Towards the end of class on Thursday, we discussed shortly
the idea of giving to a brand new program versus giving to an established and
proven program. This is a very interesting discussion to me, as I see the
merits in both sides, and I am still not sure where I lean. I think this is as
especially important debate because this is an issue we are facing to some
extent with our grant decision this semester. Do we give to a program that has
been established for years, providing know results, or do we take a chance and
give to a program that is just starting out and has potential to build into
something permanent?
Established programs are a strong choice because they appear
safe. We can, to some extent, expect this program to continue to be around, and
we are contributing to their continued success. It is a known quantity in that
we know what kind of result they produce because we have seen it year after
year. We know they are having an impact, and we don’t have to worry about our
donation being for nothing if they aren’t there next year because in all
likelihood, they will be around for a while. We also have more specifics about
the programs operations and budgets because they have it all down to a science.
However, just because a program has been around for years does not mean
Newer programs look less secure. We do not know how long
these programs will be around, or if they will go on after this year, or if
they will exist at all if they do not receive our grant. We do not know the
impact new programs will have because they have small or non-existent track
records, and without results it is difficult to justify giving. We do not know
if the community needs a these programs, because if there was a need, it would
seem logical to expect one to already be in place. The real issue, I believe,
with new programs, is that we are unsure and we do not want to take a risk.
I would argue that all philanthropy is inherently risky.
Even established programs have unfortunately ended, and every established
program has to start with someone taking the plunge. We are taking a gamble
that our grants will be impactful wherever we give them, so ruling out young
and new programs right out of the gate might be acting prematurely because they
might be exactly what is needed. I like the idea of funding a young or new
program and helping them get established, because if they find their footing
and can really serve the community for years to come, it would be nice to know
we played a part in that change. On the other hand, giving to an established
program eliminates some of the risk involved and allows a community staple to
continue to work. Hopefully the upcoming site visits can shed some light on
this topic and we can make a decision that will impact the youth of this
community for the better.
Very thought provoking, Lester. In the non-profit world, there are regular donations and grants that organizations revolve their world around. These yearly grants and only marginal fluctuations in total donations year after year allow non-profits to establish a plan effectively. There staple programs within their organizations that they know they will be able to run and run effectively each coming year.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of our donation, though, seems to differ from the two aforementioned sources of consistent income. Obviously, for these non-profits, the money is not only not guaranteed each year, it is most likely not going to be available to them again--certainly it is unlikely to be available again in the very near future. If a non-profit plans to use our money to fund an existing program that is already running well, yes we can be confident that the money will be put to good use. But, we should also realize that if it is already in the organization's plans to run this program, that if we do not give to them, they will find another source to fund it. However, the idea that our donation could fund a new program, or a spin-off program, or allow an existing program to become more accessible to a greater number of children is fascinating. To know that we have the ability to make or break a program is huge and we need to value this power. If we see an opportunity to do something new--something that an organization truly needs our donation for--and we have great faith in the organization and its ability to head off in this new direction and do it well, I feel that is an opportunity too great to pass up. Yes, unproven waters are sometimes scary and take its fair share of victims.. But, isn't it better that the organizations fail to do something new with our money and not the precious budget they are so used to allocating carefully each year. There is a reason people take gambles on penny stocks, folks, because they can pay off huge even though they are considered risks.
Hello Lester,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that donating to a new organization or funding a new project can be risky. The idea that we can be donating to a well-established organization might keep a successful program running sounds a lot more convincing and promising. However, to play devil’s advocate, as young donors, shouldn’t we donate to encourage entrepreneurs? Starting a new program without any statistical back up can almost be like throwing money into a hole. However, many organizations might just need that funding to start a successful program. If we decide, as a class, to donate to a well-established organization, will the new program never start? I believe the program will start, just a matter of time until they get the opportunity to receive the funding again. If everyone was skeptical like us and decide not to donate to a new program, the organization will never be able to kick the project off its feet and help the community like it was created to do.
I can relate to these organizations who are proposing a new program idea because I am currently trying to start a club on campus. I learned how difficult and hard it is to gain support and foster a community of people who are interested. If we donate money to these organizations, I will look forward to the type of events or programs they will be able to hold. And like one of the organizations wrote in their proposal, if we can start the new program for them, they can use this successful start as their way to get future funding. As a self-starter myself, I believe someone needs to be passionate about these issues to really try to push forth such risky ideas to potential donors and in my case, to students on campus. I hope this encouraged you to look at a new program differently and really give them a chance.
Lester, you ,made some great points. I agree that all donations to charities are risky. I personally look at it like investing in the stock market. Some stocks are safer than others; however, even the safe stocks could lose value. I think that when giving to an organization, especially with a specific focus, we should choose an organization with stability. We must determine the impact of our giving. For example, $10,000 could make a huge a difference, or it could be a drop in the bucket, if more significant funding is needed. I do not see any benefit giving to organization that has never started a program. How we do know that program will be successful? How do we know that they will be able to raise the additional money every year? Will the organization be able to absorb this program as part of their budget in the future? How do we know that people will be interested in joining and working in the program? There are a lot of unanswered questions and because of the uncertainty, I am leery about funding the new program.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Lester. I disagree with your statement that if there was a need for a program, we could reasonably expect there to be one in place already. Communities can always improve, and I would argue that there is more often than not going to be a gap that could be filled. What if this new program is that gap? I think what we should be thinking about when deciding about the Lourdes program is what the need in the community is, and how has the organization determined that this new program will address that need? In the RFP, the organization states that in recent years, there has been a rise in crimes committed by youth in Broome County. They state that currently, there is no existing program like the proposed one, and that other summer arts programs available are generally too expensive. I think at the site visit, we should ask them more about why they believe there is a need for this program, and how they see it being successful.
ReplyDeleteThis question of new vs old is very interesting and you introduced great points for both sides. I agree that the reason people are drawn to established programs is because there is significantly less risk there than supporting a new program. To have confidence in a new program, we need to put more effort in gathering information. Established programs can present results data that give donors an idea of what impact their money will make. Donors rely heavily on this type of data for their decision making process. For a new program, donors have to draw from other types of information. I would argue that site visits are especially important when evaluating a new program. To confidently support something new, a donor needs to be confident in the program's leadership. At a site visit, you have the chance of talking with the people who will work on the program. They need to be knowledgeable and passionate about the program if we are to consider supporting it. Despite the extra leg work that is needed when considering new programs, I believe they have certain benefits. New programs can create passion around them. Established programs can sometimes fall into the status quo. The leaders behind a new program are passionate to start something new which can be a very strong asset. Additionally, new programs can be used to target certain needs in the community that no other program is working on. Without the creation of the new program, that need will go without aid.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLester, thank you for taking the time to reflect on this further as the Lourde's program is the only finalist that will actually be starting something entirely new if granted our funds. That IS pretty exciting! And, perhaps, somewhat influential in making the final decision. However, too many questions still exist for me, which your presentation did a good job at mentioning. First, why theater arts? What have they done in the past with the students? Originally this group was on my top list before looking further into the RFP because it works with such a vulnerable population of students, and it seems that they may be of the greatest need in terms of our focus area. However, I am hoping that the site visit today will show us more regarding their measures of success and how these students have experienced improvements in their lives. I thought the Children's Home did an excellent job at this even in just sharing individual accomplishments to the residents of the program such as going to College, getting a job, and even getting a license. I also would like to know more about the type of budget involved. Do they have other funders, or state/government funding? Is it really likely to seek funding in later years to come like they suggest? Will they have enough staff to continue to seek funds and grow the program, or will they have people take on greater roles? If taking on greater roles, that may diminish the uniqueness of such a small and specialized program for the 8 students involved. I guess overall seeing that there are so many things to learn I may be feeling less excited about the idea of starting a new program overall. I am very much looking forward to hearing more today at the site visit.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.givewell.org/2015/05/14/funder-initiated-startups/
This blog from GiveWell features some organizations that began and excelled as a result of funders who were willing to invest in them. Optimistically it sounds great, but I love how the blog concludes stating:
"Our tentative view is that funders should think of “creating an organization” as a viable possibility, though as something of a last resort, since it is likely to be a much more intensive project than supporting an existing organization" (Holden, 2015).
It will be interesting to explore more, but I am more speculative of this organization in comparison to the others.
This was a very thought provoking post and it's really important for our class to weigh the pros and cons of both giving to an established organization or giving to a new program. I don't really think that the age of the program should weigh too heavily on our decision though. The goal of our class is to give to an organization that is going to do the most good and make the most change with our donation. Both new and existing organizations have the potential to do amazing things with our money. Like you said, we can assume that an existing program is going to be around for a while even after we find it, but we have the ability to get a new program on its feet and established. This new program could be because there is a need in the community for it and it might target a demographic that hasn't been helped in the past or by current programs. Because of this, we might consider giving to a new program for that reason alone; more people will be able to be aided by programs that they weren't helped by before. Also we aren't really dealing with any completely new organizations. Lourdes has been around for a long time and had other programs that are similar and have been proven to work. I believe that they know what they are doing and can manage our money successfully while making a huge impact on the community. There is a lot to consider when we make our decision, but as I said I don't think we should put so much emphasis on an organizations aid that we eliminate a program on the reasoning that it is too new and risky.
ReplyDeleteLester, I really enjoyed reading your post because it is something that I am struggling with as we move closer to our decision. Today, Ralphalla really caught my attention when she said that of course they’re risky to fund because there’s no data but look at where their program is today. At one time, this program also had no funding but today it is doing really well and it filled a need that people may not have known about. Because of this, the after school detention center and the YMCA have won me over because they are both new programs. They only differ because the YMCA was able to create a pilot program to show that their program would work. I think it would be great to donate to these organizations because we would make both a deep as well as a wide impact in the community and we can start a new
ReplyDeleteHowever, I know that some members of the class may have some reservations about donating to new programs, which is completely understandable. I think that many donors would be hesitant to donate to a new program and would feel safer in their investment in an established program. If a program is established, it shows that the community needs the program and the program is doing a good job at fixing the issues at hand. Overall, I don’t think that donating to a new or established program would prove to be better than another. As long as the community is being helped in a way that proves successful whether for the long run or a short time, I think that’s what matters the most.
I as well see this as an important dilemma that requires a lot of thought. When we look at where we want to donate our money, a huge factor is if the organization's outcomes match their mission statement (or goal). If an organization's outcomes do not fulfill their goal, then they are doing something wrong. The organization may not be solely to blame, as sometimes the people they are working to try and help are not always receptive to the help the organization is providing. Maybe the organization is actually providing great resources and help, but the people in need aren't using it and taking advantage of it properly. Either way, it is important to see the results an organization has before giving them more money, because if they are not getting their desired results, then why would one want to give them more money? I agree that it feels safer to give to an established program, because we know that just from the fact that it has been around for x amount of years means that it must be doing something right. However, you really need to look at their outcomes, and you can't just assume that just because they have been around for years means that they have good results in the program that they are asking money for.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, giving to a newer program definitely involves more risk. But, if everyone were to say that, then these older, more established programs that we talk about would never have come to existence...every program started somewhere. I believe that although looking at results of a program is a big indicator for whether or not we should donate to that program, if a program is brand new and because of that doesn't have any results to examine, it is also okay to donate to. I feel that if this new program's goals and mission aligns with ours, and we feel that there is a proper team in place and they are following the right steps to produce the results we want, then investing in a new program is totally okay to do, and sometimes even necessary to do (because as I said before, if no one gave money to these new programs, then there would never be new advances/organizations!)