Ladies and Gents, Boys and Girls! Come One, Come All! A Not So Shakespearian Tragedy!!!

Greetings fellow students, philanthropists and the like,

Today I am writing about yet another concept that keeps ringing in my mind. When we do our charity pitches in class, the number one question that always gets asked is “What is our money going to do?” or “What impact is our money going to make?”.  I feel that we have been more prone to voting towards a smaller charity that is more localized or has less of a budget as opposed to a larger organization. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with donating to smaller organizations. In fact, back at the beginning of the semester (feels so long ago, right?), we discussed how it’s actually better to donate to local charities in times of crisis such as the aftermath of a hurricane. However, as I recall, the reasoning for that was not because a smaller amount of money makes a relatively larger impact, but because local organizations know their community’s needs the best. 

I feel like when presented with a larger organization, we are prone to shying away because we don’t think our money will have much of an impact. This, my friends, is what I will refer to as “The Tragedy of the Commons”. It is often talked about in the context of an environmental perspective, but there are parallels to be drawn here. The “tragedy” refers to a situation in which there is a shared resource. All individuals have access to the resource and use it to their benefit. For example, consider the atmosphere. We can all breathe its air and emit pollutants as we please. Yes, industry is regulated to an extent but the amount that we drive our cars, for example, is not. Alone, I could drive my car as much as I want and the CO2 it emits would never make a difference to the atmosphere. So, because of that why would I work to drive a fuel-efficient or clean energy vehicle? Why would I consider walking, riding my bike or carpooling? My emissions alone make no difference. However, when everyone thinks this way it adds up to 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, a significant contribution to climate change (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions). To really get a grasp for the concept I highly encourage you to watch these videos. They are both short, simple and have cool animations so please take a moment to view them:

Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuETYEgY68

Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYA1y405JW0

Let it sit with you and consider the larger picture. As I said before, the correlation between this concept and our philanthropy class is not direct. In fact, I think our situation is a little bit of the inverse. Rather than choosing to do an action because we fail to see a significantly negative impact from us alone, we refrain because we fail to see a significantly positive impact that it will bring. Also, rather than taking from a resource we are contributing to. So, to bring this show to a close, I ask you to think if there are any other areas of philanthropy in which we can make connections with this idea? Or maybe life in general? Would anyone say philanthropic dollars are a shared resource? What are the things that we should be considering when weighing in on which charity to donate to?

Does informed philanthropy mean effective altruism?

Does Informed Philanthropy mean effective altruism?

Being in this class has really changed my outlook on philanthropy. I thought being philanthropic simply meant giving away your money, and that was where it ended.  Not only have I learned about the essence of philanthropy but the importance of being informed in our philanthropic efforts. Philanthropy is more than simply giving away your money, it is a process of gathering information about an organization or a cause to make an informed decision. However, does gathering all this data mean that one will make the most effective decision? Does informed philanthropy always equate to being an effective altruist.

I truly believe that being informed helps one to make the most effective decision. On the other hand, I don’t think that being informed necessarily means that a person will choose the most effective decision. Peter Singer encourages us to engage in effective altruism which essentially dictates that if your donation will help 100 people as opposed to one then you give where it will numerically make the most impact. In my opinion, effective altruism is really about the numbers, but what about making a numerically small impact? Isn’t it the impact that counts? What about simply changing the life of one person?

In my opinion, being informed gives a philanthropist the details he/she needs about the organization or cause they have considered donating to as well as the tools he/she needs to be an effective altruist. However the truth is I don’t believe every informed philanthropist will be an effective altruist. People have different passions, people see the world differently and while being effective may matter to one philanthropist, it may not matter to another.

A person may see that he could make the most numerical impact in one organization after gathering all the data but still decide on donating to a cause serving only one person because he is truly passionate about the cause. Regardless of this reality, I do believe that being an informed has more benefits than making the most effective decision.

What do you all think?

Here are two interesting articles that I found! 

https://www.macfound.org/press/perspectives/what-makes-philanthropist/
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism

Seva Foundation

When I was 6 years old, I had a major eye accident in which a shard of glass basically cut my eye in half. I was rushed to the hospital and given emergency surgery, and in the following months I needed 3 additional surgeries to restore my eye. The fact that I left the hospital after my 4th surgery still being able to see, with only a scar on my eye that still remains, is a miracle that even the eye surgeons themselves are baffled by. This point in my life changed my perspective on life and made me realize how grateful I am for the things I have, especially my sight. However, there are tens of millions of people who have eye issues and accidents but cannot afford to pay for the care the need. Or perhaps, they live in an area without the medical personnel necessary. Ever since this accident happened, my philanthropic focus has been geared to organizations that deal with ophthalmology and optometry - organizations that give others the second chance at sight that I was given.

One organization that accomplishes this is the Seva Foundation. Seva’ is a 501c3 organization whose mission statement is that it “works with local communities around the world to develop self-sustaining programs that preserve and restore sight”. It’s vision is simply “A world free of blindness”. The way Seva tackles blindness is through funding training initiatives that increase the amount of doctors that are able to treat blindness. The focus of Seva is on poor people living in third-world countries, and they want to have a long-term effect in every person they treat. Sustainability, gender equity, and universal access are just a few of the many core values that they hold. Seva also believes that through ridding the world of blindness, it simultaneously helps lift people out of poverty, since it has been proven that being poor is a major reason that many people become blind (they can’t afford eye care), and vice versa. Seva’s approach to blindness helps empower women, leads to educational opportunities, and creates immediate and long-term change.

I could go on about how amazing of an organization this is, as they really do the best they can to tackle such a huge issue - one that cripples 36 million people worldwide. Since they started 40 years ago, they have helped 4 million people regain their vision. However, what really matters to the class is the financial aspect of donating to Seva; where will our money go? 84.6% of Seva’s income goes to its programs, which is a good number considering the fact that it also has to pay the doctors that it employs. In 2016, their income was $6,748, 453, while their expenses were $5,943, 071 - a deficit of $805, 382. In terms of our small donation, though, it is unclear where exactly it will go - Seva funnels their money in what they need most at the time. However, one reason for blindness are cataracts, which can be removed with a 15 minute, $50 surgery. Our money could cure one or two children of blindness, and change their lives forever. If our money doesn’t go to that, there are dozens of other places it could go through Seva - each just as important as the others.

I implore you to look further into Seva Foundation as I believe it is my way of giving back to the medical world for preventing me from being blind in one eye. Thank you for reading!


Sources

http://www.seva.org/site/PageServer

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5295

http://iceh.lshtm.ac.uk/poverty-equality-and-blindness/

Is Everyone Deserving of Philanthropy?

Hi everyone!

As you all know, we have discussed and debated over why people give, what the best way of giving is, and which organizations are the most effective at giving. As crucial as all of these discussions are to our process of developing into effective philanthropists, I believe we are leaving out an important part of the philanthropic equation—who do we give to, and why?

It is not uncommon, based on my experiences, for people to be reluctant to give money to a homeless person on the street. Often times, if you question this reluctance, the response will be something along the lines of, “He/she will only use my money for drugs or alcohol anyways.” This response reflects the widespread stigma many of us have against not only the homeless, but also against addicts, and that many assume all homeless individuals must be addicts.

Although many homeless individuals do suffer from addiction, not all are affected by this issue. But even if the entire homeless population did consist of addicts, why does this matter? By labeling individuals as addicts and withholding donations to this particular group of people, are we condemning them as unworthy of philanthropic assistance?

In a study titled “I’m Moral But I Won’t Help You: The Distinct Rules of Empathy and Justice in Donations,” 600 people were asked to choose to donate to one of two potential recipients in a hospital: one who was unable to pay for their medical care due to their low-wage job with poor benefits or to an individual who couldn’t afford to pay for medical care due to their unemployment as a result of their drug and alcohol abuse. Overwhelmingly, the more “worthy” candidate (the person suffering from low-wages and poor benefits) received donations. This study reveals many people’s inherent desire to help those who are deemed deserving, and our natural bias against addicts and those whom we assume are responsible for their own misfortune. Rather than helping these individuals get back on their feet, we’d rather donate to a worthier cause because we feel they are responsible for their own failure. Generally, we don’t like giving second chances because we have a lack of trust between donor and grantee. This explains why many people are reluctant to donate to Give Directly—they are concerned that the recipients will spend the money granted to them on frivolous items and, ultimately, that their money won’t go towards resolving the over-arching issue at hand.

In a society that largely buys into the concept of meritocracy (the “American Dream”), it is easy for us to lack sympathy for those we believe are responsible for their own downward plight. Unfortunately, many alcoholics and drug addicts are considered to fall into this category. Of course, no one chooses to be an addict, however, many allot blame towards those who experiment with drugs and subsequently become addicts despite the fact that not all addiction originates from experimentation. However, because we assume that they are responsible for their lack of success, we are more willing to donate to those we feel are blameless victims to their unfortunate conditions—such as animals, children, and natural disaster victims. Although these causes are definitely important and should be addressed, addiction is also a valid and widespread problem in our society that needs addressing but is often neglected.

I believe in order to be effective philanthropists, we need to go into every donation process with an open heart and open mind devoid of bias. We must ignore stigmas and rationally decide where we believe our money or time is most needed, whether that be in an organization supporting childhood education or an organization helping recovering addicts. All issue areas should be equally valued and equally considered in the donation process, and personal blame of the victim for their circumstances should not be taken into account. Although it can be hard to trust someone who has made many mistakes in their past, we need to put our trust in the credible and effective organizations we donate to that help these individuals. Who are we to distinguish between who does or does not deserve to live a comfortable and happy life? And why can’t this privilege be something everyone is entitled to? At the end of the day, an individual in need is an individual in need, and as philanthropists we should attempt to alleviate the suffering of as many different people as we can, regardless of their potential past mistakes.

Here is the study on deserving versus non-deserving recipients: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2438279

Here is a Forbes article discussing the results of the study and bias within philanthropy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2014/06/30/what-makes-people-generous-charity-empathy-and-story-telling/#65f449927cba

Viva con Agua

VIVA CON AGUA

Alive with Water 

We live in a world in which 663 million people do not have access to clean drinking water. Polluted water isn’t just dirty; it is deadly. About 1.8 million die every year of diarrheal diseases like cholera. Tens of millions of others are seriously sickened by a host of water related illnesses, many of which are easily preventable.

Viva con Agua (alive with water) is a Hamburg based organization that is committed to establish access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation for all humans worldwide. They use creative and innovative activities to raise awareness for the global issues Water, Sanitation and Hygiene and raise funds for water projects around the globe. 
In 2005, the 25-year-old soccer player Benjamin Adrion travelled to Cuba for a training camp with his club, FC St. Pauli. In Cuba, Benjamin saw the poor supply of fresh drinking water and sanitary facilities. A year later, Viva con Agua was founded in Hamburg. Benjamin quickly found enthusiastic supporters amongst his friends and colleagues, as well as German musicians, actors and other prominent figures. However, the young founder knew little of how to run an NGO and realize successful projects. He thus decided to team up with the German World Hunger Aid (Welthungerhilfe), one of the biggest German NGOs working in the field of developmental cooperation and emergency aid. The German World Hunger Aid holds the Seal of Approval for NGOs (as well as Viva con Agua) awarded by the German Institute for Social Questions and in 2014, it was named the most transparent German NGO. Since the very beginning, all projects are being implemented in partnership with the German World Hunger Aid. Together, both organizations believe in the basic principle of help towards self – help. They work together with local partner organizations to support the efforts of people in developing countries gain access to clean drinking water and provide for themselves on a sustainable basis.

Currently, Viva con Agua conducts WASH projects, which is short for the project components Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, in these eight countries: Guatemala, Nepal, India, Malawi, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Mozambique. The projects are based on the principle that all three components have to be taken into consideration to achieve a sustainable provision of services. Each project is realized according to an individual concept. Viva con Aqua creates access to potable and safe water as well as improved sanitary facilities. It also provides post monitoring and maintenance of the water systems. It furthermore improves municipal waste disposal and realization of pilot measures to sustainably dispose faeces. In order to increase the water accessibility, rural communities receive clean drinking water through deep wells equipped with hand pumps. Rain catchments are created to supply animals.

In 2016, Viva con Agua received 2.56 million € of donations. 1.62 million € were private donations and 830.000 € were public donations. Membership fees (counted to the overall sum of donations) where at 125.000 €. Viva con Agua uses 83% of their money for the WASH projects, whereas 17% is used for administrative purposes.

Viva con Agua understands that the cause they are supporting is a very serious one, however they do not compromise fun, passion and a contagious joy for their work while raising awareness and donations. They constantly come up with new ideas and concepts to motivate people to become part of this social process that is rooted in positive change. One of the initiative’s initial principal source of revenue is probably collecting returnable cups at festivals and other large-scale events. Voluntary helpers ask visitors not to return their empty cups to the drinks stalls but put them instead in a Viva con Agua bin – thus donating the deposit. In the summer of 2016, these micro level donations brought in about 375.000 € While our 100 dollar might not seem the world, Viva con Agua was able to raise more than quarter of a million Euros, „with just a few small donations“.

Since 2010, the Viva con Agua Company has also marketed its own brand of mineral water, which is sold in cooperation with regional water bottlers. Most people in Germany from 18 to 25 will know what Viva con Aqua is and have probably donated numerous cups at their last concert visit. Viva con Agua has truly been present at any music festival or concert that I have ever went to. However, the “older generation” is not necessarily present at these events and thus is a lot harder to reach for the NGO. Selling Viva con Agua water is an opportunity to reach a different audience, which so far has not been part of the Viva con Agua cosmos. Viva con Agua places a strong effort on sustainability and conscious consumption and thus makes sure to advertise for drinking tab water whenever possible. However, when drinking tab water is not an option, they want to create a sensible alternative with their water. 60% of the profits go to water projects of the Viva con Agua NGO, while 40% go to the Viva con Agua Company (LLC). The Viva con Agua Company operates as a so-called social business, i.e. a company that seeks to solve the social and ecological problems facing society. When Viva con Agua looked for investors for their new company, they found investors who where willing to forego any future profits. All of the profits going to the company are directed directly into financing new social business projects.

Benjamin Adrion was just 28 years old when he received the Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany in 2009, an award conferred in recognition of special services rendered for the common good.  

Taking a Second Look at Fundraising

These past two weeks in class we have been looking at various websites that rank charities based on a set of strict guidelines--one of them being finances. One of the main aspects of these financial evaluations are the program, administration, and fundraising budgets. Broken down into a big, colorful pie chart these websites show how much money the organization has spent in relation to these three sectors, and for some reason everyone is fixated on organizations that allocate at least 80% for program spending. Mostly everyone in class had this belief that the best charity is going to be spending very little money on their administration or fundraising costs, and instead is funneling all their money into their programs. To be honest, when I saw organizations that were putting more than 15% of their budget towards fundraising I immediately thought that they were not being responsible with their money. However, after class I could not help but think how absurd this conclusion was. I asked myself, “is it true that the best charities are putting all their money towards their program or is it possible that putting more money towards fundraising could potentially benefit a non-profit? Also, is this way of thinking about nonprofits possibly hindering their ability to expand and innovate?”

             Just think about how often you see an advertisement on television or a billboard and suddenly it is your sole goal in life to have whatever is being sold. I am not going to lie, I have bought many products that have absolutely no purpose other than the fact that it looked cool in the commercial. If large corporations can persuade billions of people to consume their product everyday through effective advertising, then why should non-profits not be able to persuade consumers to support their mission statement? Why are we so against the idea that the not for profit sector should put more money towards fundraising to potentially make even more money? Early in the semester Professor Campbell had us look at a chart showing where donor dollars were mainly coming from, and the answer was individuals. Non-profits depend on normal, everyday consumers, who are 72% of the source of donations. If consumers are the main source of revenue for these organizations, then they should follow the footsteps of large corporations who make billions of dollars off us every year. Statistics can’t lie and effective marketing does make a difference.  “In 2016/17, MindBody, Salesforce, Bottomline Technologies, Tableau, Oracle and Johnson & Johnson all had marketing and sales budgets that were greater than 20% of revenue, some spending close to 50%! All of these companies also grew year-over-year.” All of these companies may have put a large percentage of their budget towards advertising, but in the long run it proved beneficial. I mean why would Coca-Cola be spending over 3 billion dollars on advertisements a year if they see no return on this investment? This is definitely not me saying that nonprofits should be spending 50% of their budget on large advertising campaigns, but I am saying we, as donors, should be more open-minded towards organizations that put more money towards advertising their mission. Advertising has proved effective for companies so why would it be any different for non-profits? It would allow them to reach a wider audience and simply make people more aware of the organization’s purpose. If 20 million people are willing to spend their money on a Snuggie they saw in a commercial I believe it is also possible for non-profits to gain the support of millions of people through an increased range of advertising. So I’m sorry David E., but I say go ahead and have the gala!

            This brings me to my next question, “how does this stigma surrounding donations being diverted from program expenses affect a non-profit?” A common saying in the world of business is high risk yields high reward. Taking risks is important because it leads to new ideas, new innovations, and new solutions. However, when non-profits are focused on their reputation and how they appear to their donors, they will be deterred from taking a risk. What organization is going to want to risk not getting a 4-star rating on charity navigator because they put money towards a new fundraising opportunity that could possibly increase their donations? As donors we need to stop fixating on this idea that non-profits can’t use their money for purposes other than their programs. There could be so many benefits that come with increased fundraising budgets and taking risks, but is the shame and possible failure that goes along with it worth it for non-profits? I believe the answer lies within the responsibility of the donors to be more open to organizations increasing their fundraising budget.