In the decision on where to donate the program and operating grants, there was dissent as to whether an organization should be given both grants. For most, it was a well-set position that the recipient of the program grant would be ineligible for the operating grant and that, in turn, the opposing candidate denied the program grant would be almost unanimously chosen for the operating grant, as happened today. In my own stance as to why each organization would benefit from the receipt of a particular grant (ACA for the program grant, Truth Pharm for the operating), I tried to delineate the specific reasoning behind my argument, but as passions flared and the final vote came closer, it seemed as if the class had already decided that the smaller operating grant was inferior to the program grant. I sought to remain cognizant to the importance of each grant, but those passions resulted in me hearing a lot of well-meaning yet slightly outlandish arguments that seemed to use need for the operating grant (the renovations for ACA’s bathrooms) as a vehicle for arguing to why an organization was unfit to receive the program grant. This can be seen as an unintended consequence of the the self-made dichotomy that an organization could only receive one grant and the belief that the program grant was better than the operating grant, for lack of a better word.
At the beginning of the semester, one idea that we worked to clarify was that the program grant and operating grant served distinct purposes. Today’s discussion made me think that there is a possible unconscious correlation that we make between the significance of each grant and the monetary value we assigned them. In other words, I believe that the class viewed the operating grant as a second place prize simply because it is a smaller monetary donation than the program grant. I wonder how the class might have changed its discussion and perspective if the operating grant and the program grant had been of an equal 5,000 dollars. While it is possible that the operating grant and the program grant would be evaluated equally under that condition, I think that the main belief that we can empower direct change would still relegate the operating grant to a subordinate status, despite its greater versatility. There is so much more allure to the grant that will help to implement direct change, and the class has seemed to ignore the vital role of the smaller grant in the success of an organization on making change. Luckily, the organization that received the program grant has a good track record and should be able to use the money wisely, but I hope that the class did not decide to remove it from contention for the operating grant due to a God complex we have developed on the dominance of the program grant. This grant’s gives a more tangible connection to the change we can create as compared with the operating grant, and unfortunately is then perceived as superior.
Now that the process of selecting our program and operating grant recipients has concluded, I wanted to ask the class if there were things that they would do different, particularly as it relates to decision making. Some questions were raised as to whether the process of deliberation should be looked at again. One idea that was proposed was to wait until both the operating grant and program grant had been voted on until we viewed the results. One concern that occurred to me was there would be personal favoritism, that undoubtedly exist in any environment involving such emotional issues, that would result in students choosing their organization as the top choice for both grants as a fail-safe in the event that the organization does not receive the preferred grant. There is the connection, though. With favoritism, at some point people are desperate for their organization to get some money, any money for that matter, regardless of the conditions that dictate which might be the best overall choice. Similarly, supporters of an organization that has already been chosen feel pity, and then choose the organization that had the second largest pool of support. Evidently, it is an unpopular opinion, but the operating grant needs to be regarded in a better understanding or higher value before a blind vote can occur for both grants. I am curious to see if the class agrees or disagrees with my opinion, or if there are any other suggestions that class members want to make for selecting the recipients of the grants.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey TJ,
ReplyDeleteI really like this blog post. It raises several interesting and provoking thoughts and questions. First, I do not think that a lot of people were under the assumption that an organization would only be able to receive one grant. At least, from how I viewed our discussions in class and my own understanding, this was not the case. I think that many in the class thought that an organization would be able to receive both grants, depending on whether or not they won both votes. I do fear though that this was one of the reasons why the voting went how it did. As Becca stated in class, people in the class wanted to “spread the wealth,” which I agree with. Despite an organization having the opportunity to receive both grants, the way in which people voted showed that they did not want that to happen. For example, a lot of people advocated for Truth Pharm to receive the operating grant, but when it came to voting, only a few people actually voted in that way. One may have gone against what they felt was the best organization to receive either grant because of this “sorry” mentality. There are two grants, and so there should be two organizations that receive them.
I do not believe that either grant is inferior to the other. They serve distinct purposes: the program grant is meant to fund a specific program or goal of the organization, while the operating grant is meant to aid in day-to-day functions or needs of the organization. Because they serve these different purposes, I don’t think that it is fair to assess one as being any “less” than the other. While a relatively large difference does exist between the monetary amount of the two grants, that should not influence one’s decision in choosing to whom to donate. In a way, I also fear that some people may have voted for an organization to receive the larger program grant not because they supported the program goals, but because they felt that the organization needed the larger sum of money. I think that ACA was a good candidate to receive the operating grant, as their goals for the grant would provide more help to them than would the program grant. I don’t view bathroom renovations as being outlandish in any regard. Having functioning bathrooms that can serve handicapped people is a worthy cause for this grant. Also, the grant was to be used to advertise and create more traffic to the ACA, which is a good goal as then this organization would be able to help more people.
With that being said, I do think that the class could have gone about the voting process differently. To prevent this idea of “spreading the wealth,” a good suggestion that was brought up in class was to not reveal the votes until both polls were done This can help to eliminate some bias one may have toward an organization to make sure they receive some type of funding. Of course, another issue that exists is that this bias undoubtedly exists among some, if not all, of our classmates. However, I do not think that it is fair for people to go into class with a rigid idea of to whom the funding should go. There should be some flexibility in their thoughts. If everyone was already set in stone about what organizations should receive the funding, then that would mean our class discussions meant nothing, and that everything we talked in class would have gone to waste.
Not showing the results would create a sense of “uncertainty” that may prompt others to vote more rationally. Once again though, I do not agree with the notion of putting one grant on a pedestal above the other—both serve different purposes. It would have provided useful if we had a lengthier discussion concerning both the program and operating grants before the class voted. I do not think that the class voted poorly, and I believe that the decisions we made were the right ones. For the future though, this voting process should change in order to make sure that most, if not all people, are happy with both the process and the decision.
Hi TJ,
ReplyDeleteAlthough the operating grant is certainly important and valuable, when there is such a large gap between the award amounts, it is difficult not to see the Program Grant as a bigger prize. It is culturally ingrained in many of us that more is better. When it comes to money, a larger sum will almost always be viewed as more important and impactful, even when the purpose of each is different. I think that having the grants be equal in value or even just closer in value could help with this issue. If there was less of a discrepancy between the amounts, this would help the class to focus on the actual purpose of each grant, rather than the monetary amount. It seemed that some people were focusing on which organization needs a large sum and which could do with a smaller sum rather than which organization fit best with the program grant and the operating grant. I agree with you that the operating grant is extremely valuable in that it can be put towards anything an organization may need and offers a great deal of flexibility. However, it is difficult to look past how much smaller it is than the program grant.
I think that many of our classmates were fairly set on which organizations they wanted to vote for prior to making our actual decision, being that we had just completed an assignment on making a choice. This could become complicated when people's choices were eliminated, but many students were split between Truth Pharm and ACA from the beginning. However, it seemed like many people only would give organizations their vote conditionally. For example, I heard many of my peers saying that they only would support Truth Pharm for a specific program grant, and less people supported them for the grant either way. During our class on Thursday, it seemed that many people had a strong reaction to Truth Pharm winning the program, and that in one way or another this impacted the way that the operating grant was selected. I don't know what the best way to make this decision during class would be. But I think it's clear that the way we voted and the order in which we voted had some sort of effect on the final outcome. I don't know that a different set-up would have changed our final results, but I would have been interested to see if we had voted first on the operating grant and then on the program grant if more people voted for Truth Pharm for the operating grant. At the end of the day, we are giving funding to two deserving organizations who do amazing work and that is much more important than our voting process. I hope that all of my classmates realize that in this case, while we have learned a lot over the course of the semester, the outcome is more important than the process.
-Mary Kate
TJ,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this post and I find that I agree with your point of view.
I understood the point made by multiple students in class that it may have served best to do a more wholistic voting approach with a "spread the wealth" mentality. However, I am not convinced that it is necessarily always better or worse to "spread the wealth." We talked earlier in the semester about the difference many small donations can make as opposed to one, lump sum large donation. I believe in small donations to grassroots businesses; however, we need to keep in mind that the program and operating grants are two different grants. If an organization had been voted as the recipient of both the program and operating grants, I believe that organization would have recieved the full 10K. We came up with separate criteria for the program and operating grants because of the different purpose they serve within an organization. Because of this, I do not think our process failed us. I believe we did the "best good" we could do with $10,000.
-Stephanie
TJ,
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of the class’s bias towards the program grant being superior to the operating grant demonstrated a great amount of insight. It was spot-on to say the least. I must admit that I too fall into the camp which believes the program grant to be the main prize of contention. I personally believe this because of the greater value assigned to it. I understand that an operating grant goes towards funding areas of a nonprofit that are vital to its survival. However, if a program grant was three times larger than an operating grant, I believe that most non-profits would focus their efforts on the program grant because of the good they can accomplish with such funds. My belief was further re-enforced during the site-visits. Each finalist spent most of the time pitching for the program grant. They didn’t dismiss the operating grant, but their pitch for the $2500 donation was less enthusiastic than the pitches for the program grant. In fact, I believe that those pitches could mostly be summed up by the phrase “any amount of money will help”. At the very least, that was my takeaway, perhaps it may have been the viewpoint of other classmates as well. This god complex given to the program grant you mentioned, did not come from nowhere and was not born out of nothing.
Now, I do believe that withholding the results of the votes until the class had participated in both polls would’ve given more honest results. There was definitely a sense that most of the class, me included, no longer wanted to consider the program grant winner as a candidate for the operating grant. This predisposition towards outing the previous victor was most likely born out of a desire to be fair. To give not just one, but two organizations a chance to continue doing good. That being said, I don’t believe the polling should’ve been conducted differently. If there was a collective effort to not let one organization walk away with both grants, so be it. Spreading the wealth so that several non-profits can change the world in different ways is what I believe should occur when a group is making donation decisions. It makes it so that an organization that a minority in the group was rooting.
Once again excellent piece. I honestly could write a whole essay to respond to your comment. It was that thought provoking and well-written.
-Anthony Zavala
TJ,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that the programming grant and operating grant seem to have lost their meanings and have been defined by their monetary values. Both TruthPharm and the American Civic Association had strong purposes for the programming and operating grants, but in the end we decided to choose TruthPharm for the programming grant and the ACA for the operating grant. I was one of many in the class who voted this way as well as arguing for the fact that if one gets the program grant then a different nonprofit should get the operating grant. If there’s a consensus in the class that these two organizations are ones that both deserve funding, we should be able to split the donations. However, I would agree that many of us including myself mentally considered the program grant as more important because it is worth more. Though, in the end for me I prioritized both the achievability and impact of each organization’s grant goals. TruthPharm has a place in the church where they don’t have to pay rent and have amazing programs and volunteers that could use more funding. The ACA has amazing programs, but they could make their facilities more handicap-accessible as well as renovation and repair many parts of their building. In the end, I feel that the class made a well thought-out decision even though some may have been motivated by which organization “deserves” more money. Overall, this was a good question to bring up to the class.
Sara Baldwin
T.J., this is one of my favorite blog posts from the whole semester. I thoroughly enjoy your candidness, and I think that the questions you have raised are very intriguing. People sometimes say that new information was “eye-opening,” but I literally was widening my eyes while reading this post. I genuinely did not even realize that I was doing exactly what you wrote about. Because the operating grant was worth less money than the programming, and it was used for general needs of the organization instead of a specific program, it seemed to be the lesser of the two. I really do believe that if they were both $5,000 like you said then that may have played a role into what organizations I voted for. I am not even sure if it would have been the same two. I voted for Truth Pharm for the programming grant, and American Civic Association for the operating grant, along with most of the class. If the operating grant and programming grant were of equal value, I honestly think I may have given more consideration to Meals on Wheels of Western Broome than I did. This is because of the two grants available, I would have considered them for the operating grant. I still stand by my decision of Truth Pharm for the programming grant, but after the class discussion last Thursday I actually favored updating the website over the support group. I chose American Civic Association for the operating grant because I felt that with the $2,500 we had available, that money would go the furthest there because of how much need they are in. Meals on Wheels wanted to use the operating grant to keep the prices of their meals down. Personally, I felt that $2,500 was not enough to do this for a long enough time to make it the best option for the grant. But, if we had $5,000 for the operating grant I think I might have chosen them because that would have more of an impact and I feel keeping the prices low for the seniors is important since many of them no longer have an income.
ReplyDeleteDr. Campbell had said many times that he hoped after the voting was over and the final decision was made, even if it was not for the organizations we had voted for, that we would eventually feel happy about the results. It has been about 3 days since the decision was made, and I still don’t feel fully at place with it. In your post you mentioned that one idea for how to process could have been different was to not see the results until both grants had been voted for. It was me who had proposed this idea. I agree that some people may only vote for their top choice organization, but I don’t think this would apply to a majority of the class. My reasoning for believing this is because we had to write our final decision-making paper prior to class, in which we all wrote about our choices for both the operating grant and programming grant and why we chose them. After the class discussion some people may have changed their minds, but that is the fun thing about having discussions like that. I think that seeing the results of the programming grant vote before voting on the operating grant strongly influenced the decision. Many people were advocating for Truth Pharm for the operating grant, but once we saw that Truth Pharm won the programming grant, they only received 10% of the votes for the operating grant. I understand people wanting to spread the wealth, but there was probably a reason that they wanted to support Truth Pharm for the operating grant, but that was completely thrown out the window after seeing the results. I am very interested in what would have happened if the results had not been revealed. Of course, the money is going somewhere good in the end, but for some reason I just cannot get this out of my head.
Jillian
Hi T.J.,
ReplyDeleteI think your post was really interesting and not only talks about an important idea, but it also opened my eyes a bit to how I might have been thinking. I definitely agree with you that it seemed like the general feeling of the class was that the operating grant was some kind of consolation prize. I think I am somewhat guilty of this thinking too, as I reflect back on how I viewed both grants. I do think that I thought the program grant was a lot more important, and that I may have put less importance on the operating grant. It is important that you made that distinction and I think that is valuable knowledge for me to understand if I make decisions like this in the future. I also think that it may be an important point for future classes to discuss in order to try and avoid this type of thinking that one may be more important than the other. I found your suggestion of equal amounts of money for both grants very intriguing, and think that it may be a good way to try and avoid thinking one grant is more important than the other. I think that the differing amounts of money does play a large role in people putting more importance into one grant over the other. To me, the two best ways to combat that could be to make the amounts equal, or spend time explaining to students the importance of the operating grant as well.
In terms of doing anything differently for making the decision as a class, I am not sure I would change a tremendous amount. Overall I thought the process was pretty effective, but I do think that your bring up some important concerns. I had never thought before about favoritism or pity playing a role in the decision, until the actual decision was being made. As with you, it did feel to me that the thinking of the class may not have been which grant was best for an organization, but rather wanting to make sure our favorite organizations were still given money. I do think I am a bit guilty of this as well, as I wanted to make sure both Truth Pharm and ACA were given money. My passion for the two might have impacted my judgement for making a decision. In the moment, it is very hard to realize when your emotions might be having an impact on you. If I had to do anything differently, maybe it would have been trying to take a step back and notice my emotions and the impact they might be having on me. Maybe it would be possible to do that as a class, though I think emotions will and to some extent should always play a role in decisions like these. I also liked the idea of voting for both grants at the same time and keeping the results hidden until after the vote. I think that may help with the the grants going to what people truly feel are the best place and not being swayed by passion, pity, or favoritism. However, the process is this way for a reason, and their may be drawbacks to doing it the other way. At the end of the day, I think that this is an incredibly tough decision, but I think our class did a great job making it.
Hello TJ!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thought provoking post. Your idea about our classes opinion towards the operating grant being second place due to it being less money is unfortunately something I felt while in class too. I also wonder how the class’ attitude towards the grants would have changed had they been two grants of equal monetary value.
This goes back to the conversation we had at the beginning of the semester, where we discussed how diverse philanthropy is. I am reminded of the I am a Philanthropist video we watched the first week of the semester where little kids were saying ‘I am a philanthropist.’ It seems like we as a class lost site of how versatile philanthropy can be as our minds were in a 1st place and 2nd place mentality.
After presenting the organizations with their awards today, the members of the ACA came to me to thank me for the speech and the grant. They said that it will help them out and it meant a lot to them that members of our generation saw the importance of the work they do. This was a reminder to me that even though they did not receive the $7,500, they still received one of two grants our class originally had to give.
It is also important that we remember that these 5 finalists were chosen from a pool of 84 applicants. Just because they did not receive a grant from us does not make them ‘losers’ nor does it may their work any less meaningful or valuable to the Broome County area.
Similar to when we discussed it in class, I believe the operating grant has so much potential, and I cannot wait to see what the ACA does with the money they received!
Sincerely,
Lexi Murman
This blog post aligns closely with how I felt at the end of the recent selection process. I can accept the vote, despite it not going the way I had wanted. That being said I believe that you are correct in asserting that the majority of the class saw the grants as money only. By this I mean that I feel many people felt that less money in a grant lessened the importance of said grant. This in addition to the guilt people felt for the American Civic Association is what I believe definitely led to the large percentage of students choosing it to receive the operating grant. I wanted the class to choose the organization that I felt would benefit the most with the money for the operating grant. This for me was Truth Pharm because I believed that the organization needed help in general with rent and salaries.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on your hypothetical new division of the money, I believe that splitting the funding would definitely impact the decision-making process. If each grant that the class had to allocate was the same amount of money, I think that the class would value each differently. An operating grant of $5,000 has more weight to it than the amount we worked with. More money for this grant gives it a lot more power and would likely influence how students compared the two grants. I believe that most would see an operating grant as more desirable for organizations if the two grant types could no longer compete monetarily.
When reading this post, I also considered how allocating $10,000 to one organization would impact the class. If we were only able to choose one nonprofit organization to give either an operating or programming grant of this amount of money, the decision-making process would change greatly. I think that if this was the case, people would have stronger emotional ties because of the lack of a runner up. I believe it was the classes inability to mute these emotional ties that ultimately led to the undervaluing of the operating grant.
- Julia Diana