Why and how do people give?

Throughout my life, my ideas about philanthropy and giving have basically remained the same. One of the main philosophies that I grew up with is that no matter how poor or rich you are, as an act of compassion toward the human race, you should give a portion of what you have to charity. It was normal for me to hear stories about extremely rich people such as Bill Gates giving away huge chunks of money, as well as stories about people skipping a meal for a day in order to give their last penny to the church collection; I figured giving was normal for everyone, because that’s how my parents raised me. However, as I grew up, I realized that true, pure generosity usually came from the poorest of the world. 

Why would those below the poverty line give more than people making six figures? One idea that I remember seeing is that people are rich because of the fact that they don’t “waste” their money on charity. However, even without research I was sure this was nonsense. After our class discussion about why people give, I was reminded of my curiosity about this topic. A study conducted at UC Berkeley found that those who identified as “poor”were inclined to give 44% more of their allotted amount of money than those who considered themselves wealthy. The University of Notre Dame did a similar study, and the findings were the same; the Huffington Post where I found this study stated that “about 30% of Americans living below the poverty level gave to charity”, which means the wealthy were half as likely to give their money. These studies prove the validity of my observation that the poor are extremely giving, but the question remains - why? 

In the 3 sources I reviewed, the answer was the same: compassion. In a Psychology Today article, the same UC Berkeley study from earlier was explained in more detail. When financially disadvantaged people were shown videos that put them in the mindset of a wealthy person, they were less likely to be giving. The opposite was true as well - a wealthy person seeing a video that triggered a sense of compassion toward the poor was more likely to give money to the poor than they normally would. My question is, if sympathy, empathy, and compassion are what primarily drives philanthropy, what would our main issue areas have been if we were told to use our hearts as a guide to choose organizations to donate to, instead of the main issues of Broome County? I assume very few (or none) of us have dealt with extreme poverty in our lives, and the same is true with opioid addiction. Would these issues have surfaced, or would other ones have dominated? In other words, these studies prove that compassion drives people to give, but is it what dictates where they give? 

Sources:

1. Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201008/why-are-the-poor-more-generous)
2. Huffington Post (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/why-most-americans-give-l_b_9355088.html)
3. NPR (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129068241)

To Infinity and Beyond...Our Moral Capacity

For this week, our reading assignments focuses on effective altruism, according to philosopher and philanthropist, Peter Singer. In his Ted talk, “The Why and How of Effective Altruism” he discusses how this growing movement emphasizes the balance between heart and head. This concept of philanthropy is something that I believe will always be relevant to our class because, for example, as we listen to more charity pitches or when we decide on an issue area, it is evident that we will have to find a balance between our own values and research, in order to make the most effective decision. 

In the Ted talk, Singer describes the concept of head versus heart with a real life example. He shows part of a disturbing clip in which a young child is about to be run over by a truck and people passing by do nothing. While the audience, and myself included, are certain that we would have acted differently, Singer raises a very thought provoking testimony. He refers to the UNICEF website and its data on child mortality. In 2011 it is stated that 6.9 million children under the age of 5 died from poverty-related diseases that were also preventable. After researching current UNICEF data, I found that this number has decreased to 5.6 million(Source). While it is fortunate that the number has decreased, Singer’s argument remains relevant. He refers to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tagline: “All Lives Have Equal Value.” Just because these dying children may not be right in front of us, it is still our moral responsibility to help save them. This is where the concept of heart versus head is extremely important. Singer develops this notion by stating the importance of reason and the realization that people are like us and they suffer just as we do. By doing so, it offers a more concrete perspective of the issue at hand. So are we as a society falling into the trap of tribalism? In the concept of tribalism, our actions and attitudes are derived from our loyalty to our own tribe or social group (Source). Of course we are willing to save a helpless child in front of us, but what about a helpless child millions of miles away? 

This lead me to consider last week’s charity pitch between Concern Worldwide, the Crissy Fox Foundation, and the Animal Welfare Institute. I thought each presenter did a great job and chose very reliable and influential organizations. In the end, our class was most divided between the Crissy Fox Foundation and Concern Worldwide, with Chrissy Fox winning the pitch. After learning about effective altruism, I began to consider the factors behind the decision. While I am a supporter of both causes, it seems that Concern Worldwide may have a more effective impact because of its fight against global poverty on a large scale. However, since the Crissy Fox Foundation is focused locally on a smaller scale, all the money raised goes directly to a family in need. So which organizations is doing the most good? If we were basing the answer on Singer’s effective altruism, in my opinion, I think that he may have been a supporter of Concern Worldwide. This reverts back to Singer’s support for the Gates’ tagline “All Lives Have Equal Value.” In order to do the most good, it is vital that we expand our moral capacity greater than what is right in front of us. Practicing effective altruism is not to ignore the issues that around us, but to go beyond these issues and attempt to solve them on a larger scale. 

The divide of votes between Concern Worldwide and the Crissy Fox Foundation was very understandable. At least for me, choosing the charity for this week was not an easy task. The importance of head versus heart was apparent but with both organizations ability to make a significant impact, it raised the question of whether that impact should be local or global. This week’s topic of effective altruism caused me to consider what is the way to do the most good. After researching more about effective altruism I came across the article, “A Little Charity Goes A Long Way.” This advice post presented an interesting solution: Give globally, act locally. By offering our time, volunteering in local organizations, we can make a significant impact. Then by donating our resources to organizations that act on a global scale, perhaps we can do the most good that we can as individuals. As evident from Singer’s discussion, whichever way we decide to spend our time and resources, it is important that we practice effective altruism in order to make the most difference. 

Animal Welfare Institute

Animal Welfare Institute is a nonprofit whose mission is to alleviate the suffering inflicted on animals by people. The institute works in many different ways to achieve their mission. They work to help farm animals, animals in laboratories, marine animals, wild animals, and companion animals. They also work in humane education and government affairs.

When I was thinking of a nonprofit that I would like to support, my thought was something along the lines of an animal shelter. I volunteer at an animal shelter and I see that the animals and the people who take care of them would benefit from more help. Help not only in terms of more volunteers, but more money. So I looked into animal nonprofits, and found some interesting information that I would like to share.

As seen from this infographic, the category of environment/animals is the second lowest group given philanthropic dollars. The need for donations in the issue area of animals is strong. The piece of information that I thought was interesting though, and which made me change my mind on what nonprofit I wanted to support, is that the giving for animal issues if disproportionate to the needs of animals. “Of animals used and killed by humans in the United States, over 99.6% are farmed animals...and [only] 0.03% are companion animals. However, about 66% of donations to animal charities in the United States go to companion animal shelters...and just 0.8% of donations go specifically to farmed animal organizations(source)." As you can see, it is farm animals that suffer the most. But over half of the donations go to shelters. While all forms of animal suffering should not be tolerated, the biggest need for help is not for companion animals, but for farm animals.

What I appreciated about Animal Welfare Institute is that they not only aim to alleviate pain and suffering of farm animals, but of animals in laboratories, marine animals, wild animals, and companion animals. As stated before, farm animals suffer from the most pain; but no animals should suffer from any undue pain inflicted by people. AWI seeks to make this true. For the farm animals, they advocate for better, more humane farming practices. The AWI “supports solid enforcement of existing welfare laws, and promotes replacement of cruel practices with compassionate husbandry and humane slaughter methods(source, page 11)." And as stated before, besides aiming to alleviate farm animal suffering, the AWI also helps to alleviate the suffering and pain of all other types of animals. They do this through, for example, aiming to reform brutal methods of capturing and killing wildlife, protecting companion animals from cruelty and violence, and encouraging the development and implementation of alternatives to experimentation on live animals.

Animal Welfare Institute is accountable and transparent. They have a 93 out of 100 rating on Charity Navigator; with a score of 90 in finances and a score of 100 in accountability and transparency. This shows through their website. They put out an annual report every year that summarizes what they have accomplished. In every report there is a section for each of the aspects of animal suffering they help to alleviate, explaining the change that occurred and what the AWI did to help bring about that change. In the report, they also have a list of speeches and meetings that AWI staff participated in or attended. They put out an annual financial statement and share their latest annual information return (Form 990) on file with the IRS on their website.

Their annual reports showcase specific examples of what the AWI has accomplished. The following examples are taken from their 2016 and 2017 annual reports. Due to the testimony and outreach efforts by AWI’s Dr. Naomi Rose, The California Coastal Commission approved of a permit on SeaWorld ending its captive orca breeding program—a move that would inevitably lead to the end of orca exhibition in the state. January 2017 brought in a new Congress. Therefore, the legislative team of the AWI met with all new members of Congress and their staffs in order to introduce them to AWI and discuss animal welfare issues. Among the AWI-supported bills introduced or reintroduced that year include The Humane Cosmetics Act; which is an act that aims to phase out animal-based testing for cosmetic products and sale of such products in the United States. The AWI established an online discussion group, called the Laboratory Animal Refinement and Enrichment Forum, open to animal care personnel and researchers who have first-hand experience in the care of animals kept in laboratories. The forum facilitates the exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences about ways to improve the conditions under which animals in laboratories are housed and handled. Many more examples of what the AWI has done can be found in their annual reports.

Animal Welfare Institute is an accountable and effective nonprofit that aims to alleviate the suffering of animals inflicted by people. Animals are sentient beings and should be treated humanely, with respect and compassion.

The Crissy Fox Foundation

       In this post, I am going to talk about why I think we should donate to The Crissy Fox Foundation. This organization was founded in 2014 by my high school friend, Billy Fox. When we were juniors in high school, Billy lost his mother to breast cancer in stage four. Rather than allowing this tragedy to crush him, Billy was determined to find a proactive way to carry on her legacy. After pondering on how he could do it, the idea of creating a foundation popped into his head. Although he was a little doubtful that people would take an organization run by a sixteen year old seriously, he did not let the thought stop him: he decided to name the organization in memory of his mother, The Crissy Fox Foundation. After the name, he created a clear mission statement for the organization: to “donate to families that have a parent battling breast cancer, in memory of my [Billy’s] mother who passed away from stage four.” 

 
       Whereas many breast cancer charities traditionally donate to research, The Crissy Fox Foundation instead looks to help out with the little things, such as cooking meals for the families and giving them large checks. Billy told me that this idea came from how grateful he was when he got help with making dinner and carrying out chores around the house when both of his parents would constantly be out of the house for chemo/radiation therapies. Billy did not have his driver’s license at the time and has two younger siblings, so he always appreciated how much of a difference any help made. 

 
This organization is important to me because I can connect with it on a personal level. When I was much younger, my parents would always be with my grandmother during her chemo/radiation sessions, and they would sometimes stay in the hospital overnight when she had to be hospitalized. My sister and I were fortunate enough to have neighbors and other family members who were willing to take care of us when my parents had to be with my grandmother, so I understand that every bit of help makes a difference for families going through the same struggle. 

 
The foundation originally started raising money by selling pink bracelets that said “The Crissy Fox Foundation” on one side and “He always has a plan” on the other. When Billy wasn’t doing schoolwork, he dedicated his time to seeking out families who were eligible for the money. Fast forward four years, The Crissy Fox Foundation has raised over $20,000 and has donated all of the money to families from New York to Chicago. The foundation now raises money mainly through various fundraisers such as Sip, Dine, and Paint events, bake sales, and spin classes. On his website, Billy talks about his experience giving one of his foundation’s first checks to a family with three kids who lost their mother to breast cancer. The husband was given $1000 check, which he used to pay off the final medical bills he had been struggling with. The husband told Billy that because of the foundation’s help, he could spend money on proper funeral services. In addition to checks, The Crissy Fox Foundation also provides meals to families and presents during Christmas. 

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I really hope the class has a desire as strong as mine to donate the money to The Crissy Fox Foundation!

For more information about the organization: 

https://www.facebook.com/crissyfoxfoundation/

https://thecrissyfoxfoundation.wordpress.com/about-2/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkbQLt6KcpA

For statistics on cancer in America:

https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2016/cancer-facts-and-figures-2016.pdf

Philanthropy and its struggle with Democratic Legitimacy

Philanthropy and its struggle with Democratic Legitimacy

Since the first day of class when we discussed the powerful impact that philanthropists can have on societies, there is one aspect which I keep coming back to, regarding the legitimacy of philanthropy in its engagement with the democratic process.

When talking about this question, I am regarding philanthropy on the big scale. I am talking about the huge sums that are donated each year by Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg and other influential people. We have talked a lot about the decision making process, the strategy behind giving and the long – term effects. However, in comparison to all the other sides we discussed about philanthropy, I have heard little concern about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature that philanthropy can also have.

Just because philanthropy is generally a good thing (I know that good is a terrible word here but I mean it in a sense that aims to help people and improve their situation) does not mean that it could not pose a threat to a democratic process.

The Atlantic has written several articles about this topic. One of them talks about Michael Bloomberg and how he has donated $80 million to the Sierra Club, an environmental organization in the U.S. The Sierra Club sought to shut down coal – fired power plants across the country. The author of the article writes “In a democracy, both sides might argue the issue of whether to shut down coal-fired power plants to their legislators or express their preference at the voting booth. But Bloomberg’s $80 million in donations inarguably gave a boost to the environmentalists’ side, and led to changes on the ground.” While most of us would probably argue that supporting an environmentalist NGO like the Sierra Club is a good cause, this is not the point here. The point is that an immensely high sum crucially impacted the outcome of this discussion and not a democratic and legitimate majority vote.

David Callahan, author of “The Givers: Money, Power, and Philanthropy in a new Gilded Age”, argues “that instead of slow-moving foundations dispensing the fortunes of long-dead Americans in cautious policy forays, today’s philanthropists are alive, and very much involved in how their money is spent. They want to see rapid change occur in their lifetimes, and they often have very specific ideas about what that change should look like.” These aims and following decisions often relate to re – shaping policy in the city and country where they act.

Furthermore, philanthropic acts are rarely subject to judicial consequences. Joanne Barkan believes that, “When a foundation project fails—when, say, high-yield seeds end up forcing farmers off the land or privately operated charter schools displace and then underperform traditional public schools—the subjects of the experiment suffer, as does the general public. Yet the do-gooders can simply move on to their next project. Without countervailing forces, wealth in capitalist societies already translates into political power; big philanthropy reinforces this tendency.” According to her, the goal should be to reduce its leverage in civil society and public policymaking while increasing government revenue.

According to Gara LaMarche, philanthropy is very well able to act like agribusiness, oil, banks or any other special – interest pleader when it thinks its interests are jeopardized.

Gara LaMarche states that “(…) the collective leadership of American philanthropy—a leadership, by the way, that had been with few exceptions silent about the redistribution of wealth upward through the Bush tax cuts, silent about cuts in social programs, silent about the billions of dollars spent on the wars of the last decade—found its voice only when its tax exemption was threatened, and preferred to let the government go begging for revenue elsewhere, jeopardizing the prospects for health-care reform, in order to let rich, well-insured people go on shielding as much of their money as possible from taxation.” This helps to make clear that even the most well – intentioned and high – minded impulses that animate philanthropic acts have the capacity to undergo the democratic process. Something that even the most well – intentioned ideas should not be doing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/the-problem-with-philanthropy/520989/

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/plutocrats-at-work-how-big-philanthropy-undermines-democracy

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/is-philanthropy-good-for-democracy/381996/

What makes a successful philanthropist/philanthropic organization?

There are two questions that come to mind after the past few classes. One: what is the essence of philanthropy? And two: what does successful philanthropy look like? Here is my take on these two questions.

Broken down to its parts, philanthropy means “love for humanity.” Pragmatically, it takes various forms: non-profit organizations, donors, grantors, crowdfunds, religious institutions, etc. We learned from the first video we watched that philanthropy in practice can exist in the smallest act of kindness and through the multi-million dollar grants provided by associations like Blue Meridian. But with the myriad methods of practicing philanthropy, is there anything more to philanthropy than just doing it; but maybe why, or how we do it, that makes the difference between more effective philanthropy and philanthropy that persists for its own sake?

These questions call upon our values, which can never be concretely proven to be “correct” or “incorrect”; however I can broadcast my personal beliefs for your judgement. In my core values reflection, I talked about how my Christian faith is the backbone of my philanthropic vision: how my belief in a God who embodies goodness helps me define the goal of philanthropy and derive my philanthropic actions. The existence of an absolute good, like a moral compass, points towards serving others and seeking the best out of our neighbors. Thus, my answer for a most effective philanthropy is one that aligns with the values of my faith.

But moving past the overarching theology behind our lives, there are many methods we use to make decisions. What can help us derive the right choices for our philanthropic goals? And how does success in business differ from effectiveness in philanthropy?

After the vote between Kiva and the John Crimmins Foundation in class on Thursday, it got me thinking about why Kiva received more votes than John Crimmins. What were the factors in play? How do these factors affect the success of a philanthropic group?

I believe that a few key factors affected our class’ decision, including presentation, organizational programs and operations, and purpose. In terms of presentation, both presenters had clearly shown evidence of preparation, but perhaps just the slightest advantage of Kiva’s presentation including slides provided the class with the assumption that more work was put into Kiva’s presentation, often correlated with a more organized presentation. However, I think it is necessary to note that mere appearance, while easiest to judge at first glance, can often be overshadowed once we look thoroughly at the organization and its works.

Secondly, the programs and operation of each organization were explained differently. While Kiva’s operations had its catches--some microlenders can charge large amounts of interest which Kiva cannot control--the clear business plan conveyed trust. The donors--our class--could easily identify the need for operational costs (the loans were crowdfunded separately), albeit for an organization that is merely capturing a niche loans market where there were no market before. As for John Crimmins, the hypothetical allocation of our funds was solicited through questions, after which we found out that operations perpetuated small, locally-focused awareness events and transfers to larger organizations related to John Crimmins’ goals. Not to say either method was more good than the other, but the clarity in Kiva’s approach seemed less risky to invest, perhaps helping its voting prospects.

Lastly, the purpose of John Crimmins Foundation possessed more emotional connection than that of Kiva. Its purpose “to save the hearts of the countless others who love [people who suffer from seizures],” evokes the emotional impact of reducing pain; while Kiva’s mission “to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty,” does not have the same emotional quality. In this issue is where I was conflicted myself between the two organizations, and what I posit the rest of the class who voted for John Crimmins would make their case. Perhaps the case for John Crimmins would be more compelling with more information and clarity in its operations, but I believe the areas where Kiva held a persuasive advantage, notably its operational clarity and appeal to authority, outweighed the emotional strength of John Crimmins’ cause.

Philanthropy- altruistic or cooperative? Some mild scientific food for thought

You guys might not remember from the first day of class, but though I am in this PPL class, I am an environmental chemistry major. Because of this, I do enjoy looking at things from a scientific perspective. We’ve talked a lot about altruism in this class, and every time we do I always think about ecology last semester. In ecology, we defined altruism as a social interaction that increases recipient fitness and decreases the fitness of the donor. Altruism does not lead to direct fitness, which is the fitness an individual gains by passing on copies of its genes to its offspring. As a result, we would think selfishness would be selected for over altruism, yet altruism has evolved in many species. 

Altruism is believed to have evolved due to indirect fitness. Indirect fitness is what an individual gains by helping a relative (with which it shares genes) pass on copies of their genes. If the relatedness between two organisms exceeds the cost-benefit ratio of an action, then altruism will be selected for:

C/b>r altruism will not be selected for 

C/b<r altruism will be selected for 

I tried to apply this to the setting in which we talk about altruism. Of course, when we take part in philanthropy, we are usually not helping close relatives. But I have noticed that a lot of charities and foundations are created to help people that are similar to the founder, or people that are in an unfortunate situation that the founder was once in themselves. An example being the John Crimmins Foundation that we learned about last class. One could argue that John (and even his parents) benefit from helping others that are similar to John (experience seizures). In a way, it is like keeping his legacy (rather than genes) alive. 

However, there are still plenty of other charities, foundations, and donors that aim to help those that they have little or no connection to. An example of this would be Kiva, which we also discussed in class. Kiva helps us loan money to underprivileged people living in worlds very different than ours that we will never meet. To me, from a scientific standpoint, this seems more like cooperation rather than altruism. Cooperation is simply a group of individuals helping each other out, related or not. Martin Nowak, Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University, has a popular proposal for the mechanisms that favor selection for cooperation. Direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, and spatial selection are three of his mechanisms. Direct reciprocity is essentially the idea, “If I help you, you help me”  (i.e. I volunteer and it makes me feel good). Indirect reciprocity is “If I help you, someone else helps me” (i.e. I donate to a charity and others respect me). Spatial selection means that clusters of cooperators prevail (i.e. helping with or creating local charities as we are doing in this class).

So, in essence, I have written this post to try to bridge between the scientific and social approaches to what fuels helping others. My question to those reading this would be, do you think modern philanthropy is truly altruistic? Or is it more cooperative? Or is there a third category? Is there one that you think makes more sense over the other? Any further thoughts?

To learn more about altruism from an ecological standpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtOXvA14X4

To learn more about Martin Nowak’s principle of cooperation, watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2-TUZ3zYgs