Over the course of the semester, we have spent so much time analyzing and debating methods and criteria of the evaluation of non-profit 501C3 organizations in Broome County. Personally, when I was thinking about where to allocate additional funding a few thoughts came in to my mind.
When we first created our presentations about are organizations, I had a concern that I would not be able to conceptualize the data we were being given (budget plans, 990's, etc.). However, after attending site visits, the process of this class finally made sense to me. The reason we read articles my Peter Singer, Prof. Campbell, and many other civil service scholars was to place foundational concepts into our minds to later be activated. Therefore, in order to consider how to allocate new funds, I would like to do the same.
When considering this new funding what reasoning do you use to support your claim?
I believe that in this case the concept of altruistic giving may not really apply and therefore, I would revert to the debate of whether this decision will be made with our heads, our hearts, or a combination of both. When I first chose my organizations, they came from my heart. I felt passionate about sharing what I had found with the class. Now, with an expanded understanding, I feel as if I could do more good by using my head to motivate this decision. I am curious if you, the reader, agree?
Instead of you all reading my post and analyzing what my opinion is, I would like to open up this post to be a conversation.
There are many possibilities for our additional grant:
- The grant can be an operating or program grant.
- We can decide between the YWCA, WCC, Boys and Girls Club, MHAST, or CHOW.
- Also, if allowed, we can provide the additional grant to another Broome County organization discussed in the class that didn't make the final vote (like the Kopernick Observatory for example). Although, I do not know if that is realistic with our time constraints.
Personally, especially after hearing from the WCC, I believe that the extra grant should become operating. Like Prof. Campbell explained many times non-profits simply need cash to be able to cover administrative costs. I am aware that the concept of giving cash to an organization may not pull at our hearts, however I truly believe it is an efficient decision and that it will provide an opportunity that is hard to come by. The challenge is that I cannot decide on who I would give the money to. In regard to who will receive the donation, I am curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
Looking forward,
Molly S.
Hi Molly,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting about this! Obviously this has been a huge topic of conversation as we have the possibility of being able to donate more money to an organization that is helping the community we live in. You brought up the topic of head and heart, which has played a role in all the decisions we made in this class. In my opinion, I would like to make the decision with my heart. Because this class acts as a giving circle, most of this semester has been based on numbers or statistics because they are helpful in getting people to support an organization. Not everyone has the same core values, but everyone likes seeing an organization that will use their donation effectively. Therefore, instead of using my head to make a decision, I want to finally let my core values be the primary reason for choosing a nonprofit. Sadly, I do not believe this is possible because once again we are a group of almost 30 people and the simple truth is we do not all have the same core values. Looking back to the beginning of the semester, we all had to make a list of possible organizations that could be finalists. Although some overlap between organizations was present, there was a long list of possible charities we could choose. I believe this to be true because, at least for me, I was choosing organizations that had mission statements which focused on issues relating to my core values. Therefore, because we all have different beliefs and feelings, we all wanted different things. The only way we were able to reduce this list to five finalist organizations was by comparing their effectiveness and efficiency through sites like Charity Navigator. Most of the discussions I was in consisted of students asking , “how much of their money goes to programs”, “are they effectively using their donations”, and “how does Charity Navigator rate them”. Therefore, being in this large group of people I believe this choice will inevitably be made with our heads.
With this in mind, I agree with you when you say that the extra money should go towards an operating grant. Like you said, WCC voiced their need for operating grants, but also said that it is hard to get donations for overhead costs. Sadly, people do not want to see their money go towards paying salaries, they want to see it save or help a life. However, in order for nonprofits to execute their mission statement they need paid staff and a building to work in. Therefore, as well-informed philanthropists I believe it is our duty to put the money towards an operating grant because many of the organizations have voiced their need for one. At our very first site visit, Carole Coppens stated the importance of having unrestricted money for overhead so an organization can focus on their programs and not when their lights will be shut off. At our next site visit CHOW stated not many people want to donate their money toward insuring or fueling a bus. Then, this need was then again voiced by MHAST who stated if they do not have enough money they often take money out of their own pockets. All of these organizations are related by this dire need for money to simply “keep the lights on”. This will be a hard decision to make because all organizations could use this money, especially with the recent increase in minimum wage. At this point in time I do not have a strong feelings for any specific organization because they all do great work in the community and could greatly benefit from the money. However, this makes the decision come down to who we think needs the money the most. For the purpose of time I also believe it should be one of the five finalist organizations. As for these five, I am leaning towards the Boys and Girls club because they have recently faced funding cuts so they have to do the same amount of work with less money. I am also choosing the Boys and Girls Club because their mission to “inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, and responsible citizens” is the basis of my core values. Therefore, I am slightly bias when I choose them but there is no doubt they could use the money after they did not receive as much funding as they normally do. A lot of people believe the extra money should go towards an operating grant, but I would like to hear more about specific organizations and why we should choose them. I can’t wait to hear from others and hopefully we will be able to continue this discussion if we are chosen to receive the extra grant money!
ReplyDeleteHi Molly,
ReplyDeleteYou certainly know how to get a discussion going! First off, I would just like it to serve as a reminder that the general idea of the original $10,000 is to allocate each grant (operating and program) to the organization(s) which we believe would do the most with each respective grant. As Lea pointed out above, the fact that we have 30 people who come from many diverse backgrounds does not exactly serve as an ideal situation for donating using our core values. Therefore, I believe that-in this particular case-the concept of Effective Altruism must serve as a basis for this decision. The organization(s) which can make the biggest impact with each respective grant; including any additional grants, should we be fortunate enough to recieve one, is/are where we should allocate those grants to. If somehow we are able to reach an agreement with our core values as influence, that would be fantastic. However, as we have experienced with the selection of our finalist organizations, that is highly unlikely, and therefore we should focus on which organization(s) need(s) each respective grant the most and which could do the most with the money should they recieve it, both in the long-term and short-term. If one organization fits the mold for all three grants, so be it.
ReplyDeleteHi Molly,
After reading your blog, David’s blog, and the blog comments, as Lea said above, it seems that most people are leaning towards having the additional money form an operating grant. I too think that if we receive additional money it should be put towards an operating grant.
My thought as to what organization I would want to award the additional grant to is the Wilson Children's Center. As the presenters stated yesterday, the center provides daycare so that parents can work, a curriculum to encourage continued learning and growing, and jobs to an area that needs them. They also told us that there is a waitlist to be enrolled at the center. I would like to see all children in need of daycare having access to it; especially in such a rural area. Since the grant would be an operating grant, they may use it as they wish. Therefore, the money may not directly allow another child to enroll, but I would like to be able to help them give more and better quality care.
If others agree on forming an operating grant with the additional money, I would be interested to see what specifically they think it should go towards.
Thank you for starting this discussion, Molly! To comment along the same vein as Justin and Lea, I believe that a common criteria for deciding where to donate the possible extra money would be useful (Effective Altruism is one ideology that could define the criteria). However, I would challenge the feasibility of comparing different organizations using the same metrics. I believe there is a purpose for metrics such as "Program Spending Percentage" and "Fundraising Efficiency," but we cannot judge every organization with the same, monochromatic gaze.
ReplyDeleteThe way MHAST works is very different from how the Boys and Girls Club does. Similarly, metrics mean different things for different types of charitable organizations.
If we want to reach closer agreement among our class members when decision-making comes, then I suggest we try to share new information and our perspectives with each other. The more we can understand our classmates' values, the more agreeable our decision will be to the class as a whole. Thus, I urge all of us to pursue as much knowledge about the organizations under consideration as we can.
When we share information and views, each student's knowledge and perspective converges. This will help students be more tolerable of others' values and the group's final decision, which will undoubtedly be disagreeable to some. Thus, sharing knowledge and perspective can help the class approach a decision that minimizes the total amount of disapproval from students.
Hi Molly,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I don’t see why choosing a recipient for this grant should be any different from choosing one for the $10,000. With such little time left in the semester, I think it would only make sense to stick to the organizations we have been looking at. We could debate about complicated perspectives all day, but I’m going to suggest the simple, age-old process of elimination. Our class is going to settle on organizations in which to donate the guaranteed program grant and operating grant. Should we not give the extra grant to the next best option? I also support offering it as an operating grant; with that decision, we could find the organization with the second-most need in terms of its facilities/administrative costs. We’ve been applying both head and heart throughout this entire decision-making process. This is simply a continuance of that.
Thanks for starting this discussion, Molly.
ReplyDeleteI speak for myself when I say I felt that the atmosphere of the class was generally opposed to operating grants earlier in the semester. I am glad to see that more people are now open and even support the idea of donating to a general operating budget. That is not to say, however, that I think additional money should definitely be given towards an operating budget (if we are fortunate to be awarded additional money).
Depending on the organization we would decide to give the funds to, I think should determine if they are given an operating or a program grant. If we are to give to the YWCA, I would be in favor of giving an operating grant. Although two or three children and their families part of the Young Wonders program could benefit from the program grant, there is no funding available to offset the rise in minimum wage for the YWCA employees. Not being able to pay employees leads to fewer employees which leads to fewer people being helped, people losing their jobs, and perhaps a degrade in the quality of service. For the Boys and Girls Club, I would prefer we give a program grant. They said they intended to use the potential operating grant to pay bills, or staff, or keep the Club open on some days it might be closed. I prefer that the intention for the program grant is much more specific - giving teenagers a unique experience learning skills that will be beneficial in the long run. WCC, should they receive our additional money, should get an operating grant. This could provide more staff and therefore allow more children to join the center (if I understand the NYS law that Patricia described to us correctly). In the case of CHOW, as they described, few people are willing to donate money to behind-the-scenes costs. Although this could be said for almost any charity, the operating grant for the CHOW Bus would directly affect the CHOW Bus program (which I believe many of us are fond of). Therefore they should get an operating grant. Finally, as for MHAST, I would first like to know where the money is coming from that is paying for their unforeseen facility expenses. Depending on what is getting cut or taken away from, and the effect that cut has on the beneficiaries of MHAST, I could decide between giving an operating or program grant.
Hi Molly,
ReplyDeleteI think that if we were to use the extra money to put toward an operating grant, there would no doubt be an organization grateful to receive it, that would be able to put it to good use in running their nonprofit. However, I would really like to advocate for it to become a program grant, and if we're staying between our finalist organizations, go to MHAST. I feel this way for a couple reasons; the first being that they really seemed to believe that the $7,500 we already discussed would go a very long way in keeping a youth paired up with his or her buddy/mentor. Also since we were told that every dollar we donate will be matched, donating to MHAST guarantees that the largest monetary difference we can make is with this organization. That being said, I'll add that if we decide that the money should be put toward an operating grant, then I agree that WCC seemed to be a fine contestant for said grant. The representatives gave a good, clear argument and explained how, currently, there is barely enough money to keep the facility running. This is a unique organization in the area that helps out parents struggling to find care for their children during the day while they have to work, and I think it would fine if we donated to them.
It seems like many people are in favor of giving the extra funding, if we are to receive it, to a different organization/ organizations than the one/two which we give the original $10,000 to. Not to say that this idea is wrong or that I disagree, but I think we should at least think about an alternative. When we decide which organization/s to give the $10,000 to, it will be because, for whatever reason, we determined that this organization/s to be the most deserving of our money. If we have already agreed that this group is the best place to donate to, why not give them all that we are able to, including any additional money that we are awarded? If we decide a charity is the most deserving of a $2,500 operating grant, why aren't they also the most deserving of a $5,500 operating grant?
ReplyDeleteAnother option to consider, and also the complete opposite of my above proposal, what if we decide to simply distribute any additional money evenly between the 3 organizations that we don't choose to give the initial $10,000 to? After intense discussion, research, debate, and visiting the sites, we have determined that each of the 5 organizations is very deserving and in need of any money we can give them. So why not acknowledge this by giving out a sort of "consolation" prize grant to each of the 3 that we don't choose; we know the money would be greatly appreciated and put to very good use.
These are just two opposite ideas to consider.
Hello Classmates,
ReplyDeleteI would love to join the discussion on what should be done if we were awarded extra money to donate on top of the $10,000 dollars. I've noticed from the above comments that many of you believe that we should put the additional funds to another operating grant. On the surface, I could see how this is an appealing option. We are already donating more to the Program grant than the operating grant, and throughout the class it's become obvious that nonprofits need operating grants to pay for wages, cover overhead, and continue to run properly. However, I tend to think in terms of the effective altruism approach to philanthropy. Based on this, I agree with Ben Amaral in saying the best use of the additional funds would be for a program grant for the Mental Health Association of the Southern Tier. The impact of being paired with a mentor appears to have long-term far reaching positive effects on the child. The MHAST is also the right choice in my opinion because we've been told that every dollar we donate to them is going to be matched. This means that the already large benefit from our donation is going to be doubled, if we choice to donate to the Mental Health Association of the Southern Tier.
I find the program grant to be more effective than the operating grant because its funds have to go directly into doing work in the issue areas at hand. At the site visit, I got the feeling that the volunteers and workers were extremely dedicated and passionate about making a true difference in our community. The charity appeared to have quality leadership, proper accountability and transparency as their organizational strengths. I would feel very comfortable donating the $7500 program grant along with any additional funds from the Learning by Giving foundation to a program grant for the Mental Health Association of the Southern Tier. As much as I would love to spread the donation out to every organization we've discussed in the class, it would violate my effective altruistic principles to not donate where our money would have the largest impact.
Sincerely ,
David Engelmann
Hey Molly,
ReplyDeleteI love your post as well as the concepts you used to open up such a constructive conversation. Personally, i was the opposite of you at the beginning of the semester as far as evaluating how to give and the "good" way to give. I was very analytical and I believe as an Economics major who looks as charts and thinks about graphs and projected outcomes all day that it construed my vision of giving. Lately through using more of my heart this has changed and definitely effected my final decision. Like Gabe posted above, I feel that the money should be split among the other organizations which we have spent so much time researching and debating. Further, I recommend we provide the money as a general grant for the best use and effectiveness that each organization would use it for.
Now that the larger grants have been awarded, by giving the extra money awarded I feel that the remaining three organizations would benefit even from a portion of the money that we now have. Something is better than nothing and the organizations which haven't been awarded grants already have been proven to run themselves effectively and are deserving of support from the class.
-Jack