Hope: A Tool for Change?

     Chapter 8 in A Path Appears talks about the power of hope. Many people living in poverty lack hope and are clinically depressed, leading to self-destructive behavior and inactivity. Bruce Wydick published a study of more than 10,000 children who had been sponsored through Compassion International, a Christian organization that focuses on building hope, self-confidence and spiritual growth through sponsorship of the individual child. He found that individual sponsorship positively impacts many psychological measures in children, and concluded that anti-poverty organizations don’t do enough to address psychological issues like passivity and lack of self-esteem. He says it may be that “when a belief in self-efficacy and aspirations have taken root, the poor learn to develop ways to deal with the external constraints on their own, and these other issues begin to take care of themselves.” Wydick says that efforts to help the poor sometimes don’t work because they “train people to become receivers, instead of givers.”

This leads me to an NPR article about billionaire Tony Elumelu who also believes in hope. In 2014, he pledged to give $10,000 each to 10,000 entrepreneurs across Africa in hopes that it will start businesses and create employment. “What is important both in society and business is hope. A people who have hope for a better tomorrow will not kill themselves today.” This echoes the story from chapter 8 in A Path Appears of a successful initiative in which the poorest in a village were given livestock and assisted in starting a small business. After 18 months, those who received livestock reported significant improvements in mental health. The researchers hypothesize that this improvement in mental health gave the participants the energy to work more, save money, and invest in their children.

I think this idea of hope relates not only to ways in which to help poverty abroad, but also in our own country and in the challenge we face as a class this semester. Reading this chapter and writing this post have made me reflect on the effectiveness of hope. I am now more convinced that hope can be a powerful tool of change. A few of us have shared stories about rode models having a positive impact on us growing up. In a poor area, children might not have positive role models or people telling them they can succeed. We have discussed a lot about after school programs where this type of mentorship would be available. I think it’s important to encourage a sense of confidence in kids. If they are told that they can succeed, and have a role model to look up to, they will be more likely to.

Do you agree with this idea that hope can be a powerful tool of change, as opposed to just handing over aid? Do you see this relating to our challenge of where to give our money away? I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.

NPR article: http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/01/27/464603499/a-nigerian-billionaire-s-plan-to-end-poverty-give-10-000-to-10-000-entrepreneurs

Altruism Versus Social Pressure and Self-Image

Last weekend, I participated in the Vagina Monologues. The Vagina Monologues is a play, mostly done in a series of monologues from different women’s perspectives on their experiences as women. Some of the monologues are compilations from many of Eve Ensler’s interviews while some are written by compiling many women’s stories. The Vagina Monologues does an excellent job in representation. The voices of women from different racial, class, and ethnic backgrounds as well as women of different ages, sexualities, and transgendered women are all included to make a powerful commentary on the status of women, their relationships with their bodies, and society’s relationship with their bodies. The play is free to put on so long as all proceeds go to a local women’s shelter. In our case, the nearly $800 we raised went to RISE, the local shelter in Binghamton that provides services for female victims of domestic violence and their children.

After reading the NPR piece “What Motivates People to Give?” I realized how it applied to how we collected money for tickets and donations at the Vagina Monologues. The NPR interview talked about why people give and negates the idea that the main reason is altruism. In actuality, studies show that people primarily give due to social pressure because they don’t want to say no to peoples faces and  end up looking like a bad person. For our show, the entrance fee was only $3. However, we also had a bucket out, asking for extra donations if people were willing to give. When one person gave extra money in the bucket while on line to purchase tickets, it was likely the person behind them would also give. This chain would go on until someone decided not to give, and looked very uncomfortable. The person after them would usually end up giving, probably because they thought the person in front of them was a bad person for not donating extra money and they didn’t want to be a bad person too. Also, during some of the showings, we had people in the directing staff go around to people seated and ask for extra donations. When personally asked to give more, people generally did. Social pressure even works on college students that tend to try to save as much money as they can for books… or spending money for going out.

So, how is it possible to know if people are giving because they genuinely care about the issue they’re giving to or if they’re just giving so they don’t seem like selfish people?

In this Ted Talk, the speaker Ben Wright tells his personal story experiencing altruism when he was in a biking accident. When the accident occurred, people rushed across a busy street to try and help him. Based on his experience and his interest in psychology, he has determined that people are inherently altruistic based on the neurons that cause empathy. He also says that even though people see and experience things, they might not necessarily jump right into helping. He believes that social identity forms the actions that are taken when considering empathy. Therefore, according to Ben, people are more likely to help those who are like them in some way. But how true to altruism is that, really? Meaning, if we are more likely to help people like ourselves, is that really selfless action? Are we only helping because we se ourselves in that person and would like someone to help us if we were in the same predicament? Do our philanthropic values only come from a place of selfish and self-interest?

Why do we Donate?

         We all like to think that we donate our time and money due to altruism. In fact, when you ask people why they give to charity, they almost always claim that it is the right thing to do, that they want to give back, etc. However, according to the NPR segment “What Motives People to Give,” 75% of the time that we donate, it is due to social pressure, not altruism. Try to remember the last time that you donated your time or money; perhaps it was for the tweet of the week contest. Did you donate because you really trusted the winner to give the money to a worthy cause, or did you do it because everyone else was doing it?  

            The question of why we give is central to philanthropy. It encompasses not only aspects of our own character, such as our core values, but also influences from our environment. Last week we focused on our own core values, and how they impact our philanthropy. This week we will look at outside influences, which, in my opinion, can push us donate more than our core values can push us to donate. Social pressure is one example, but there are many more, including the norm of reciprocity. This is best illustrated by the example of a charity that sends a gift to a recipient, and the recipient feels the need to send back money to the charity. Both social pressure and the norm of reciprocity encourage philanthropy, whether or not the donor will continue this philanthropy in the long term. Do you believe that social pressure and the norm of reciprocity justify the idea that, outside influences can be more powerful than our own core values in compelling us to donate? Or, are strong core values the only thing that we need to be philanthropic?

            Along with environmental influences and our own core values, we might be compelled to donate because of a certain euphoric feeling that it brings us. In short, we donate because donating makes us feel good. In “How to Buy Happiness,” a Ted Talk by Michael Norton (link below), Norton explains several studies that he conducted to test the effects of increased wealth on happiness. In his experiments, college students were given either five dollars or twenty dollars, and were instructed to either spend the money on themselves or on others. Norton found that those who spent the money on others were happier than those who spent the money on themselves. More interestingly, the amount of money that students were able to spend on others did not impact how happy they were at the end of the experiment. Do you think that this relates to why we give? Do some people donate just to attain that euphoric feeling? And lastly, how do you feel about the fact that students felt just as happy giving five dollars, as they did giving twenty dollars?

            Before we donate money, no matter the quantity, it is important that we understand why we are donating. Social pressure, core values, and the simple desire to feel good impact our philanthropy. Which of these impacts your own philanthropy most frequently?   

https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_norton_how_to_buy_happiness?language=en

           

  

The Dilemma of Time Versus Money

In reflecting on past weeks, as well as today’s class session, the issue of time versus money has really kept me thinking. Looking back at the article The Way to Produce a Person, by David Brooks I can’t help but question Brooks’s idea that one must be wholeheartedly invested in the cause they are giving to. He implies this through his notion that an individual who is more investing in something other than the cause they are giving to, will ultimately lose sight of the goal of giving. I have difficulty with this idea because the majority of people are not devoted enough to a cause that they will dedicate their life and work to helping. Wouldn’t any contribution—even one coming from someone who may be detached from the cause—be better than none?

Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn do a great job of showing this is true in their book, A path Appears. They use an example of a police officer saving someone’s life compared to a life being saved in Africa by a monetary donation. For the police officer, his action has a visible reward; he knows who he has saved and can feel connected to that. On the other hand, an individual whose donation has saved a life of someone far away, may not feel as connected to the cause, yet they are still making just as great of a contribution. Another similar situation may be the case of someone checking off the box on their license to become an organ donor. That person may not feel they are truly making a difference but this act is just as significant as the police officer’s. In fact, according to the National Foundation for Transplants, one donor can actually save the lives of eight individuals.

While Brooks certainly was not trying to deter anyone from contributing what they are able to, I believe he should not be critiquing any way that an individual may choose to help; it may be all they are capable of and may be enough to make a significant difference. With that being said, it is certainly better if people do feel invested in a cause they are donating to because they may understand the significance of what they are doing, be more inclined to expand the cause by spreading the word, and many other reasons. Do you agree with Brooks that it is “best to go to Africa or Bangladesh” if that is what you are passionate about? Or would you agree with Kristof and WuDunn who would say that it is okay to work on Wall Street (or wherever else) while also donating money to Africa, Bangladesh, or a different place of choosing? Are there other ways you can think of that people might be able to contribute in a realistic way while making a difference, either at home or far away?

The Cycle of Poverty

In recent classes, one of the main topics of discussion has been how most of the areas that we are discussing and thinking about donating too are linked. Poverty seems to be one big intertwined web with one thing leading to another which will then lead to another and so on until we are right back where we started. This interconnection between themes of poverty is known as the “cycle of poverty.” So, let's start at education; lower levels of education and training leads to less employment opportunities and lower paying jobs. As a result, families will not have enough money to buy food or possibly pay for their home, leading to food insecurity and homelessness. In order to stay afloat, some will resort to criminal activity such as the sale of illegal drugs or theft which can then lead to addiction, jail time, and the breakup of families resulting in an even worse future for the next generation and now we are back in the beginning. This cycle is the unfortunate truth for many families as they are not facing just one problem, they are encountering a broad spectrum of challenges which they were born into and must fight to overcome. So, how as a class can we help break this endless web of poverty and where should we begin?

To help people overcome the odds and break out of the cycle of poverty, we must provide worthwhile means, not handouts. If we simply gave people food and gave them a job that they could not handle and would eventually lose, we would only be helping them for a short term and they would end up right back in that web where they began. For impoverished people to exit the cycle, we cannot simply take them out by throwing money at them, we have to guide them and empower them so that they can break themselves out. A good starting place to help families break out of the cycle would be to ensure the children’s health and education. If we educate children at a young age and help educate them for several years, they will be much more likely to get a higher paying job which will them give them the ability to pay for their food and rent without the help of others and without resorting to criminal activity. However, is education enough, or should we try to find more direct and personal ways to affect the lives of impoverished children? Please read this article that has helped me formulate my opinion.

http://youthtoday.org/2015/03/breaking-the-cycle-of-poverty-one-child-at-a-time/

One of the most important factors in my development is the role models that I have had whether they are coaches, parents, or friends. I aspired to be like the people around me which is why this article caught my eye. Most of the people around these children do not have an education and may have a drug addiction or are a part of a gang. These are the people that surround the children, so this is who they look up to; these people are their role models. Therefore, a more direct and personal way to change their lives is necessary. Programs like Friends of Children and Big Brothers Big Sisters are changing the lives of countless people not just by giving them money, but more importantly by developing relationships with those people who need better role models. Children would be able to turn to their “friend” whenever they are in need of advice and this will give them the internal capacity to utilize every opportunity that they are given. Programs such as Haven and Oasis are nonprofits in Broome County that provide children with a safe place to go after school. These two programs give children the opportunity to participate in after school activities and the people surrounding them can become their role models and help nurture and mold them for a better future. I believe that these two programs can help people do the daunting task of breaking out of the cycle of poverty.  

Breaking the cycle of poverty may seem like a dream to many, but with the help of others, including ourselves, it is not a dream, it is a goal that can be accomplished. We must empower individuals and give them the ability to help themselves, which all starts with a good education and role model. Please share your ideas with me about how you think people can exit the poverty cycle and here are some questions that can serve as a starting place.

Do you think that childhood education is a good place to start to help families break out of the cycle?

Are there better ways that can get faster results?

Would donating to an organization like Haven or Oasis be an effective way to stimulate change in Broome County?

The History of Generosity in America

I am focusing this blog post on an article I read by Adam Meyerson entitled "The Generosity of America." He begins by telling the story of a professor and preacher named Ransom Dunn who was the leading force in raising funds for Hillsdale College, a young institution of higher learning in Southern Michigan. This was in 1853, so he had no choice but to ride on horseback through the rural areas of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to raise the funds for the opening of the institution. Altogether he raised $22,000, which would be worth about $500,000 today.

The point of this story is to emphasize the value in each individual donation, regardless of how small. The rural people of these regions in 1853 were not rich by any means, but they saw a cause that they could get behind and support and wanted to help in any way that they could. It is always not the person with the deepest pockets who should be considered a philanthropist, but those who would sacrifice what little capital they have to support a meaningful cause. Dunn did not attempt to guilt donors to "give back" to society through aggressive fundraising strategies. Rather he appealed to their ideals and aspirations, and explaining why this is something that could benefit young people and create a better future for the Midwest. Generosity from Americans throughout history also allows for the free society that we are able to live in today. When funds come from corporate interests or the federal government we lose the ability to decide different things for ourselves and control different aspects of our personal lives. This gives us the power to challenge cultural and political problems and have an active voice in society.

The creation of Hillsdale College was integral in promoting an educated population in the midwest which opens the door for increased opportunity and success. This initiative was driven by small donors who felt passionately about this, and were willing to give as much as they could offer to the cause. I believe that this is a commonality within society that is still relevant to this day.

There is a false notion that philanthropists are people who have large sums of money such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. These individuals are impactful in the sense that they have the economic ability to put massive amounts of money into certain projects, and can spread their wealth to many different organizations. What is overlooked are the individuals who choose to give wisely, who extensively research which organizations that they are financially capable of supporting on a given year. Private philanthropy enriches conversations on a wide variety of issues and viewpoints and allows for the distribution of wealth throughout various organizations. Just last year, Americans gave $300 billion to charity. These donations are thanks for millions of people who gave what they could to make a meaningful change in an issue or cause that they are passionate about.

Questions:
1) Do you think that small donations have the potential to be as impactful as large sums given by well-known philanthropists?
2) Do you think as an individual it is more effective to give to several different organizations or to give as much as you can to one?
3) What role has philanthropy played in your life thus far, and has this class changed your perspective on your personal role as a philanthropist?

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/philanthropic_freedom/the_generosity_of_america

Greyston Bakery

Hey guys!

I have chosen to donate to Greyston Bakery and the Greyston Foundation. Greyston Bakery is located in Yonkers, NY. It operates with an open-hiring policy, meaning that they offer employment opportunities regardless of education level, work history or past social barriers like addiction, homelessness or incarceration. A fundamental part of Greyston’s mission statement is that everyone is entitled to a path to success, and employment is the first step.

Greyston Bakery employs over 180 individuals at a time. Since demand for a job is much higher than that, they have a waiting list with an average wait time of about one year. Once a vacancy is available, they simply call to the next person on the list to come in for a job. Training for the position is extensive, with the goal that only those most serious about employment will continue on to a full-time job at the bakery. While working at the bakery, employees also receive personal development resources and professional skill training.

Greyston Bakery is also the exclusive supplier of brownies for Ben and Jerry’s chocolate fudge brownie and half-baked flavors, and also supplies brownies and cookies for Whole Foods.

The Greyston Foundation also offers resources with the intention of helping community members and their employees overcome poverty. They provide a variety of programs, such as workforce development, low-income and affordable housing, after-school programs for children and community gardens. Workforce development is a training program that provides basic skills training for career preparedness. In terms of low-income housing, Greyston offers housing units for employees, senior citizen housing and housing for previously homeless individuals. With the Greyston Learning Center, almost 100 children of bakery employees are provided with daycare services and school preparation programs. The community gardens are an opportunity for members of the community to grow their own food while also learning about healthy eating habits and entrepreneurship.

Greyston Bakery itself identifies as a for-profit business, but all profits from the bakery go directly to the Greyston Foundation, which funds the community programs.

If you’d like to learn more about Greyston Bakery, check out this TED talk! 

The Future of Philanthropy

I base this blog post off of a TED Talk I have recently watched about the future of philanthropy. It was by Katherine Fulton, titled You Are The Future of Philanthropy. Fulton starts the talk by stating how philanthropy started as something that was closed, small, slow, fragmented, and short term and then continues to say how it is now turning into something that’s more open, big, fast, connected, and long term. She then goes on to talk about the democratization of philanthropy, saying how the average person has the power to make a difference, not just the big names we here about in the media, like Gates and Buffet.

Fulton goes on to explain the five ways in which philanthropy has improved/ reshaped itself over the years. First, she explains the idea of mass collaboration; how through the use of the Internet and new forms of communication, philanthropy is becoming evermore connected. This relates to what we have discussed in class because as we know, when different groups with similar missions work together, they succeed, and having the Internet to inter-connect these groups makes the process much easier. Second, Fulton explains how online philanthropy marketplaces help to simplify the donation process, and allows for more donations to be made. Some examples of these types of websites are kiva.org, Network for Good, Global Giving, Youthgive, and Donors Choose. I can personally relate to this because I am in the process of starting a club here at Binghamton that fundraises money to then be used for donations made through kiva.org, which is a great organization. Fulton’s third point was about the new phenomenon of aggregated giving, which is how funds aggregate giving and investing and bring together people with common goals to work and make a difference, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The fourth and fifth points area about innovation competitions, which get people and celebrities involved in spreading the word about philanthropy, and social investing, which deals with leveraging capital that’s being invested in the market to be used in philanthropic ways.

When ending her discussion, Fulton encourages the audience to think about the community they want to be a part of, and then says to imagine 100 years from now what stories their great grandchildren will hear about them. I felt this was a great way to end this talk because it connects with people on a personal level and really makes them stop and think about the fact that they can make a difference in the world through philanthropy. Below is the link to Katherine Fulton’s Ted Talk if anyone’s interested… it really applies to what we’ve discussed in class.

The future of philanthropy is an exciting one, filled with possibilities and positive, impactful social change. The field is growing, adapting, and changing each day. Fulton does a great job at explaining this grand future and instilling a self-empowered feeling of how every individual can make a difference.

https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_fulton_you_are_the_future_of_philanthropy

Is Time or Money More Valuable?

A big question, that begs to be answered by many modern philanthropists, is whether it is "...better to give in response to an emotional need or are dollars better spent when tied to a metric that measures how effective they are?" (Paul Sullivan, NYTimes). There is a big debate that surrounds this question solely due to the fact that many believe donating money to a cause is not as valuable as donating your time to a cause. For example, is it more effective for a person to continue donating money to a cause that feeds starving children in Africa or a person who actively travels to Africa in attempts to address the problem first hand?

Often times there exists this huge debate because people aren't sure that philanthropists are giving money to charity for the right reasons. Are philanthropists donating their money/time because they genuinely care about the issue that the charity attempts to address or is it for selfish moral reasons? In this week's New York Times article, The Way To Produce A Person, David Brooks essentially criticizes a person who would rather donate large sums of money to help a cause rather than attempting to address the issue first hand. For example, if your heart's interest lies in ending hunger in Africa, Brooks challenges you to consider flying to Africa to attempt to solve this problem by physically providing food for the impoverished or seeing the problem first hand. However, is it too much to ask of an individual?

In my opinion, I believe that any contribution that a person makes to charity should be valued and respected. The act of giving back/donating to charity should be honored and not taken for granted. In today's society, people are often times quick to judge others intentions, especially when finances are involve. Rather, the gift of time/money should be valued for what it is and what it does for charities. I don't think that the difference between one's donation of money versus one's donation of time should be highlighted. On the contrary, both should be celebrated and regarded as an act of goodness. On a matter of opinion, some may have differing thoughts on the value of donating one's money versus donating one's time. As a reader, what is your opinion on this issue? Is there a significant difference between donating one's time versus money and if so, which is intrinsically more valuable and why?

To ignite this debate concerning philanthropy, take Mark Zuckerberg's famous act of philanthropy in recent times as an example. Mark Zuckerberg recently came under some heat after announcing that he and his wife Priscilla Chan will give away 99% of Facebook's shares for philanthropic purposes. (click here) What seemed like a philanthropic act on a grand scale upon Zuckerberg's announcement, many critics highlighted the fact that Zuckerberg may have done this for his own self-benefit. Critics say that Zuckerberg started this charity fund as a means of tax avoidance. They also claimed that since Zuckerberg's charity fund is technically under a LLC company, the funds will only be used for profiting purposes and that the money will end up going back to Facebook in the end. What is your opinion on this matter? Do you think that Zuckerberg is under fire for the right reasons or not?

How Much is Too Much?

        When Phill Ginter from United Way came to talk to the class about his work, one thing he said that resignated with me was that it is not always the most pressing issue with which we can make the most impact. As it did with me, what he said must've come as a shock to all of you considering one of the most asked questions to him was "what issue area is the most important here in Broome County?". Yes, we may hear a lot about hunger, poverty, drug use, etc, but as meaningful philanthropists, we want to be the catalyst for change and to do this we must make the most impact with the money we have.
          On a larger scale, if you could donate our money to one continent in the world, which would it be? Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably 95% of whoever reads this article answered with Africa. Before I watched the Ted Talk by Andrew Mwenda "Aid for Africa? No Thanks."(https://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_mwenda_takes_a_new_look_at_africa#t-88496), I would've agreed with you wholeheartedly. What made me change my mind, you ask? I want to make a difference. The media seems to be playing as a positive attractor in helping different organizations such as the Red Cross, Action in Africa, etc. help gather funds to donate to Africa. If we are following effective altruism as described Peter Singer, when we see these commercials portraying war, poverty, and disease in Africa, we should spend money towards helping them. Seems simple. But why does Africa remain as the poorest and most underdeveloped continent in the world? After all, according to Mwenda, a whopping 13-15% of an African country's GDP is received in foreign aid. This is because the media doesn't tell the whole truth. I think that in this case, media plays as a negative attractor, pushing non-profits away from their goals of helping end these problems in Africa. I know a lot of you may disagree, especially after watching the video in Julie's blog post concerning effective altruism. However, I believe that too much money and resources are being given to Africa. As Mwenda says, people have good intentions when giving resources such as medicine and money to Africans, but this does not create wealth for them. Africa cannot take these opportunities and create them into something that is an advantage to them because they don't have the internal capacity. Rather in investing in these short-term resources, we need to invest in research and businesses, which are the keys to Africa's development in the future. As Phill said, a series of small changes create an additive effect, which is ultimately how you achieve success. This correlates well with the issues we talked about in class. Although we are not increasing a continent's political effectiveness in order to make an impact, we do need to take a similar approach when choosing what nonprofit to donate to. Which small area can the most impact not only now, but also for years to come? No matter if it's poverty, health, environmental sustainability, most of the groups said that this comes down to education. With education, you are not only putting money into curing the cause of an issue at hand, you are also fostering the development of ideas, organizations, etc that will hopefully decrease the issue in the long term. This is why I believe that when the day comes in the grant-giving process, I hope we give money to help fund the education concerning our issue area because the future is in the hands of the generations to come.
     Obviously, if you have any moral backbone, effective altruism seems like the logical answer to all questions concerning philanthropy. But when you look deeper, if you want to make the greatest impact you need to take a holistic approach when looking where and how to donate, also known as scanning. I ask you to reflect on not only this video, but also the variety of issue areas we discussed in class. Here are some questions to help you with this.

1. Do you believe that education would be a good investment for our money, regardless of issue area? Why?
2. Do you believe that media can play as a negative influence on other issue areas? Does it even play this role in the context of helping Africans?
3. Analyze the pros/cons of effective altruism. Overall, do you think it is bad or good?
4. What would you do to help Africa? Can you somehow reflect this to how we can help the Broome County Area (especially since public health, poverty, and education seem to be areas of concern)?