Hello everyone! Something that has been on my mind since the beginning of this class is what we should expect of the average donor. Research, where donations go, and when to give have been recurring topics that I would like to discuss. I would also like to know your thoughts the topics presented in this blog post.
In the beginning of the semester, we spoke about how before donating money, people should do research into the organization they will be giving their money to. I believe that in our case, where we will be donating at times perhaps hundreds (for our weekly donations), and ultimately thousands of dollars, this is absolutely and unquestionably necessary. But, can we expect the everyday donor to do the same? Should we, and is it fair to expect him or her to do the same? At what point should we uphold this expectation? When donating $1,$10, $20? For some people, doing research before donating $1 at a cash register or a bake sale is unrealistic to ask of. Susan Thurston, a writer at the Tampa Bay Times paraphrases Professor Leslie Lenkowsky saying: “People are more inclined to give when their wallets are already open” (tampabay.com). The article discusses “checkout charity” and the reasons why people donate at the cash register. I would think that donating might be an afterthought or a spontaneous action for some people, and asking them to do research could prevent them from donating to a potentially admirable organization entirely. For others, researching before deciding where to donate that dollar may be more reasonable. Perhaps a few dollars is a significant amount of their income, and/or donating is something that is rare and special. I’d like to know your thoughts on when you think research is necessary and appropriate, and when it is or is not expected.
In class we have also touched upon where our money goes when we donate. Would you be okay with donating knowing that it was going toward an organization’s water bill? Or directly to its main effort? Personally, I would be okay with either. I recognize that some things such as the maintenance of the institution need to be taken care of, so that the next dollar can go towards its mission. What about this: would you donate your dollar knowing that it was going to be used to buy donuts for the staff at the end of a hard week? Are donuts necessary to the well-being of the individuals? Probably not. Yet, I would still donate. I understand that sometimes philanthropic efforts are not appreciated, are difficult, and are downright tiring. So, if occasionally buying the staff donuts is going to help them get through another day of doing good for others, I will donate. On the extreme end, charities “paying themselves “multiple salaries” and “consulting fees””, and individuals getting paid millions of dollars a year is intolerable. This, in addition to the infamous Kids Wish Network that spent 97.5% of the money raised on administrative costs, leaving only 2.5% to go to direct aid (alternet.org). If you agree that money can occasionally be spent on small luxuries, at what point do you think this becomes slush money and is being taken advantage of? If you disagree, then why?
One of the final topics that have been on my mind have to do with the question: when should one donate? As we know from the material we have studied in class, help is still needed months, even years after a disaster has struck. But, does that mean you should not donate now? I’d like to think that you should help with what you can, when you can, because you may not have the money to donate in the future. I know that we should not forget about the disasters that happened in the past, and perhaps these articles are implying to donate to the recovery efforts of past events. In an article by Niraj Chokshi from the New York Times, he suggests that “donors should consider sustained involvement with charities, whether that involves checking up on how resources were spent and how needs have changed weeks or months down the line…” (nytimes.com). I could understand this point in a case where someone is dedicated to a certain issue. But if not, then what about the tragedy that happened just yesterday? With horrible events taking place every moment in today’s world, can we expect people donate to something that happened months ago, and not to what they are seeing in this very instance? In addition, sometimes “Hearing about too many disasters makes some people not give at all, when they would have if it had been just one disaster," says Michal Ann Strahilevitz” in a 2008 NBC article ‘Disaster fatigue’ blamed for drop in giving. Would it not be better to collect donations when they’re offered (even if just for the first tragedy), than to wait for possible disaster fatigue to set in and not be able to collect anything at all?
Ultimately, I do not think that there is one perfect way to give, as we would all donate to certain organizations, for different reasons, at different times. I may pay for the immediate need for food for disaster victims, and someone else will help in the late stages of recovery. My dollar will pay the electricity bill, someone else will pay for the textbooks the organization provides. I’ll give a dollar to St. Jude’s at the cash register, and someone else will research a different place to give. So, perhaps it is our different ways of giving that keep charities afloat, and people in need being helped.
Articles Links:
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteYour discussion provides a very diverse view of what we have gone over in class. We know that not every dollar of what we donate goes directly toward philanthropic efforts, and we have discussed it to be a bad thing; we do not want the bulk of our money to go toward an organization's electric bill rather than directly supporting their cause, and this is why we do our research to ensure that the impact of our donations are being maximized. However, contributing to a nonprofit's ability to staying afloat can indeed have as much of an impact as contributing to their cause. What we sometimes forget is that no nonprofit is a complete nonprofit. What I am implying is that just like businesses, they need to pay their bills, they need to be able to pay the employees who work there full-time for a living, and once in a while, they should be able to spend a few dollars to keep their employees happy (such as buying them a box of donuts). So, this picture we paint ourselves that "every one of my dollars should go toward this cause" is not as vivid as what we once thought it is. Nonprofits need to stay afloat just as much as for-profits; without basic needs such as employees and electricity, there would be no people or resources to support the cause. We often do not consider the fact that whatever our dollar goes toward, it directly supports the organization and the cause (long as we do our research and confirm that it is a reliable organization). I think this is a very interesting point within the topic at hand, and you did a very good job of bringing to light a different point of view in terms of where our donations go.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteYou have offered good and interesting questions about the thought processes and strategies of giving and receiving donations. My personal logic with checkout charity and what convinces me to give, agrees with Leslie Lenkowsky's saying: “People are more inclined to give when their wallets are already open." When I am at the store and I am asked to donate, what usually convinces me to donate is what I am doing. If I am at the grocery store buying milk for my mom i'm probably not going to donate, but if I just spent $500 buying a jacket and I am asked to donate $1 I am more inclined to do so. That dollar is .5% of my total purchase and it really means nothing to me due to how much money I have spent on my self. I have more than one jacket and I don't really need it but I am doing it because I would like another jacket and I am financially comfortable enough to buy another one. I feel that checkout giving gets the majority of its donations due to affluent guilt where people who live in such a wealthy and comfortable county are spending money on things for themselves that they don't really need and they know that the money they are spending on this one purchase could potentially make a person or families quality of life so much better. But we are not those people and this purchase would benefit us so we are willing to buy what we want to buy and donate .5% of the price of my jacket to get the guilt off of our shoulders.
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of your post, you basically categorize donors into those that spontaneously donate, perhaps a small amount fo money at a checkout station, and those that donate larger sums of money more consistently. However, in the context of this class, I would go as far as to say that the former group should not be recognized as true philanthropists. Now, I’m not saying that small contributions are insignificant: if one hundred people donated $1 to a cause, their donations can collectively make a difference. But we discussed in class the difference between giving for charity and giving for justice, and the majority of the class agreed that charity-giving (or as you put it, “checkout charity”) puts people in the wrong mind-set. If you buy a burger at McDonald’s and then donate an extra 50 cents to the Ronald McDonald House as a one-time act, does that really make you a philanthropist? Based on our class discussions thus far, I think the answer is—not really. Therefore, I think the “everyday donor” is the donor who donates frequently to a cause he/she is passionate about. There also needs to be a balance between heart and head, and I believe every donor should do research to some extent before donating. They should definitely find out how their dollars are being spent and look at the organization’s metrics for measuring success. I completely agree with the statement in “Two Paths for Charitable Giving: From the Head or from the Heart”: people need to get the emotional reward of giving first, but having a way to measure what those dollars do will sustain their giving.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHannah I must say those are some very solid points of view as well as very relevant questions that we should be asking ourselves. I think that it may be unreasonable for us to expect everyone that engages in philanthropy to research about the organization that they intend to give to particularly in relation to those that give at the register. My belief is that informed philanthropy is always more effective however if someone feels as if they want to give a $1 at the register then I am not opposed to such giving. The fact is that anyone can be a philanthropists however I think the scale of philanthropy plays an integral role in the amount of research that is required. I do however think that people who are frequent givers should take the time to do their research about the organization that they have just given to in order to make a more educated giving decision in the future.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I believe that most businesses would taken the time out to survey the organizations that they have partnered with as a means of raising funds on behalf of that organization. Therefore, I think that to some extent persons who chose to give what we would consider spontaneous donations at the register can feel confident in knowing that the organization that they are making their donations to is a reputable one.
I would consider "checkout charity" to be the sector of philanthropy where we will find people who are the least informed about charitable giving. As such I think its important that customers can trust a business who is asking for donations for a cause to be well informed.
Hi Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your insight on these three topics--all relating to the method of one's donating. First: how, then: where, and last: when. Perhaps the underlying question to these three topics is: if there exists a best strategy of giving that provides the most good, what would it be? I tend to agree with what you started to mention at the end of your post: everybody has a different way of being a philanthropist, and perhaps our diverse methods as a whole provides the best strategy--one where all vacuums of wealth are each filled by different groups of philanthropists; just as it takes support from every angle to lift a heavy object, so too does it take diverse perspectives and peoples to address the many needs in our communities. An Adam Smith "Invisible Hand" perspective on the economy, applied to the world of philanthropy.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post because most of what you said is in line with my beliefs about philanthropy. I agree that it is difficult to define philanthropy and giving as specific processes with certain steps you should take, because that isn't how it is. If there was a certain way that you were supposed to give, then the video that we watched in the beginning of the year called "I am a Philanthropist" wouldn't exist. The video featured several demographics, including kids. I think this is important to note because many people think that philanthropy is purely supporting an organization and then giving a certain amount of money to them. In fact, though, many people consider themselves philanthropists if they just give their time to an organization every once in a while - and I see nothing wrong with that. While I do think it is important to do your research regardless, since giving an hour to a local soup kitchen is possibly more worthwhile than a $50 monthly donation to a controversial organization like the American Red Cross, I still think the vagueness definition of philanthropy is what fuels it.