Hello.
I hope everyone’s weekend is going well. I am going to take this time to
discuss and reflect on a topic that particularly struck me as interesting and
seemingly so obvious, yet it is a topic which most people are not aware of:
this would be the topic of simply donating at the right time and to the right
organization. When any type of philanthropist, whether it be a child donating
the spare change in his piggy bank or a billionaire making a
multi-million-dollar contribution, just the feeling of knowing that they are
contributing for the greater good and doing something selfless warms their
heart with the feeling that they are directly helping a cause greater that
their own-or, so they think. Within just the first week of class, something
that struck me as so shocking, yet so obvious that I could not believe I did
not consider it within my entire life, was the fact that when we blindly donate
to a nonprofit organization, it does contribute to a good cause, but often we do
not know where and what the money goes toward. As we touched upon the first
week of class, if you donate a sizeable amount of money to, say, Feeding
America, is your grant going directly toward food for the hungry? Perhaps it is
simply going into paying for their electric bill. Maybe there was another
organization that could have used the money to aid in a greater cause; one that
would have helped to stop hunger altogether, rather than providing temporary
relief. These are a few of the many factors we must consider when making a
donation of any size to any organization or cause.
Within
discussion in class and personal reflection outside of class, a huge factor which
stuck out to me which we do not consider when making a donation, specifically
to a disaster relief effort, is the timing of the donation, or, rather, the
optimal time to truly make a contribution. For instance, as we discussed in
class, there seems to be an economic cycle which follows each and every natural
disaster. This cycle begins with a spike in donations immediately following the
event as a result of the media featuring the cause on nearly every news
station, high-profile online website, and other means of digital influence. Soon
after this initial “spike” in donations (approximately 2-3 weeks after the
occurrence of the event), however, the media simply moves on to the next big
story and a resulting plummet in donations follows; meanwhile, the disaster
relief efforts typically carry on for months or sometimes even years. This is
the truly optimal time to make a donation in the case of a disaster relief
effort. An example of this lies in the relief efforts in response to Hurricane
Maria (as we briefly discussed in class). The so-called “initial spike” in
donations has long since passed; however, half the island of Puerto Rico is
still currently without power. Without the proper capital to fund these relief
efforts, the recovery of the island will drastically slow down, and perhaps
even stall. It is instances such as the Hurricane Maria relief efforts in
Puerto Rico which demonstrate that we must donate with our brains more than our
hearts. The correct time to do this varies, but we must donate when donations
from others are beginning to decline.
The
amount of common sense we lack as a society in terms of philanthropy startles
me. As I stated earlier, the fact that I had never previously thought of any of
the topics discussed in class caught me by surprise. The general population
should absolutely be more exposed to the topics which we have discussed in
class. An online article from cbsnews.com (to which I have attached the link) is
something I found particularly interesting. It talks about how-more often than
not-it is more helpful to donate cash than an item to disaster relief efforts;
sometimes an item can actually enhance the problem. An example of this was in
2004, when an island in Indonesia received so many clothing items in relief of
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The clothing items came in so often and so
frequently that officials were forced to leave them to rot on a beach and
eventually burn them. This-as stated previously-simply created a new problem
and slightly prolonged relief efforts. This idea of there being more than one
dimension to philanthropy or, rather, a simple donation to any random nonprofit,
is something which I believe the public is not exposed to nearly enough. The
average philanthropist should be educated to the topics which we are currently
discussing, especially to the idea of Strategic
Philanthropy. Before I conclude, I would like for all of you, the readers,
to ask yourself these questions whenever you consider making a donation of some
kind:
- Is this a cause which I am passionate about?
- Did I do my research on this organization/cause?
- Is this organization/cause trustworthy? Does it have a good reputation?
- What would my donation be going toward?
- Is it better to donate to a local nonprofit or rather a large, nationally-known organization?
- Is it more sensible (in this case) to donate items or capital?
- Is this truly the organization/cause which will make the most out of my donation? Is there another organization/cause out there in which my grant would be put to better use?
- How much of a difference would I truly be making if I donated to this organization/cause?
- Am I donating in tandem with my brain and my heart?
These are all questions we must ask
ourselves in order to make as much of a difference as possible. In reflecting
on this topic, my hope is that the general population becomes more educated
about strategic philanthropy, and the idea that blindly donating to any charity
or nonprofit may not be the smartest thing.
Article Links:
- “Best intentions: When disaster relief brings anything but relief”: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/best-intentions-when-disaster-relief-brings-anything-but-relief/
- “Want to Help Hurricane Harvey Victims? Experts Say Donate Cash”: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/29/546866561/responding-to-harvey-will-be-long-term-issue-plan-cash-donations-to-match
- “Hurricane Harvey: Where the Money Goes When You Donate to the American Red Cross”: http://time.com/money/4920070/hurricane-harvey-where-the-money-goes-when-you-donate-to-the-american-red-cross/
- “Should You Donate to Disaster Relief? In response to Harvey, we may do more good by ditching empathy as a moral guide.”: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/partisan-pitfalls-and-moral-misperceptions/201708/should-you-donate-disaster-relief
Justin, I definitely agree with your argument that as philanthropists we need to make decisions which incorporate both our heads and our hearts. An educated decision is always a better decision, and without a passion for philanthropy, there would be no motivation for charitable giving.
ReplyDeleteHowever, don't you think your first question to consider, which requires considering passion for a potential organization one might donate to, is a little contradictory of your argument? If we are to make rational decisions of when to donate, we must not let our passion overtake our reason. Yes, it is very easy to want to donate to a disaster relief charity when the horrifying details of the aftermath of said disaster have been broadcasted on the news every day for the past week. However, it takes more than just passion to continue donating to that cause after the newscasters have announced the next, newest cause to donate to. I argue that it is more important to consider which organizations are in most need of our dollars, or which cause is in need of the most help.
Although it is rewarding to donate to a cause you are passionate about, we need to remember what philanthropy is truly about. As philanthropists, we are simply just a medium to helping those in need--philanthropy isn't about us, it is about those who need help and trying to change their circumstances for the better.
Unfortunately, this conception of philanthropy has been morphed over the past few years, as this article from "The Guardian" points out:
https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2011/sep/15/personal-taste-drives-charitable-giving
In my opinion, we need to think of philanthropy with more of a "head" perspective rather than "heart" (although both are inevitably necessary), and donate to those causes that need our dollars the most--not just the ones that spark our interest or are most heavily advertised.
Justin I also agree that we should give with our heads and not our hearts and I think that is something that people who are involved in charitable giving should definitely consider. Personally I am usually very inclined to give to those organizations that I am more passionate about as I am sure it is for many people, but as Allison said we definitely have to ensure that we are making educated and informed decisions when we are donating by focusing on those organizations and causes that not only need the donations more but will also efficiently make use of those resources.
ReplyDeleteWhile it not a bad thing to give to an organization that one is passionate about I believe as philanthropists it goes deeper than passion as there are real and present issues that need to be addressed and requires more immediate attention and donations.
In regards to the timeliness of donations that you mentioned Justin, I think this is an even more serious concern surrounding philanthropy. It is true that people cease their giving whenever the issue doesn't seem to be at the forefront however, I believe this is where smart and committed giving as a philanthropists come in. While no one is necessarily obligated to give, I think that there should be some type of commitment on our part in terms of situations such as disaster relief. In such events it is literally a case of "out of sight, out of mind" and I think as philanthropists we should try to find out about the progress in such events and try to give if we can. We have to acknowledge that these communities that go through such disasters do not recover overnight and so need continued support from those who are capable of helping.
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteStrategic donation is an important key in evaluating the effectiveness of donations. In a money driven world, in which personal gain often overrides "social justice", we as humans need to make the most of our donations. I fully agree that we need to educate our society in terms of donating at the right time, donating to the right organizations, and donating with thought for future progress of our donation. Donating with your heart often includes the right intention to help, which undoubtedly is a noble thing to do, but as you mentioned, we need to insure that our donations ACTUALLY HELP.
The example you gave from the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster relief shows exactly how donating with your heart may go horribly wrong. The vast amount of resources wasted is truly shocking and sets a perfect example for why we need to strategically evaluate the recipient of our donations and how our donations make an impact.
Saying that people should donate with their head instead of their hearts is easier said than done, so how can we actually ensure that we strategically donate our resources ?
An interesting organization I stumbled upon during my research is an organization called "CharityWatch", who engage in evaluating the credibility and effectivity of philanthropic organizations and disaster relief. "CharityWatch exposes nonprofit abuses and advocates for your interests as a donor". Below I will post the link to their homepage so you can further engage in finding out how to donate strategically.
https://www.charitywatch.org/home
Lastly, I want to use this platform to emphasize the importance of a well thought through donation process, rather than throwing your valuable resources at the first organization advertising their ability to help.
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteStrategic Philanthropy is extremely important for aligning the interest of public, private, and nonprofit entities to solve complex social problems. This approach to change making requires strategic donations that help advance the goal. I find that often these donations, mainly money, don't feel as warm and fuzzy as traditional donations, such as giving teddy bears and blankets. In fact, as just mentions with example of clothing sent to Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, sometimes the traditional donations can do more harm than good.
In the radio broadcast "Thanks, But No Thanks: When Post-Disaster Donations Overwhelm" on NPR's All Things Considered, Pam Fessler states that "piles of donations that no one had requested" crowd runways and cause other logistic nightmares in the essential 48 hours after a disaster. A strategic donation could include money that the charitable organization on the ground could most effectively and efficiently use to best meet the needs of those effected. The article gives examples of disasters from Sandy Hook School Shooting to super-storm Sandy and many in between. One of my favorite quotes from the article, that I find sums up the problem with trying to get people to donate with their Head and not their heart, is "How do you tell someone that's really not the best thing, when all they want to do is help?" The link to the article can be found below.
https://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168946170/thanks-but-no-thanks-when-post-disaster-donations-overwhelm
Sincerely,
David
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the public should be more aware of how their donations actually help create change. Whether that be what the organization actually does with their contributions, who the beneficiaries are, when it is put to use, etc. Although I would argue against your statement that the ‘optimal’ time to donate is after initial relief efforts have been made. The public should be aware that there is not an optimal time but that there needs to be continuous effort. I think this distinction is important to help everyday philanthropists be strategic in their giving. As Michael said, it is important to be strategic in our giving and to give at the right times but those being helped need consistent and constant effort to create real change in their communities. It is important for the public to understand that for example victims of a natural disaster like a hurricane, do not need goods (food, clothes, etc) to be donated but they need help to rebuild their community. I think it is important for everyday philanthropists to understand how strategic planning can help in the long term. Justin had stated that the correct time to donate varies but “we must donate when donations from others begin to decline” which is true but my point is that we must continue constantly after that as well. To me this is what the public should understand when making contributions. I believe this is what Natassia was touching upon at the end of her comment. I agree with her and her statement that as strategic philanthropists we must use a combination of head and heart. Therefore I don't think we should be so critical of the public's ignorance. They have the passion to give but not the knowledge of how to do it effectively. My question would then be: whose responsibility is it to inform the public? Should organizations tell them when their donation would be the most helpful? Should they be doing their own research? While it would be beneficial for all philanthropists to have this understanding, is it practical?
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your evaluation of the importance of public involvement within philanthropy, however I would like to further discuss Alexa's comment. After reading Alexa's questions and preparing for tomorrow's discussion, I began to approach the same questions. "Whose responsibility is it to inform the public?" "Is it a practical feat?"
I think the answer to the first question is two pronged. It is both the responsibility of non-profits to both provide an open platform of resources, as well as transparent honest data to explain its mission of existence. These resources should be simplistic enough to maneuver so that a person who has just been introduced to the concept of philanthropy as a professional discipline would be able to benefit from it. As Justin mentioned, philanthropy thrives through its spread of effectiveness over multiple demographics and causes. A way to ensure that non-profits will reveal honest transparency in both their success, losses, and modifications are via a reveal of the process of how they reach and evaluate their theories of change, as well as their determined overall impacts (similar to what the "Zeroing in on Impact" article describes*). On the other hand, I do believe that we, the general public, are responsible to try our best to pursue the information that a non-profit can provide (hence: "prong two"). Furthermore, Alexa, I would like to respond to your question of the practicality of this model (of a two-pronged approach towards non-profit research). I believe that with time and hard efforts of well-rounded individuals who will begin to pursue a professional discipline of philanthropy, this concept of conscious discovery of needy organizations will become the new and better norm. In fact, by participating in this course, we are taking part as emerging leaders in the "research challenge".
For an idea of how a non-profit can evaluate their own data, impact, and theories of change, you may find this article quite fascinating. I was in fact surprised by how strategic an organization has to be when trying to be efficient as well as effective.
http://evaluationroundtable.org/documents/Eyes%20Wide%20Open.pdf (this article discusses strategic philanthropy... this idea
*This is the link for the article I mentioned above:
https://ssir.org/images/articles/2004FA_feature_colby.pdf
Thank you for sharing Justin. Before this class, all the past philanthropy projects I have done were things that I was close to. Me being Jewish has played a strong role in the organizations that I choose to support. When I was 13 I supported a hospital in Israel and many times before passover, I would pack food for the needy in Jewish communities in Queens. I definitely agree with you that when donating money it is important to do your research and donate with your brain as well. However in my personal experience, when you donate to things that you are passionate about, generally you have done your research and the organization is one that is high quality. Donating passionately very well could end up in the same category as donating with your brain.
ReplyDelete