"Donors don't want to fund homeless shelters; they want to end homelessness". I was recently reading an article in the Harvard Business Review on the ambition of big-buck philanthropists when this line made me think. It is known that since the colonial era, philanthropy has made strides in aiding society's major issues, and has even gone as far as to successfully eradicate them , such as the private philanthropy sector's funding for the research and creation of the polio vaccine. Feats such as this one have placed great audaciousness in the spirit of philanthropy, and believe it or not, this is causing immense frustration among top philanthropists. Givers feel that because they have the resources to make large-scale donations to organizations pledging to better the world, they are burdened with the responsibility to single-handedly erupt instant change. The quotation used above describing donors attempting to end homelessness directly describes this issue. Philanthropists often have the end goal in mind, without taking into account the steps it may take to get there. This is evident in the issue of climate change, an extremely wide-ranging problem needing a multi-faceted and century long approach. The article cites how even though donors have been attempting to tackle this issue for years through continuous large-sum gifts, no immediate effects are being seen. As a philanthropist, do you feel it is easy to become frustrated when you aren't able to see the results of your donation immediately? This philanthropic exasperation is driving givers to either resort to 'easier recipients' such as universities, where they may see their donation in action right away, or pull away from making charitable gifts altogether. Would you prefer to give small donations for noticeable differences, or sizable sums for the long-term change? Do you think there is a solution to avoiding the frustration that results in losing philanthropist support for large-scale issues?
I feel that with this knowledge, there is a lesson the class may take away from this article. Thanks to the Learning by Giving Foundation, we all have been given the responsibility to take our privilege (a $10,000 grant) and affect change in the community, just as everyday big-name philanthropists. Although we are making completely educated decisions with the proper knowledge of the needs and issues facing Broome County, it is important for us to understand as a class that there is a possibility we will not see the immediate change we would like. For example, if we choose Truth Pharm, we will most likely not see a drop in the overdose rate within a week, and if we choose American Civic Association, we will probably not see an influx in immigration rates to Broome County. However, it is important we note that we have made a lasting change, whether this change is visible or not. Although we may not see the help we are giving, it is certainly important not to lose faith in the ability to give, and to understand that the largest efforts take the longest time and the most help. Wherever this grant goes, as a class we have made a remarkable difference within Broome County. Whether this difference is made from the grant's financial support or simply the increased engagement between BU and the nonprofit sector of Broome County, as this class continues to run for future generations, eventually we will be able to see the difference we are making. Will you be able to wait to see the change?
Link to HBR article: https://hbr.org/2017/09/audacious-philanthropy
I feel that with this knowledge, there is a lesson the class may take away from this article. Thanks to the Learning by Giving Foundation, we all have been given the responsibility to take our privilege (a $10,000 grant) and affect change in the community, just as everyday big-name philanthropists. Although we are making completely educated decisions with the proper knowledge of the needs and issues facing Broome County, it is important for us to understand as a class that there is a possibility we will not see the immediate change we would like. For example, if we choose Truth Pharm, we will most likely not see a drop in the overdose rate within a week, and if we choose American Civic Association, we will probably not see an influx in immigration rates to Broome County. However, it is important we note that we have made a lasting change, whether this change is visible or not. Although we may not see the help we are giving, it is certainly important not to lose faith in the ability to give, and to understand that the largest efforts take the longest time and the most help. Wherever this grant goes, as a class we have made a remarkable difference within Broome County. Whether this difference is made from the grant's financial support or simply the increased engagement between BU and the nonprofit sector of Broome County, as this class continues to run for future generations, eventually we will be able to see the difference we are making. Will you be able to wait to see the change?
Link to HBR article: https://hbr.org/2017/09/audacious-philanthropy
Hi Sydney, I really love how you mentioned how we may not see an immediate change but it will be a lasting change. I think it was important to note because I can relate to feeling like "what if we give our money to this organization" but statistics afterwards for the organization turns out worse or there is no change we can see through the public eye. I do think that we give organizations these non-human expectations, forgetting that these organizations are ran by human beings. We expect too much at times, which can be a good thing or bad thing. Sometimes pressure gets the work done or sometimes too much pressure makes organizations stagnant and not want to evolve because they are scared to fail and lose funding and support. Alot of lasting goals cannot be done in a short amount of time, things do take time if we want it to last and be efficient.
ReplyDeleteAnyways back to the point of if we will see the change? I think we all should keep up with the organization(s) we choose even after this class is finished, Of course not on a everyday calling in harrasing but more of an occasional check in to see how they are doing and what plans do they continue to initiative because these should be organizations we should care about continuously.
Hi Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI think that it's extremely important for wealthy donors to continue funding organizations that fight long term issues like climate change. Even though these donors may not see the impact that their money makes immediately, climate change is one of the most important issues of this century facing our civilization. Therefore, organizations that focus on climate change are well-deserving of funding and continued support. While it is understandable for donors to become frustrated when they feel like their money is not making much of a difference, there are ways to alleviate this. An easy way to get information about how your money will be put to use is to directly contact the organization(s) you plan on donating to, and asking questions. Any donor can compare and contrast multiple organizations that fight the same issue to make a better determination of where their money will best be put to use.
I believe that it is easy for people to get frustrated when they feel that the money they donate isn't making an immediate impact. For our class' charity pitches, much of the conversation has centered around where our donation will go the farthest, and make the most impact (smaller versus larger, well-established organizations). However, the resources of each individual donor plays a prominent role in how impactful their donations will be. I am much more understanding of someone who has very limited funds wanting to donate to a small, local charity compared to a multi-millionaire or billionaire. These charities can use small donations to buy necessary supplies, but organizations that fight large-scale issues like climate change need more resources to fuel the long-term effort necessary to stem its effects. Therefore, in my opinion, wealthy donors have an obligation to fund these organizations because they can still make more of an impact than other people from a purely economic standpoint.
Hi Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI found your post to be very interesting and I think that it brings up a good point. I think that what you say is an important lesson for the class to think about. I feel, like you describe, that whatever cause we donate to, I want it to fix the problem right away and see an immediate impact. I realize that this is unrealistic, however, it is how I feel. I think that many others in our class may feel similarly, and that it is important to keep everything in perspective. I agree with you that each amount of progress, no matter how small is important, and that change cannot happen instantaneously. I think that it is important to appreciate every aspect of progress that our donation makes. I also think that by keeping tabs and seeing small progress, gives us a more realistic view of how the world works. I think that seeing small progress will also keep us motivated to give more in order to achieve the level of progress that is desired. It will be hard I think at a first to accept, but I think it is an important lesson to learn.
While I think it is important to keep everything in perspective, I also think that it is very important not to lose sight of the goals of the organizations that we donate to. I think that it is important to follow up with the organizations we donate too, in order to make sure that progress is being made. I think that it is important that we do not lose sight of our donation and its intended purpose. It is all too easy to get lost in life, especially since the summer will be coming up and most of us will not be here. I think that it will also be hard for the class to keep tabs on our donation once the class has ended. This has been on my mind a great deal, and I am not sure how best to combat this potential issue, because everyone gets busy and life goes on. However, I still think it is important to check in and see if our money was used the way it was intended, and how much the community was able to benefit from it. It may be hard to find motivation or remember to check in with the organizations we donate to, but in the end I think it is still a vital process of philanthropy. I do not think our jobs as philanthropists ends at giving the donation, but rather it is a continuous process that involves keeping track of donations.
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI found your post very reassuring to read! I very much agree with the points you made, specifically that just because you do not see an immediate impact doesn't mean you are not making a lasting impact.
When reading this post, I made a connection to my recent reflection paper on Give Directly. When I was reading about the mission and effectiveness of Give Directly, I found myself questioning why large donors haven't primarily used this method in the past. I believe that the points you make in your post are likely part of the reason why donors often choose not to give money directly to people in need. If they give money to an organization doing work for less privileged populations, they are more likely to see the difference their money will make within the organization. For example, a large donor may choose to sponsor the construction of an new building for an organization combatting world hunger, as opposed to giving lump sums of money to hungry people because they will not see these people eat. However, giving directly can often be the more effective route.
It is this same idea that you touch upon in your post and that we deal with in the choice we are currently making. Especially when it comes to the operating grant, we will likely not see the direct difference our dollars make. It is important that we trust in the long term impact that the Learning By Giving Foundation sets up.
Big evolutions often happen through incremental changes. I think donors need to realize that throwing money at a problem will not necessarily make everything better immediately. There really needs to be a focus on the individualized level in order to see sustainable success. This may be more frustrating, but if a philanthropist is truly dedicated to the betterment of the world, this is the type of methodology they should utilize. In 2010, Mark Zuckerberg responded to impending negative criticism brought on by the movie The Social Network by giving $100 million dollars towards the creation of an education foundation of Newark, New Jersey. Newark had one of the worst graduation rates in the country and many students were falling way below grade level expectations. However the foundation, which eventually received $200 million in donations, did not upshoot the results of students like so promised. In a 2018 article from Business Insider, current Newark mayor Ras Baraka is quoted saying that the donations “didn't go to the city, and it didn't go to the school system either. It went to a foundation that made decisions about what the money should be spent on.” The mayor went on to say that “you can't just cobble up a bunch of money and drop it in the middle of the street and say, 'This is going to fix everything.' You have to engage with communities that already exist...To parachute folks in, it becomes problematic."
ReplyDeleteMoney has a limit if there is a lack of understanding the true needs of a community. The Newark initiative did show some improvements in English and graduate rates, but they remained stagnant in other subjects like math, and there is still a significant achievement gap between charter and public schools. The foundation also was only meant to last for six years; coming in, changing the system based on what Zuckerberg thought was best, and then exiting, leaving the responsibility on the city and state. The foundation had grand plans of upending the entire American education system, yet the time limit prevented experimentation in different techniques, or seeing which part of the plan worked and which ones did not. They wanted change, and they wanted it fast, but that might not have been the best method of implementation. It was full throttle, all or nothing, ignoring the individual learning patterns of children and how poverty and adverse childhood experiences affects every student differently. Zuckerberg wanted to see results, but the results might have had more potential if there was a slower, more careful process where community members were involved and various ideas were allowed to be tested. It is time consuming, but it could have provided the rest of the country with a case study of various education techniques. Zuckerberg, like many other people, wants to change the world. However, it is sometimes more important, and effective, to first try to change a world. With our grant, we should look forward to the opportunity to let the non-profits experiment in their programs, to make sure they are seeing the best results. This may take more time, but it may also maximize the benefit of our dollars.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-schools-education-newark-mayor-ras-baraka-cory-booker-2018-5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-newark-schools-partially-squandered-a-great-prize/2015/10/20/ffff660c-7743-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?utm_term=.fd165bb9b3ff
Hi Sydney,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your post. If our donation doesn’t fully accomplish a goal, that doesn’t mean it’s not worthwhile. I think we need to give more credit to the smaller steps we can take. You mention our $10,000 as that of “big philanthropists”. As much as I would love to be able to create a huge impact, this amount isn’t huge. Sure, it’s a lot bigger than anything I’ve been able to donate, but it’s not a world-changing, house-building, poverty-ending amount. And that’s okay!
As we get closer to choosing our finalists, part of being comfortable with this decision is knowing that we won’t always see the change we make. As much as I would love to see us change someone’s life, I have faith that even if I don’t see it, change is happening. These organizations are our finalists because they all make a difference, and in supporting them, we will as well.
This idea also applies to our own personal charity. Whether it’s a few bills or whatever loose change you have, it's important to keep in mind that any giving is important. When everyone gives their loose change, you end up with a lot of money to make a change. I think we need to keep this in mind in our day to day lives. Philanthropy doesn’t have to take a lot, it just takes thought. The motive to give is present in all of us- that’s why we’re here. Let’s foster that idea, and encourage giving in all forms. You may not see a drop in poverty rates or a cure to cancer. But you may see a smile on someone’s face, or a hard life made a bit easier. And to me, that’s worth it.
--
Becca Marcus
This was important message to send to the class and you said it best. Living in a digital age we've become accustomed to instant gratification in our lives with everything being a click away. That's not how life works though and certainly not how philanthropy works. It's important to think longer term gratification because just like in your example of climate change, most quick and easy fixes are not really fixes, just putting off solving the real issue. Some times a quick fix is needed, but certain causes don't need an instant solution, it's important to recognize what issues require a more long term approach and apply that approach. While this is an important consideration to avoid being disheartened by our own work, I think it is a message that should be spread to everyone working in philanthropy and in the non-profit sector.
ReplyDeleteHello Sydney!
ReplyDeleteI love the perspective you provide about philanthropy. I do agree that it giving can sometimes be jaded by the overall end goal rather than the process it takes to achieve that goal. In addition, it can be frustrating knowing your money or time is not actually going directly to solving an issue. This is similar to the discussion we had about how people don’t like to donate operating grants because they like to see where their money is physically going. People donate their time and money because it ultimately makes them feel good, and seeing positive change occur due to their actions is one way to make people feel good.
Your point about us possibly not seeing an immediate change after our grant donations is a really strong one. We may not receive the instant gratification of knowing the impact we made on the community, in fact, most of us may be gone by the time the change is visible. However, that does not make them any less meaningful or impactful. Change takes time, but donating time and money to causes is one way that often expedites the process of change.
Regardless of whether or not we will be here to see the change in the Broome County area, I do know that I have seen a change in my personal mentality with philanthropy, and I hope the class can say the same thing. I learned a lot about what it truly means to give, the various factors affecting philanthropy and non-profit organizations, and the importance of research before making decisions. So while we may not see immediate change in the opioid problem or issues regarding immigration, we hopefully have all seen a change in our personal mentalities towards philanthropy, which to me reinforces how meaningful this class has been.
Sincerely,
Lexi Murman