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.
I agree with you, the class simulation we did with Susan Appe was not only fun, but also eye opening. It all comes down to that discussion in the beginning of class: why do we give? This is what most intrigued me with this simulation. As a class we discussed the multitude of positive reasons why we give. For instance, personal ties. I was really pushing towards donating to a youth development program because of my personal struggles with obesity. A lot of us said it also makes us feel good. That fact is even proven in our reading "A Path Appears." Wu Dunn and Kristof illustrate that the happiness boost you get from your efforts to help others exceeds what you would get from an equivalent effort to help yourself. In more simpler terms, helping other people makes you happier than helping yourself. The human compassion is natural. Unfortunately, social pressures can influence our hard-wired generosity. A lot of the people in our class who acted as donors often ask how donating to organizations would benefit them, whether it was a name on a building or a program named after them. That is what I think is a wrong motive to give. I see no problem giving to a radio station over a hospital if they had a specific reason why they needed it. But once again meaningful giving is subjective, which accounts for why we have different views towards that issue. I'd like to also point out that we said our reasons for giving were because we have personal ties and because it makes us feel good. This is what Peter Singer ("The Most Good You Can Do") says are the wrong reasons to donate. He states that effective altruists are sensitive to number, and to cost per life saved or year of suffering prevented. Emotional empathy, apparently, should have no ties to your donations. I think that is absurd because people won't be motivated to give to something they aren't passionate about, and will often give less to something if they don't feel a connection. Take the study in the book where people, given the opportunity, would give more to save the life of one child rather than save 8 for the same cost. To conclude, take a look at this interesting article that uses statistics and psychology to outline the motives and barriers of giving. It is interesting and shows facts and statistics about why people do or don't give, and their motives behind it. http://www.redbirdonline.com/blog/understanding-donor-psychology-motivations-and-barriers-charitable-giving
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about this simulation was how people negotiated with the donors. Like you said, the donors were more likely to give funds to an organization that would put their name on something. Although the donations were allocated in part based on the description of the fictional donor and their interests, it was interesting to see that people deviated from their situation to support causes that they personally deemed worthy.
ReplyDeleteWhat also interested me about this situation was how people allocated their money. I was a representative for a rehabilitation organization for convicts. People were willing to donate to us until we disclosed that we were $100,000 in debt due to an auditing error to be paid over the course of 10 years. People found this sum overwhelming and chose not to give anything as a result. Because most donors were unable to fully settle our debt with their donations, they chose not to help at all. This mentality of all or nothing led us to receive no funding at all. If each donor were to donate $1,000 to our organization however, we would have been able settle our debt requirement for the year. For most donors, $1,000 could have easily been allocated to us.
When we give donations it's enticing to give to an organization where we will see immediate results with our donations. However, we cannot neglect the power of small donations. Small donations add up over time and are just as valuable as large ones. Patience is required when small changes are made, but if these small changes are made continuously over a period of time, results will eventually be seen. What I took away from this simulation was that we should not wait for large donors to fill the large funding needs of organizations. We don't have to wait to make an impact because every dollar we donate does just that. Every dollar contributes to a larger fund and with multitudes of small contributions, change can be made and results will be seen
Hi, Ben. Good post. I remember that during the presentation, I was assigned to play the role of a donor. But, my donor had specific characteristics that I was instructed to convey with my giving. The charity that I ended up giving to was an organization that operated as a resource for teens and preached the importance of being drug free. While their mission was admirable, I really chose this organization because it offered my character the best chance to get involved within a community. A former pharmaceutical researcher, the students acting as the organization's representatives offered me the opportunity to regularly speak about the dangers of drugs as I had learned much in this area during my career.
ReplyDeleteThis organization offered me the best way to give my time. I think this relates very well to an earlier conversation we had in the semester about time v. money. Clearly, my character wanted to give both but what valued more was time. The organizations you expected to receive the greatest donations, the college and hospital didn't offer any real opportunity for someone to donate time. Which actually ties to another conversation that was had on this blog earlier in the semester. A giver like my character wanted to see the effects of his giving and, as it said on my character description, "feel a part of a tight knit community". My character valued giving time and valued seeing the results of his giving. So, I want to raise the question, how can organizations that can't offer donors the opportunity to directly experience the effects of their giving still entice donors like my character to give. One way is by follow up thank you emails. Simply expressing gratitude can go a long way. However, something that comes to my mind is how make a wish foundation seems to find endless ways to broadcast the stories of the children that help. Be it on ESPN or on their website or in the newspaper, I feel like I am always inundated with Make a Wish stories. Which is great. Because of this, I know that this organization is effective and I will be able to feel good about donating to it even though I can't see the effects of my donation firsthand. Perhaps the key for organizations is simply an excellent PR department.
Ben, I'm glad you brought this up because I agree that it was a very fulfilling exercise that made philanthropy feel real and present for us. I also find our class discussions quite rewarding and meaningful, I am truly learning so much about myself and others in our class as a philanthropist. I thought that the simulation was a great way to feel out the scope for beginning our jobs as donors, philanthropists, and I appreciated the other side where we had to ask for grants. The character I had played a large role in the community. She was sick and had retirement money that would go to waste unless she bequeathed it to an organization within the community. I thought it was great to see how personalized this process can become and why people choose to give to certain organizations. Overall, I found the class very rewarding and stimulating.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that the simulation was eye-opening. It was interesting to see how different people approached their philanthropy. It was also interesting to experience how complicated that giving and receiving can be. From the donor's point of view, they wanted to find an organization that would fit with their interests or allow them to meet their goals of volunteering, having their name on a building, or securing an internship for a family member. The organizations wanted to find donors that they saw would connect with the organization on a deep level, because they recognized that people usually will be more likely to give to organizations that they have personal connections to. However, for the organization I represented, we were not able to entice any donors even if they had some interest in donating, because we had significant debt. This illuminated a problem that some nonprofits can face, because if a non profit is in debt it needs money, but is then less likely to entice donors. This is a problem because then even a non profit that has a good mission and has the potential to make a big difference may be forced to close.
ReplyDeleteI think what was really impressive about the simulation was how marketing was so pinnacle in finding the correct donor. Each nonprofit needed to place themselves in the correct standing based on each donor available. For example, I had to adapt my story of my theater depending on each organization. So when one of the donors had a son that died from heroin, I adapted the story to explain that the theater helps to keep the kids off of the streets. In terms of the realistic nature of philanthropy, it definitely harks on why emotion and meaningful giving are central ideas that must be followed.
ReplyDeletePerception played a big role here when it came to selection time. Donors that felt poor emotional connection to the organizations tended not to select them. Logic was definitely used, however, I think that the personal, emotional nature was what truly ran true. Even though it was just a simulation, you could detect through human intuition, those donors that were often not as confident or had a good thing to sell to you. I think that it is important to take away from the simulation that we are doing very much the same thing in our philanthropic process. We need to realize as donors the emotional and logistical factors that influence our decisions.