Earlier in the semester, I stressed that, personally, I find the character/demeanor of an organization is crucial, but subtle. This case, I believe, is a good example of this elusive truth, insofar as that Vanessa's emotion about the organization clarifies an important point about Catholic Charities. It was clear that Vanessa was very passionate about her cause, and the mission of the program, as she'd described several times: therefore, it seems safe for us to assume that her feelings about the direction of the program directly correlate to the potency of the program itself, in its current mission. And I'd noticed that she had frequently spoken nostalgically about the program, as if it had been more tight-knit and effective before, and that recent state litigation has hampered this somewhat nowadays. She sounded a little defeated whenever she would discuss the prospects of the current mission and program compared to those of a decade or so ago. To me, this demeanor indicates a potential weakness in system fitness now, and one I think we need to discuss further as a class.
Besides this emotive example, a more literal one from her conversation might help clarify the exact weakness I'm referring to. She often talked about how these days, NYS demands higher standards for social workers, and therefore the pay for these workers within the program has been incensed to go up (and also, the lower payment literally offered by Catholic Charities probably deters potential employees, thus limiting resources). To me, this begs a question: how crucial is it that ALL workers employed under the umbrella of the program must be, precisely, 'certified social workers?' Perhaps a different hiring strategy or a rethinking of exactly what sorts of employment are necessary could potentially result in a lower program bill, or even a higher number of children being aided; albeit not from a certified social worker, is it not possible that there are less specifically qualified aids who could help with at least a good amount of problems certain kids have? It's easier to play the devil's advocate, and I realize that this point is something minor; it is true that our donation could bridge the debt that this program will accrue this year, and, ultimately, keep it successful and effective for the children being helped. But even if we can help the program gain footing this year, if the system itself is potentially not fit under what Vanessa's emotion and logic portrayed as very dynamic conditions, can we safely say that we're helping the program in the long run, or merely giving it a crutch? In my opinion, we should reserve judgment until we see more organizations, for sure, but answer for yourself in the comments: how seriously should we take Catholic Charities' potential staunchness in the face of change at this juncture?
Interesting blog post, Steven! I agree with you, workers like Vanessa who are passionate about their organization's missions play an integral role in the nonprofit sector. But, I wouldn't define a nonprofits system fitness nor whether or not we should donate to a cause entirely on someones demeanor. I would like to reference "The Most Good You Can Do", which we read in class. One of his main points is that we should donate based on effectiveness. Would it be better to give one blind person a guide dog for $40,000 or with the same amount of money prevent 400-2,000 cases of blindness in developing countries? According to Singer, the latter would be the better option. I agree with Singers ideals, and I believe that this concept can be applied to the situation concerning Catholic Charities. Vanessa explained that the money supplied by our grant would be applied to the salaries of the mental health workers who only earn $12/hour, when the average is $19/hour. So, we would not be increasing the amount of kids being served by the program (150 kids). Even if the program does receive our grant, if they don't get the other grant they get annually from another source, the amount of kids served would decrease to 80 kids. This is especially detrimental since there already is a waitlist of about 60-80 children. Ultimately, this doesn't coincide with Singer's ideals of effective altruism because the workers, rather than the children, would be effected directly by our donation. In the long term, the amount of children that need the service can not be met because of financial limitations. To bring this idea back to emotion and system fitness, someone like Vanessa could be still very passionate about Catholic Charities and it's programs like Gateway and CCC but that doesn't define the efficacy, and more importantly the fate of the programs. So to answer your last question, I believe that with each of the potential grant recipients, including Catholic Charties, we should focus mainly on the tangible data provided of their success not only now but also long term. Passion can persist a lot longer than a program soley because human ethics are eternal, but money is limited! As a class we want to make the most effective donation that we can. We need to reserve our emotions and biases a little bit so we can do the most good!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post Steven. I really like the question that you pose about whether or not licensed social workers need to be the ones who are helping troubled youth for Community Connections. In my opinion, there are some people who are just compassionate, caring people, who are good listeners and problem solvers. In my high school, we had a program for students who had these qualities called "peer mediators." When a conflict would arise between students, the mediators (who had been trained for two weeks by the school guidance department) would meet with the students and provide an honest peer response. Because of my involvement in this program, I see no problem having volunteers who are not "licensed social workers" help some of the troubled youth whose problems do not call for such a professional. Maybe a student just needs a friend to talk to, and in that case, a social worker might be a waste of resources. If Community Connections wants to maintain system fitness as the salaries of social workers rise, they might consider this money saving option. I was a bit shocked when I looked up Broome County Catholic Charities under Guidestar and found that they listed "Zero" under "Number of Volunteers." This means that no individual working for Community Connections is a volunteer, and in my opinion, that is a huge money hole. I do not think that using unlicensed social workers or volunteers would be approved for Community Connections, just because that would mean threatening the positions of the already hired social workers, and suggesting that some students wouldn't be getting professional care while others would. Your idea is interesting and innovative, and I agree with it, but in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure that it would get approved.
ReplyDelete