Thoughts After the First Site Visit

Today our class visited Catholic Charities for our first site visit, here are some of my thoughts after our discussion with Vanessa.

My first impression of the facility was a positive one. Although I am no interior designer, I have to say that the place seemed well put together. On top of that, it was very spacious and seemingly well kept. Although the site we visited was not one where the majority of kids talk to councilors, it can still tell us a lot about the type of people who work at Catholic Charities. The fact that it was clean and organized made me feel that the people who worked there take what they do very seriously. Also, the receptionist and Vanessa were both very kind individuals, more positives that I liked. Following my first impressions came our conversation downstairs.

I quite enjoyed speaking with Vanessa, I felt that she was both passionate and informative. There were several things she said that I was quite surprised to hear. For example, how big of a difference our donation would make. Going in, I thought that Catholic Charities was a relatively big organization, at least compared to some of the other organizations we have discussed as a class. With that being said, I was unsure if $7,500 could make a substantial difference to Catholic Charities. However, the program that we discussed seemed as if they could do a lot with our money. It would help pay the salaries of some social workers that help the kids who need it. This could be huge given another surprising thing that I heard while there, that at least 80 kids are waiting for service. This was extremely surprising, especially as someone pointed out, since Oasis had stopped functioning because it had a lack of kids to serve. To me, it seems apparent that our money could do a lot of good at Catholic Charities.

I was also surprised when I listened to the type of counseling that Catholic Charities gives these kids. Listening to Vanessa talk about counseling the youth reminded me of a theme we discussed several weeks ago. That theme being the interconnectedness of charity as a whole. (What good is giving someone food if they don't have a job to sustain them self? How can someone acquire a job if they're hungry?).  In this case, it seems that youth outreach and mental health go hand in hand. For example, the suicidal teen is fits both criteria of being a youth and in need of mental assistance. The question for me arises, is this connection a good thing? As a class we overwhelmingly voted to focus on youth and education. Conversely, mental health had very little support. With that in mind, is this program doing the type of work that we initially wanted to be done? Or we can ask, is this program essentially killing two birds with one stone? You tell me.

One final thing I noticed during our visit, was the duration of treatment for these children. When I first heard six weeks I was a bit surprised. I did not think that six weeks could truly suffice for a kid who was seeking counseling. However, Vanessa's explanation that every case was situational really cleared that up for me. Some kids only need one or two sessions for their problems, others need more and can receive them or a referral through Catholic Charities.

All in all, I think that the site visit went very well. It was smooth and informative and I am glad we were able to go. I think that their is a very good case to give to Catholic Charities. That being said, I am scared because this was only the first site visit, and I am sure that every other charity will make a compelling case as well.
Here are some questions you may want to answer:
1. What were your first impressions from the site visit?
2. Do you think that Catholic Charities would be a good organization to give a grant to?
3. Is the fact that their program focuses on mental health a good or a bad thing?

What Motivates Us To Give?

Over the last few class sessions, we have discussed our motivations for giving. Some give to a cause because they saw an emotional TV ad, some give because it makes them feel good, some give for “tax purposes”, and some give because they feel passionately about a cause. There are many other reasons and motives behind giving aside from these, and each person has a unique motivation for giving. It is difficult to weigh one person’s motives above another’s as more moral or ethical, because in the end they are still doing something in service of others. No one is required to give to a cause, so giving, no matter the motives, is a commendable deed.

All that being said, I do believe our motives to give have a major impact on “where” and “how” we give. If we are giving for the tax benefits, we may not take much time to consider the “where” and “how” of our giving. If we are effective altruists, we will heavily research “how” we can do the most good and “where” we should give to do that. If we are motivated to give because of something we are passionate about, the “where” and “how” are determined based on our unique experiences and goals.

For me, my motivation for giving is strongly influenced by my passion for education. I firmly believe that the best way I personally can have a positive effect on the world is through supporting the education of children, specifically impoverished children, so they can escape poverty and reach their full potential, and hopefully try to improve the lives of others. My personal experiences motivate me to give to the cause of education because I have seen the difference that just having a shot at a better education can change lives. 3 years ago, I went on my first of two short term mission trip to Tegucigalpa, Honduras with a group called Border Buddies (here is a link to their website: http://www.borderbuddies.org/). While there, my team worked on the Roberto Sosa School, a public school in the heart of the city that was falling apart and failing, like almost all the schools in the country. We finished construction on a kitchen for the school, at that time only the third in the entire country, and we built new roofs for the classrooms. Today, the school has a dramatically higher attendance rate and significantly higher educational performance than 3 years ago because students are finally able to be fed at school and are not getting wet in class every time it rains. While all of this was rewarding and motivation enough to continue to support the cause of education, my real motivation comes from hanging out with kids like Michael.

This picture depicts my motivation for my personal philanthropy. Helping kids like him, when everything else in their world is stacked against them, have a shot to succeed is extremely important to me. Children like Michael are almost pre-destined for failure, in a country with massive unemployment and a failed economy and education system. Helping them get the education they deserve motivates my philanthropic goals.

We all have experiences that shape why we give. We all have our own personal motivations behind our giving, and I believe it is important to know what motivates your philanthropy in order to be truly effective philanthropists. Once we know what motivates us, we can better hone in on a cause we want to support; and understanding our personal motives can give as an outline as to the “where” and “how” of our giving. To me, it does not matter what our motives for giving are, as long as we use that motivation to be the best philanthropists we can be.

Some questions to consider:

What are some of your experiences that have shaped your philanthropy?

What are your motives for giving?

Do you think it is okay to use your emotions when considering your philanthropy?

Is there a specific cause you want to support/already support? Why that cause?

Passion and Philanthropy

It takes a certain kind of person to advance social change. Throughout history, many different personalities have made a meaningful difference in their communities, but they all had something in common. Anyone who devotes their life to making a positive change in the world must have passion inside them to do so. I began thinking about this idea after our discussion in class about everyone's good friend, Peter Singer. Mr. Singer believes that everyone should give their money in a way that has the most effective impact. He says that we shouldn't give based off of what we're passionate about. What Peter Singer fails to acknowledge is that if people aren't passionate about a particular issue, they don't give at all. Passionate people are not only motivated to give, but they are more likely to go the extra mile in working toward their particular issue area.

This is the reason nonprofits spend resources on marketing. A passionate person is incredibly valuable to a nonprofit organization because they will spread the organization's message and gather additional donors. However, a person isn't going to become passionate about the Red Cross after seeing an ad in a magazine. They need some personal connection to the issue or organization. The best the Red Cross can hope for is that someone who is already passionate about disaster relief sees one of their ads and chooses to support that organization. Otherwise, the Red Cross or another nonprofit has to work at making their existing members into passionate supporters which is no easy task. Emotional connection cannot be manufactured. It needs to develop organically. However, these sorts of connections aren't created by mailing a check to an organization. Volunteering is the most common way a person develops a personal connection to an issue. We've all heard stories of people who travel to a foreign country to do humanitarian work and come back eager to continue making a difference. Frequently, these people revisit the same place or travel somewhere else to give their time to make a positive difference. For this reason, I believe nonprofit organizations should promote volunteer opportunities at least as much as they solicit monetary donations. 

Throughout our lives, we are constantly looking for something to be passionate about. We try to find meaning or purpose in our lives so we can feel fulfilled. Most people will tell you that they feel great after participating in philanthropy in some way, whether that be donating time or money. Why is it, then, that many people don't regularly participate in philanthropy? My guess would be that most people are reluctant to give their time or money. We think that we would be happier with more money and time for ourselves than if we gave some away for a good cause. We then wonder why we can't find fulfillment. I think more of us should find issues that we are particularly passionate about and spend some of our time advancing it. Then, the world would have more dedicated philanthropists and more people who feel fulfilled in their lives which sounds like a pretty good situation to me. I don't mean to make this sound easy. As I said before, passion can't be manufactured. The best we can do is keep an open mind and look for issues that can use our help.

Questions
1. Do you think people should give based on effectiveness or passion?
2. Can nonprofits get donors and members to feel passionate about their organization? If so, how? What causes most people to become passionate about an issue?
3. Is philanthropy a reliable source of fulfillment?

The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and the rise of "virtual activism"

“Hi my name is Maria and I was nominated by Stacy to do the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge” was probably one of the most frequent things you heard on your Facebook newsfeed in the summer of 2014. The ALS Ice Bucket challenge was started by the family and friends of Pete Frates, who was diagnosed with ALS in 2011. The first ice bucket challenge video was posted on July 27th and in the next four weeks the internet blew up, first in Boston (where Pete is from), then nationally and globally, attracting the attention of news outlets like BBC and celebrities such as Bill Gates. You can learn more about the Ice Bucket Challenge and why it was started from this TED talk.

Before the Ice Bucket Challenge, I personally had never heard of ALS. Then suddenly, this word was all over my Facebook page and other social media. The challenge helped me to learn about the disease that is untreatable and has no cure that impacts over 30,000 Americans. The Ice Bucket challenge helped to draw the attention of the ALS Association, because the people taking the challenge either had to dump a bucket of ice over their head or donate money to the ALS Association.  Although this challenge wasn’t officially started by the ALS Association they quickly got involved and now their website is full of information about the success of the ice bucket challenge. The quick and intense impact of the Ice Bucket challenge shows how important it is for on a nonprofit connect to their potential donors with social media.  They even included an infographic on their website that showed how $115 million dollars raised was used within their organization. (Compared to the $23.5 Million dollars they raised in the year of 2013).

The Ice Bucket challenge was very successful in bringing in money towards the ALS Association, however it was also met with a lot of skepticism. The challenge gave the option of dumping the ice over your head or donating your money, which made people question if the challenge was really making an impact. Other people argued that the challenge overshadowed the cause.  Other articles showed that the challenge is doing good, but not the most good. There were also several people who supported the challenge because of the good that it was doing.

Did you participate in the 2014 ALS Ice Bucket Challenge? If so, what motivated you to do so? Do you think that “viral activism” is a good thing or is it too focused on “showing off” instead of giving? What other examples of “viral activism” have you seen in the media and were they successful?

Social Pressures of Giving

We have talked in class about people's varying motives for giving. Many of these are religious reasons, giving because it helps the area/people around them, or giving because there's a loved one that the donation would have a positive effect on. One thing we have talked about throughout this semester, that I would like to further look into now, is the social pressures often put on us to give.

The National Bureau of Economic Research conducted an experiment between April and October of 2008 testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. They designed a field experiment involving door-to-door fundraising drives. Some of the households that were approached in this experiment were given the opportunity to avoid the solicitor. One group of households got a flyer on their doorknob that notified them a day in advance about the exact time of solicitation, so they could avoid it. A second group also got the flyer, but this flyer included a box that could be checked if the household did "not want to be disturbed."

The conclusion was that the flyer reduces the amount of households opening the door to the solicitor by 10 to 25 percent. If the flyer allows checking a "do not disturb" box, it reduces giving by 30 percent.

These findings indicate to me that when given an option, many people would chose to not talk to a solicitor asking for donations for their charity. This is surprising to me because in 2008, the same year this experiment was conducted, 90% of Americans donated to some sort of charity. This leads me to believe that people do not like to be pressured into giving, and would rather give to charities on their own.

What led me to writing about social pressures of giving in this blog post is the constant solicitations I get at my dorm room on campus. I almost always donate, whether it be a dollar or loose change I find in my room, but I definitely feel their is pressure to give to these charities as there is something very personal about knocking on one's door and talking to them about your cause. I also give to these people because I myself have been one of them several times, as I've gone door-to-door on campus trying to raise money for different organizations I have worked with.

Questions for class:
What does everyone think about social pressures of donating?
Have you ever felt uncomfortable or pressured into giving to someone asking for donations at your door?
Have you ever been the person asking for money, and sometimes felt the pressure you were putting on the potential donor?

simulation

I really have enjoyed our class discussions, and the values that we find important to donating.  It is always good when you have a wide range of ideas.  However, it seems that most people in the class have the same values (not in this exact order) which are education, mental health, environment, homelessness and hunger prevention.  That is why when we had a simulation exercise with donors who had money, to give away and non profits that were seeking money it was very intriguing to see how our class prioritized the funds . 

It was  interesting to see, from class discussion, how much real life experience influenced where people would donate.   While I thought the class was very worthwhile, I especially enjoyed learning other student's perspectives and their values toward giving.   I assumed that most people would have given their money to the community college and hospital; however, the radio station and art received large sums of money.  Even though, the college and hospital probably benefit more people, the donors thought it was important to give to other places.

It was an important class, because it showed the fierce competition that non-profits face for funding.  Two points really resonated with me: people do not always make rational choices.  There is no reason why someone should give money to a radio station over a hospital.  Secondly, people choose to donate, because they receive accolades, like their name on a building or they realize that their gift might benefit a family member, such as the woman who gave to theater so her daughter could get a summer internship.  These were important lessons that I took away from this simulation.  The simulation was helpful, because it put into practice what we were learning in the classroom.      

Mr. Singer: What is the Worth of Life?

Mr. Singer: What is the Worth of Life?

Last class we talked about Peter Singer, and the notion on whether it was better to grant more people sight or train one dog to help one person for the same amount of money. We talked about if it was better to grant wishes to dying children, or to split that money and save more lives with it. To allocate funds to an organization or cause that has the greatest efficiency or dollar to turn-out ratio will trump everything else according to Mr. Singer. Furthermore, disregarding the passionate side in favor of using logic and recognizing the human’s habits, such as our desire to more likely give to people we know, are core tenets of the effective altruistic ideology. Those championing the cause claim that saving “three lives is better than one,” while boasting a morality that remains attractive to the average person. How can one weigh the lives of three for the life of one? According to Mr. Singer, life remains to be the most cherished gift one can give another or own for his/herself, but what if that living may be worse than life itself? What is the worth of a man to the individual? Should our philanthropy adjust for these notions?

The Make-A-Wish Foundation exists as one of the last bastions for providing children of terminable or life-threatening illnesses a chance to enjoy their current life or condition. Peter Singer’s main gripe with the organization, is that the average “$7,500” spent could better be used for helping children dying of malaria. However, the Make-A-Wish Foundation provides a great service to society, as it provides a personal and passionate means to making a difference. It allows the individual, the source of all potential good by means of personal capital, the chance for individual expression, and to see their contribution first-hand make an impactful difference on the mental state of a child. What Singer does not account for is that life is not some abstract case study that fits into distinct categories. When asked in an interview if the healthcare dollars he had spent on his mother’s quality of life could have been better spent, Singer remarks “It is more difficult than I thought before, because it is my mother.” Is his mother’s life, on paper, worth more than another? To Mr. Singer, all life is equal, however clearly this is not true. It is emotion, and this personal state of being that humanity carries that will permanently influence one’s perception of the worth of life. There is no number crunching or logic that can change that idea, even for Mr. Singer.  

Another interesting topic we mentioned in class was the idea of the museum and the evil demon. It is thought-provoking notion, but it too harks on a poorly constructed argument. I agree from an ideological standpoint that it truly is unfair that one must suffer for one thousand, but in the real world, the end justifies the means. Singer never accounts for the potential that one of those individuals could have a personal experience with the museum, and donate more money for the improvement of others or simply carry with himself, an attitude that benefits society in some beneficial way for the future. Could the personal experiences of those one thousand potentially be worth more than the “suffering” of one? If effective altruism is all about the most good you could do, then could those individuals, with their newfound perspectives change the world and bring more happiness?

I recently read an article exploring the expansion of philanthropy into Africa and the building of Children’s Centre(1). Giving money for the treatment of malaria, or Ebola may improve life in the moment, but it does nothing to provide long-term relief. Effective altruism is all about the bang-for-the-buck, and absolute most good you could do with a set amount, however, the treatment of these diseases raises a dangerous question. Is life itself worth more than a life of suffering? The Children’s Centre certainly provides these children with games, and a life worth living, and these are the sorts of organizations in the end, that provide that bang-for-the-buck. It is little organizations like this that make those impactful differences that are preached about. Although treating life-threatening conditions may save those children for a moment, it does not protect them from a life full of suffering. Therefore, our philanthropy should not focus on the simplistic notion of providing the opportunity for living like Mr. Singer, but instead should focus on making that meaningful, long-term change that will inadvertently provide a true opportunity for living life to its fullest.

Questions:
1) Are all lives truly equal? Can truly humanity work past perception such as family ties?
2) How much is the suffering of one to the gain of the many? Is there a ratio?

3) Is a long life of suffering better than a short life of joy? How will employing effective altruism in this manner affect society in the long term? Economically? Socially?

(1) http://allafrica.com/stories/201603130031.html

What I Did With My Tweet of The Week Winnings

Thank you all for nominating my tweet last week about centers for Heroine Users in Ithaca, NY. Because of you all, I was able to donate $58 to the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. I did this in memory of my late Uncle, Barry. He passed away 2 years ago from lung cancer after never smoking a day in his life. I chose to donate to this organization because I strongly agree with its mission statement: to improve and save lives by funding groundbreaking research for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and cure of lung cancer. While lung cancer continues to claim nearly 1.6 million lives each year around the world, the Lung Cancer Research Foundation is making significant strides to create a world free of this horrible disease. Every dollar donated to this organization helps to potentially save innocent victims of lung cancer, and helping to fund research for this disease is very important to me... so thank you all for giving me this opportunity to do so!

Ithaca; A Step in the Right Direction

A couple of weeks ago, our class voted for the tweet of the week winner to be who mentioned the opening of a heroin injection site in Ithaca, NY. This originally intrigued me because I have noticed that widespread increase in heroin use in my home state, Connecticut, as well as its use elsewhere in Boston and New York. Growing up heroin use was something of a myth; it was viewed as a life-altering drug that destroyed all future potential and success. Further, I couldn’t name a single person I knew that had used it or whose life had been affected in any way because of heroin.  Now all of a sudden I am seeing people I graduated high school with struggling with heroin addiction, people dying, and reports from my Emergency room nurse mother alerting me of how big this drug was becoming in my home town. And from what I had heard, it is everywhere. Heroin does not discriminate between race, class structure, educational attainment, or geographical location. Heroin is arguably one of the most dangerous and widely used drugs of our time, and it is cheap and accessible.

I had heard of injection sites before because I knew that they had already been introduced in Vancouver, British Colombia in Canada. There was originally a public outcry when the clinics were first introduced due to fears that these injection site clinics would increase usage by those who may not try the drug otherwise due to increased accessibility and safety measures. However this has not proven to be the case, with studies proving that reduction measures typically do not encourage use, and simply makes the process of usage more safe and regulated. An example that supports this claim is sex education, with safer sex practices taught it was found that more young people weren’t engaging simply because they were being introduced safe sex practices in classes. Those who would have engaged otherwise however, now practiced safer sex and teen pregnancies were reduced.

This injection clinic being introduced in Ithaca would need state approval given that what they are proposing is currently illegal, therefore the mayor of Ithaca is looking to change the laws. His name is Svante Myrick, and he backs the law enforcement strategy that prioritizes treatment over arrests. Addicts will legally be able to inject themselves under medical supervision while providing their own heroin. Medical professionals can intervene if someone overdoses, and after injection the user receives treatment and counseling services that encourage the addict to overcome this ailment. They offer clean needles to reduce the spread of deadly diseases like HIV that is often associated with heroin use, and medicated treatment for withdrawal symptoms. Overdoses with heroin can easily be reversed, therefore monitoring its use and being prepared with the necessary treatment for if it occurs on site could potentially save a life, and from there the patient could seek alternate treatment. In Vancouver, studies show that over 800 users attend every day, and there are about 10-20 overdoses per week. No one has died at the injection clinic to date. Afterward, the clinic connects the addict to recovery services, and encourages people to seek treatment and overcome the addiction.

The mayor in Ithaca is a personal victim to addiction, stating that he grew up watching his father battle addiction. This makes this issue personalized for him, and shows the significance of even helping one or two families that are trying to seek help for this drug that has become such a detrimental factor to society today. Myrick states, “Every time you avoid death, you give that person a chance to recover from their addiction, and if we can do that in a safe place, all the better.” I think that the goal that he is trying to achieve in this town is admirable. I have seen personally the terrible toll that heroin has on young lives, and if this option were available, perhaps these people whose lives were stolen from heroin would have been spared. I think that what the mayor in Ithaca is doing is a wonderful act of public service and philanthropy. We often only look at philanthropic acts as those that involve volunteering or donating, however I believe that an act that serves the greater good and tries to fix an ailment suffered by many is as impactful and critical.

Inspiring Young Donors

Once I heard about the trouble Bill had reaching out to Oasis (or rather, the trouble Oasis had with e-mailing him back) I knew that I would want to write about this topic for my blog post. No, this isn't going to be a slam on Oasis, their organization, and how motivated they are to potentially receive our donation- because we discussed some of those things in class. But keeping those ideas in mind, I'd like to talk about on why non-profits are more hesitant to work with the younger generation and, in my opinion, why that stigma should be eliminated. Instead, we should be inspiring our generation to be philanthropists.

I used many different blog posts around the web to research why non-profits tend to not take younger donors as seriously as older donors. According to Fundraising Fundametals' "We Need A New Audience" (https://tobinaldrich.wordpress.com/tag/audience-research/), it all comes down to money. Who will give the most money and have a comprehensive knowledge of what they're donating to and how the money will make an impact? Older people. Statistics show that in America, only 12.6% of people who donated were under 35. Their donations were only a mere 12% ($13,200) of the older generations average donations. Ultimately, that's the bottom line for non-profits. In the least greedy way, they want the money that will progress their organization the most and if that means not seeing the potential of younger people (or reluctantly answering a student's e-mail), then so be it. But there is a multitude of reasons why the non-profit sector should embrace the younger generation as donors.

The potential of young philanthropists is profound. The main argument I have as to why non-profits should unleash their potential is because they're the future. "We Need A New Audience" claims that should NOT be a reason, though. They say that instead of replacing older donors with "teenagers", that non-profits should shift their donor base to people who are slightly younger than the old donors, aka "closer to 75 not 25." I think this is dead wrong. The blog post "Harnessing Young Donors' Philanthropy (http://www.cygresearch.com/burksblog/donor-demographic-impact/harnessing-young-donors’-philanthropy-779/) greatly outlines why this is so. The younger generation is full of innovation. Unlike the older generation, 62% of people 35 or younger say that they are going to continue or even increase their giving. Also, they are more likely to utilize online giving which is less costly to operate and thus enables them to have higher gift values. They also are more likely to foster new causes, with 65% of donors under 35 doing so, compared to 19% of donors 65 or older. Also, the younger generation shouldn't be classified as all having smaller gifts, because there are groups like us who have a lot to donate! All in all, the younger generation is not weak, and it's not immature. In fact, it is full of philanthropists who are ready to give.

I hope my blog post leaves people thinking about the mechanics behind why non-profits tend not to rely on younger donors. More importantly, I hope the post made you realize that younger donors can make a great impact on organizations. The statistics should make us young philanthropists feel very frustrated- as seen with our troubles with Oasis. With our grant, we will prove that young philanthropists aren't to be belittled, but to be held at the same standard as any other donor. Also, I'd like to say that I am glad that were giving Oasis a chance, because maybe they don't see us in a negative way, maybe it is true that their lack of response was due to an organizational error (I'm not trying to paint any non-profit in a negative light).

Finally, I'd like to pose a couple of questions:
1. Do young donors give less because they can't give more or because less is what is expected of them?
2. If you ran a non-profit, who would your target donor audience be?
3. Are you pleased that we are giving Oasis the chance to fill out/submit the RFP?

Wide Impacts or Deep Impacts?

In our class discussion, we mentioned the differences between creating a wide impact versus a deep impact in philanthropy.  In creating a wide impact, we are able to help give many resources to people including food, clothing, and other basic needs. However, in reaching for a deeper impact, although it may be limited in the number of people involved, the effect may be great enough to break the cycle of  poverty because those involved learn sustainable ways to live and make income. Is one method more impactful than the other? Many agree that teaching people sustainable ways to live creates a deeper impact rather than just handing them food and clothes.

I wonder how this idea affects our individual giving both domestically and abroad. In Broome County, $10,000 is not enough to eradicate poverty. However, in countries such as Kenya where Kennedy and Jessica Odede are currently running a school for girls in Nairobi, $10,000 may be able to reach more people. This idea relates greatly to my previous blog and our upcoming readings with Peter Singer and effective altruism. The question is also an issue of how wide or deep we want our impact as students to be in this philanthropy class.

The book A Path Appears reminds me a lot of my recent experiences during my missions trip to Nicaragua this winter. Through working at a boy’s vocational school called La Finca de Belen, I learned a lot about resourcefulness and humbleness. There are no social services available to the students I was working with, and the cost for school uniforms and school supplies deterred many families from sending their children to school. Thus, many of the young boys I met were forced to quit school and they began to sell drugs to make money. If not for La Finca de Belen, many of the students would be involved with gang violence, and some may not be living today. The school teaches them sustainable ways to make an income through skills such as welding and farming. Of course, we have poverty in the United States, but witnessing this type of poverty was impactful to me because even the most basic services were nonexistent in rural Chinandega. There was no clean water to drink or bathe in and, as in other countries, people are lucky to have even one meal a day. My team and I went to the school with $8,000 for supplies and plenty of helping hands. Altogether, we were able to complete a large floor for dormitories, install a water pump so the farm can finally have running water, and feed everyone who was working for the entire two weeks. There was also a significant amount of money left over for purchasing more supplies later after the team left. It seems to me that we were able to make a great impact with a limited amount of time and resources still.

Children from surrounding villages walked to the school for craft time.

Steven, Naom, and Miguel are all students at the school. 

 In Kenya, I learned through watching the Path Appears Documentary available on Netflix, that Kennedy and Jessica’s school first launched with only $10,000 from their savings. Jessica and Kennedy were in love, and she used all of her money saved from working and babysitting towards the cause of her Husband. Of course, they received numerous funding afterward making the program sustainable and successful, but I found it intriguing because as a class we also have $10,000 total to give. In Nairobi, that was enough to launch the Shining Hope Program. Could our $10,000 be enough to really spark a new program with such a deep effect in Broome County? Or are we better off funding a current program? Is it worth the risk for our class to give $7,500 to a new program with little data? Or is it possible for our money to launch something as great as Shining Hope?

        

Peter Singer suggests that it makes more sense to give money internationally because the impact may go further. In his TED Talk, this is evident as he debates whether to give to programs such a Guiding Eyes for the Blind or to international programs that can reach more people in preventing blindness through surgery. In response, I wonder if we could say that it is much easier for us to give our time volunteering in Broome County then abroad. Therefore, we can settle by helping both areas with the resources available to us. Committing time to the causes here locally that we are passionate about while also devoting some resources to people abroad who have much less.

I also find the concept of creating a wide or deep impact interesting because of the differences in the size of the organizations we are reaching out too. Some organizations are much larger such as Catholic Charities, YMCA, and Children's Home. Urban League and Lourdes Detention Alternative After School Program are much smaller. Specifically, the Lourdes program has a small capacity because "the small group size allows for more one on one interaction between staff and participants and the ability to focus on individual needs" (Lourdes Hospital). To me, I feel that this may contribute to a deep impact in the lives of the eight individuals who are vulnerable to engaging in criminal activities, and thus it may really benefit the youth involved with the organization, despite its limited capacity. Therefore, I think we need to take great consideration in the differences between how wide our potential organization reaches out versus how deep their effects are in the community when making our final decision.

How Should Non-For-Profits Run?

The goal for a non-for-profit organization is to make as much change in their desired issue area as possible. They should follow their theory of change and see it through that the problem is reduced or solved. There are many ways to do this and finding the right one is difficult. A non-for-profit organization should run like a business, but instead of maximizing profit they need to maximize change in their issue area.
First, how should the firm present themselves to the public. How transparent a organization is will effect its future endeavors.The issue of putting a white child onto a piece of mail over a child of maturity even though most of the funds were going to children of minority decent. was mentioned in class. The white child was used because it was believed that it would cause a larger gathering of funds. Ethically it is controversial, but on the business side it makes sense. By knowing that racism is present and putting on a child that more people will relate to means that more donations will come in. Especially, because it was sent by mail and will be read with a donation most in mind by elderly people because younger generations have gotten more accustomed to junk mail and throw letters out more liberally. There is a higher percentage of people with racist ideals in older people because they grew up in a different time period where racism was more prevalent. The issue of compensation also came up in class today. Pallotti had raised over 500 million dollars, but gave himself a salary of almost 350 thousand dollars. This is less that .1% of what his organization raised. Large salaries can be a positive for non-for-profit organizations. It would be better to pay somebody 1 million dollars if they could bring in 3 million dollars than bringing in 5 people at 50 thousand a year that combine to raise 125 thousand dollars. Compensation comes from what is earned and if someone has earned the privilege of making millions by bringing in assets then they deserve what they have earned. Pallotti earned his 350 thousand dollar salary and I would have been fine with him making even more.
This story on Nancy Brinker of the Susan G Komen foundation is an example of an executive that made too much money.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18869742-susan-komen-ceos-salary-draws-fire-as-donations-drop-races-are-canceled
Brinker was the CEO of the foundation and made bad decisions. The move by the firm to stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood caused a drop in donations. However, after the drop in donations Brinker received a 64% raise. This is not how a non-for-profit or corporation should be run. It should be based on merit and Brinker did not earn that raise. Analysis of the foundation shows that Brinker's salary is very high compared to organizations of similar size.
How ethical should the organizations be? If a non-for-profit is in a financial hole should they disclose this information even if it will result in a decline in investments? Should employee salaries be public information? Should they create ploys to make themselves receive more donations?

YMCA Strong Kids Campaign (Tweet of the Week Contest)

First off, thank you for voting for my tweet for the tweet of the week contest! As Abraham Lincoln once said, “a good pun can help you win a Twitter contest.”

Anyway, the organization I chose is one close to my heart: the YMCA of Central and Northern Westchester’s Strong Kids campaign. For the past four years I have volunteered and worked at Camp Combe, a day camp with a twist: its programs were designed by a child psychologist to encourage positive character building and life skills. Also, the camp is an “inclusion camp” that supports children with autism, behavioral issues, and other special needs, integrating them as part of the normal camp activities, not as an isolated group. Counselors and staff like myself are trained extensively by an amazing staff on how to employ these character building and inclusion techniques. For example, we are trained in positive reinforcement that builds campers’ self-confidence rather than traditional discipline that diminishes their hope in themselves. As a result of a close-knit staff and extreme dedication, hundreds of campers’ lives’ are impacted positively every summer. I’ve personally seen many children with persistent behavioral or neurological issues develop social skills and confidence that I don’t imagine they could have found anywhere else. All of this is thanks to a staff composed of many volunteering or minimally-paid teenagers and adults who have share a strong sense of mission.

The camp is part of the YMCA, which also provides many invaluable services year-round to the community. We’ve talked about youth services in our class, so I think that everyone reading this post has an idea of how important youth programs like the YMCA and Camp Combe are, especially for children of lower income. As argued extensively in A Path Appears, philanthropy is most effective when targeted at early stages of development. Many children who attend the camp have the means to afford such a positive summer experience, yet many do not. Normally, these kids would be part of the lower-income group that is at a disadvantage to their wealthier peers. However, the Strong Kids campaign enables lower-income children to participate in character enriching experiences at the YMCA and Camp Combe.

I assume that Peter Singer would be fuming right now, as the small amount of money I’m donating will only partially fund a child’s camp experience, while it might be able to save an impoverished child from disease elsewhere. I fully realize Singer’s argument and have admittedly questioned my decision. However, this is a cause that I am close to and believe can have an enormous impact on a child. I believe that sometimes, we must follow our hearts in donating, not only our rational side. I’ve spent years working at this camp and hope to continue making a difference there. Likewise, I will continue to remain engaged in issues of global poverty. I don’t think philanthropy should be an either/or situation, rather a mix of rational and emotional giving and local and global need.