One of the main points that we
have covered in class over and over again is that we don’t just want to donate
to an organization that just enables people. We cant just give handouts to
people, because then they’ll never learn and what we are essentially doing
becomes pointless because it is bound to happen again. Like the saying goes, “Give
a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him
for a lifetime.” But sometimes people really do just need a fish, and that is
where the New York Times’ Neediest Cases Fund comes in.
In 1911, Adolph S. Ochs, the
publisher of the Times gave a homeless man a few dollars on Christmas Day and
it gave him a great sense of satisfaction. The next year he decided to run
reports on the 100 Neediest Cases in New York City to help raise money for
individuals based on “the facts of their lives” instead of a direct request for
money. Over 104 years, the fund has raised over $282 million dollars to help
distribute to residents of NYC and every year they post articles about who they
money went to.
One article introduced Henry
Solomon, a 70 year old man who took care of his family his entire life but is
now living off of $1,034 a month, but in September couldn’t afford his rent. He
applied for supplemental housing and other programs so he could afford to live
in a real home, but if he couldn’t come up with $607 dollars he would have been
homeless. In this case, all he needed was the $607 dollars and he would have
been fine so in this case a handout was necessary. In another article, the Fund
helped pay for Margaret Macaluso’s cancer treatments. Ms. Macaluso is a single
mother of 4 sons and most of her income goes to paying her rent as well as the
mortgage on a house that was completely destroyed in Hurricane Sandy. $1,036
dollars came out of the fund to pay for her treatment in November and December.
These are
only 2 examples of how the fund helps New Yorkers live a better life and new
articles are posted almost every day and can be found here http://www.nytimes.com/column/neediest-cases.
In my own opinion this fund is doing amazing work even if it doesn’t have a
specific area that it is focusing on or if it is giving out handouts. Sometimes
a handout is what someone really needs and the Times know that. It took less than $2000 dollars to change the lives of 6 people. The Neediest Cases Fund might not
have a specific area that it focus' on, but you could say that its mission
statement is really just helping the lives on NYC residents. Before reading
this article I definitely would have agreed with most of you and said that
handouts aren’t beneficial, but after reading several of these stories I have
an entirely new perspective.
How do you feel about what the Times is doing? Do
you think it is a good idea to just give out money without a specific mission
statement? I highly encourage reading some of the articles before answering.
Article about Henry Solomon: http://nyti.ms/1JvvF6p
Article about Margaret Macaluso: http://nyti.ms/1O4k5PA
History of the Neediest Cases Fund: http://nyti.ms/1hIVuD1
Anthony
ReplyDeleteIn the scope of our class discussions, I think you bring up a very revolutionary arguments. While I do not believe we, as a class, are looking to give out a handout, I agree that in certain situations, a handout is necessary, and we may experience the need for both handouts and lasting philanthropic action in different situations. The "Jessica" story in A Path Appears illustrates both of these cases. When Jessica was being moved from home to home with no real guidance, she was in need of lasting philanthropy, and found that in Lark, who became a permanent beacon of guidance and mentorship in her life. However, there were times when she was more in need of a handout, like when she was trying to finance her college education, and had to stop and start her schooling to save up money. In this situation, a simple check (or handout), as opposed to a structured program with guidance and involvement of others, would have sufficed. Jessica has experienced a need for both types of philanthropy over her life, demonstrating the idea that sometimes a man really just needs to be given a fish, not taught to fish.
To answer your final question, I really respect what the Times is doing. Every non-profit has a specific mission, and because the Times fund does not, that allows them the freedom to fill in the gaps that non-profits wit a specific mission are not covering. They have lasted over 100 years, so clearly their method of handouts is effective, and I hope that they continue to be effective in combating poverty in our societies.
Focusing in on individuals instead of the community is a very interesting way of giving back and I believe it is an effective way. This is similar to micro-lending, which I believe can get individuals out of poverty and grow the community as a whole. Many people can be helped if they only need a small influx of goods. Since many of these are "handouts" there may be some that do not get used wisely, but it seems that the people's backgrounds are checked and the money is going to good use. I am definitely on the pro side of what the times is doing. You asked thoughts on giving without a mission, but I feel the mission is to change the lives of members of society that have tried hard but need just a little boost and this is being accomplished. Thank you for bringing what the times is doing to my attention
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post and perspective. I was not at all aware that the times does this for people. I personally think that this is a great way for the Times to give back to the community that has allowed it to flourish. I love when large companies give back because they benefit so much off of society, I believe they should allow society to benefit off of them in a greater way than just by consuming their products. I, like many of us, grapple with the "give a man a fish..." saying. While I think job programs that "teach a man to fish" are incredibly effective in reducing poverty and homelessness. However, upon reading your blog post, I can understand how sometimes you just need that little extra help in order to make it through something difficult. Life constantly throws curveballs at everyone and if you don't have a safety net, it's easy to end up falling off the edge of a cliff. For example, I managed to dislocate my knee, get my car totaled by a bus, and strep throat all within the same week. If I did not have my parents to pay the deposit for the rental car that is being paid for by the bus company's insurance, I would't have had access to the rental car and be able to get myself to a doctor to take care of myself. My parents are my safety net. If I didn't have them, and this happened in NYC, I would have really appreciated help from the Times to help me get out of that situation. Additionally, it can be possible in circumstances like how Katherine brings up that sometimes you need the fish in order to learn to fish. In our society, almost everything costs something. For example, in order to get an education to get a good job, you generally have to pay for it. My parents paying for my undergraduate education is basically their handout to me.
ReplyDeleteOn your questions, I believe that the times is doing a great thing to help many people and fill in gaps where government services or non-profits might not be able to. The Times not having a mission statement, allows them to give out this money to a wide variety of people experiencing vast number of difficulties, whatever they may be.
This kind of reminds me of the idea of micro grants. Often times (and in the following link http://www.microgrants.net/about/faqs/ ) organizations will donate small grants to start up businesses in order to help them get off the ground. In order to start a business, it is very expensive. And by giving these small grants to help cover some of the costs, they allow for economic development in an area because a small business is able to be founded and then hire employees. Micro grants might seem like menial handouts, but they really make a lasting difference when small businesses are able to exist in an area.
Anthony, I truly enjoyed your post because it is very relevant to this class as well as many of our lives because most of us have been to New York City and have seen the tremendous amount of people who struggle every day to provide for themselves and their families. I feel that the New York Times is truly doing an amazing thing helping those New York City residents get back on their feet even if it is just by handing someone $607 like in the case of Henry Solomon. In this case, what the New York Times is doing is perfect because Henry Solomon did already have a solid foundation to stand on, he simply fell behind and that was going to make him homeless. In Henry’s case, the Times did not have to educate him or rehabilitate him because it was not necessary as he already has done that for 50 years. Therefore, in this case, a hand out was all that was needed and anything in addition to that may have been too much.
ReplyDeleteEven though what the New York Times is doing is amazing, I do not think that it is a good idea to just give out money without a specific mission statement and a plan. It may seem good to just blindly give and try to make a difference, but in order to effect the most change and significantly improve the lives of those in need, you must have a mission statement. You must know what it is that you are trying to accomplish. You must know how you are going to accomplish this goal. So, you must have a specific mission statement in order to give effectively. It is not as though giving without a specific mission statement is a bad thing; it is just that having a mission statement would make your giving much more efficient and effective.
Anthony, I think it is a great idea. First, the Neediest Case Fund is able to help people with very little money. They might not have an official mission statement, but their goal is to help the people in need the most, by finding out their story. I think that the Neediest Fund plays an important role in Non Profit, by really probing to understand the people and their circumstances. The descriptions they write in the paper are very compelling; the articles pull at your heartstrings and motivate one to support the cause. I think that if more organizations tried to tell a story like the Neediest Fund, more people would be able to potentially receive help, and would benefit the non- profit community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post, I had no idea this was a thing! Like everyone else who commented, I think this fund is a great thing. It definitely capitalizes on the identifiable victim effect that we spoke about in class. It seems like the articles are a result of pretty thorough research and the donations are well thought-out. Additionally, by not having a set mission statement, the fund draws attention to a myriad of issues that are facing people, perhaps drawing in more donations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I’m sure there is some utilitarian fault in haphazardly addressing issues without following a mission statement. A utilitarian like our friend Peter Singer would probably argue that the money that the Times is giving to diverse causes could probably be better spent by donating to organizations that actually deal directly with these causes. The Times is not experienced in all fields, so their handout donations may be ineffective when compared with an organization that has spent years dealing with a specific problem.
Nevertheless, I still think this fund is great. People are probably more likely to donate to this because the articles are emotionally-driving. Furthermore, the administrative costs are covered by the corporation, so all money goes directly to those in need, making donating more accessible. Also, the fund is helping people other organizations may have overlooked. Most importantly, it’s a really nice refresher to read these emotional stories after finishing the highly logical The Most Good You Can Do.
This program the New York Times has been working on is one that is unique to my own knowledge and seems to really be doing great things. I would normally agree that it is more useful to help people provide for themselves by teaching them the skills they need or providing some sort of foundation for them to grow from. However, instances where we can see the contribution we are making right away may seem to be more beneficial. Additionally, such contributions are helping individuals and, therefore, there are faces put to the people that are being helped, making it more meaningful to many.
ReplyDeleteThe contributions of these programs, such as the aid given to the elderly man or the single mother with cancer, certainly do have that emotional impact on me when I read about them. At the same time, I feel as though it is easy to confuse this emotion that such contributions evoke with the belief that such types of aid are making the biggest impact. To say that giving to individuals is not making the biggest impact is not to say I don’t believe it is still amazing work that is important to do. I simply have to wonder what is going to happen to the beneficiaries after their temporary needs are met; though they will have short-term relief, their long-term problems will still exist. Because of this I value helping people get their feet on the ground so that they can work toward being in a better place in the long-run, rather than temporarily.