse and the Ross Park Zoo, I would most definitely prefer donating to Kali’s Klubhouse, since our $10,000 would help them much more than it would the Ross Park Zoo.
I believe that regardless of how much money you are donating, you should donate to the organizations that will take that money and use it in the best way possible. Whether that organization needs the money to be able to have another month’s rent paid for, to expand their workforce to be able to continue their service to the community, or to increase the supplies they need to continue their business, it would make more of an impact than giving that money to an organization that would use it for one specific thing that wouldn’t help improve the organization, community, or people who rely on it as a whole. Kali’s Klubhouse building a new trail would help all people who rely on the organization with the path, but improving an already-built exhibit for a sloth at the Ross Park Zoo would only benefit the sloth.
When we donate to organizations, it is vital that we always take into account their budget, as well as what they would use the money towards. The lower their budget, the more that the money you choose to donate- regardless of the amount, since any kind of philanthropy helps- will directly help their organization. In addition, the money you could donate to these smaller organizations should be able to affect many people involved in the organization, for those within and for those who rely on it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in the city taught me a valuable lesson: you can’t help everyone. Every day on my way to or from school, I would hear at least two people asking for a helping hand. First, they would share their story: I heard from people who were abused, homeless, handicapped, unemployed, or even just in need of some cash for a bottle of water. Then they would ask if anyone could spare them some money, food, or even a smile. I only had at most a couple dollars in my bag, so how could I decide who to give my money to? Should I give it to the person who asks first? Should I give it to one who has the least amount of money? Or should I give it to the guy who has a more tragic story?
ReplyDeleteI commend you for thinking up a plan for how you would give away your money. In the article I read that is linked below, Ana Sandoiu touched on the same idea that a lot of money doesn’t mean a lot of impacts. She points out that “we look too much into how worthy the receivers are of the donation, but don't investigate the effectiveness of the philanthropists.” In your case, smaller organizations are the most effective. You included that “the lower their budget, the more that the money you choose to donate...will directly help their organization,” and I agree to a certain degree. When I volunteered at a small local shelter, all donations were deeply appreciated. With each donation, it meant that we could afford to take in another homeless dog. Direct and effective impacts are the main goals in philanthropy. People want to donate because they want to see a change in something they care deeply about.
However, I still struggle to believe that small organizations value donations more because they have a smaller budget. Sometimes smaller organizations don’t need that much money. I’m not saying that their cause is less worthy, but if you compare how much an organization needs to rescue pit bulls to how much an organization needs to protect rainforests, you can see the vast difference in how much the organizations need. In relation to your analogy, if there are two people who were in poverty, would you give the dollar to someone who has ten dollars but is perfectly healthy or someone who has a hundred dollars but has a baby on the way? What if the person who has a hundred dollars needs that money more? What if they were sick? What if they just needed one more dollar to survive? Would you change your decision?
https://bigthink.com/ana-sandoiu/theres-something-wrong-with-philantropy
To me, it's difficult to decide how much weight to put on the size of an organization and how important it should be to me. I fundamentally agree with you that each dollar seems to make more of a difference to a smaller organization rather a bigger one. Our $10,000 could be the difference between the success or failure of a local organization, but may just be a drop in the bucket to a larger, multi million dollar organization. I find myself instinctively checking the budget of the organizations and leaning towards smaller organizations whether it is logical or not.
ReplyDeleteBut like Mayumi, I am also hesitant subscribe to the belief that smaller organizations are always better, but not for the same reasons. It is possible that smaller organizations might not need the money as much (and there is some research showing that a large donation could disrupt a smaller nonprofit - https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/12/15/giving-big-to-small-organizations-heres-some-advice-or-not/) but I would say that generally, any organization could always make use of extra money. However, even so, donating to a smaller organization isn't always the better choice.
I believe that our instinct to donate to a smaller organization is less about the good that we doing and more about how good it makes us feel. We would be able to see the difference our money is making in a smaller organization more clearly than in a large organization, but it is very possible they both have an equal impact. Furthermore, larger organizations with years of experience and an established system may be able to use our money more efficiently than a smaller organization. So while we may get more gratitude from a smaller organization that needs the money to survive, our money could very well be put to equally good use in a larger nonprofit where it may not even be acknowledged.
I don't think the size of an organization should impact our decision making process: Instead we should focus on an organization's mission, track record and their overall ability to make a difference.
-Adiel Felsen
In our first activity of the year, I classified myself as the type of person to stay quiet until I have something to say during discussion, but this online forum might have given me the confidence to play devil's advocate for a minute. This post and my response to it both seem to be reflections on the readings from a few weeks ago, and it reminds me especially of the podcast on the KentPresents conference. As a refresher, this conference was conceived by the mind of Ben Rosen, a philanthropist who ran out of money to give in large sums after outliving his own expectations. Together with his wife he established an annual event for donors to participate in local, small-scale giving, something very different than the millions he had been giving in his "prime."
ReplyDeleteSimilar to your blog post, Rosen seems to have a reflective attitude of regret on the money he spent giving in bulk. However, Rosen self-incriminated himself to some degree in his admission of having always chosen to donate to large, scientific or research institutions. For example, one of his biggest donations was to the University of Southern California, which used his eighteen million to put up a new building. On giving to these larger, non-charitable causes per se, Rosen complained of receiving a request to add another zero to the check, whereas when he donated to local organizations in Litchfield County, Connecticut, he often receives back tear-stained letters of appreciation.
This scenario does not parallel all of the debate as to whether to give to prosperous and established organizations, but it reflects an interest that seems to be overlooked. While USC would have continued to flourish without Rosen’s donation, the donation was, by the standards of the university, put to good use. Now imagine if Rosen had actually given his money to a cause that could have produced results immediately (considering the donation to USC to be a more long-term donation to the betterment of education and science and much less pressing than other crises). Recently, we read an article about the waste of Jeff Bezos’s philanthropy in space science when his money could serve many other needs. In my opinion, it is the issue at hand, rather than the scale of the organization that is receiving it, which needs to be considered most greatly.
However derailed this post may have become, I do have a point. Issues of giving locally versus giving nationally or globally each have their own vagaries. In recent philanthropic history, the critique of some of the top donors has not been on what scale to give, but it is a censure on the cause to which the money is point. While local giving cannot be denied its importance, it is also significant to remember that there are perks to donating to a well-oiled machine, perhaps the reason why an author of a separate article suggested that Warren Buffet actually just write a check to the Gates Foundation. There is value in donating to an organization that can hold its own, but Rosen, perhaps as a testament to his own personal values, finds his satisfaction in the feeling of impact on a local level. In my opinion, he discredits larger organizations as being greedy when it was entirely of his own volition to donate to them in the first place (I mean, really, when trying to create real change who would donate to USC so that the school could build a new building?). I do support his current mission, but need to acknowledge that donating to larger charities is not a misstep.
When donating with the intention of making the most good, it is critical not to automatically associate the big with the ugly. The Ross Park Zoo and University of Southern California are well-endowed, yes, but they cannot be intertwined with St. Jude or United Way, because for every big charity that exists with needs of seemingly little comparative importance there is also an equally small charity that is collecting money for something that is equally as unimportant in creating real change.
The title of this blog post brings up a question I have considered many times since the beginning of the semester. The organizations that we are looking at and the finalists that we have selected are difficult to choose between and this is in part to the issue of both our budget and the budget differences in our choices. I have struggled with the idea of our class donating to one or two organizations frequently because like you, I can see that so many smaller organizations could benefit so much from help.
ReplyDeleteI did not have the same experiences as you did in regard to philanthropy when I was younger. My parents would donate often to the Make A Wish Foundation. I always thought that it was great that they were being so generous, but I never considered the impact of my parents’ gift to the organization. I never saw a direct result of my parents’ money either, but that did not mean that it did not exist. I agree with a lot of your opinions toward how we as a group should donate to the local area. Our class spoke a lot about donating with your head or your heart and that why I feel I disagree with some of your way of thinking about philanthropy.
In this post there are many aspects that I agree with. I appreciate the idea of giving the amount of money we have to a smaller organization because these small organizations often struggle to get off of the ground. I also like the idea of being able to give to the community that has already given so much to me in my few months of living here, and I think that seeing the change we make would be incredible. That being said, I feel that the true meaning of philanthropy is different than how you portray it in your post. Donating to a bigger organization will not reward you with a visual. Someone who donates to an organization with funding in the millions may never know what their money went towards. Does this mean that these organizations should be neglected?
It is hard for me to separate my heart and my head when deciding how to donate but to answer the question posed in the title, I do not believe that the budget affects where you donate unless you let it. I understand the desire to help smaller groups succeed. I also know that I would be satisfied with knowing that our class was able to pay an organization’s rent or buy a new computer for a building, but I feel that philanthropy is more about helping a group move forward than it is about seeing results. This is why I believe that the budget of an organization should impact little to nothing in regard to one’s decision to donate, and that emphasis should be placed on the statistical success of a group and how the group’s goals speak to you.
- Julia Diana