Hey class, welcome back, I hope everyone had a good break.
Today we began to talk about rating non-for profits. This relates to giving where it will do the most good that Peter Singer preaches because if an organization is running well than this is where the most good will come from. We are looking at websites that are grading the charities and they have their scores. These scores are not definitive grades, though. The website has its criteria and we have our own. As we looked at charity navigator today it had a two tier grading system, acceptability and transparency, and financials. If I were grading an organization this is not how I would grade them. My grade would be based on one thing and one thing only, results. If an organization is running a system that is producing results and has means to continue to produce results than it is the best organization out there.
People get caught up in this mind set of, oh well look at what could of happened. All these organizations out there are helping humanity. If an organization wants to put McDoubles into the mouths of homeless people than by all means go ahead. They will probably have trouble getting funding and will then fail. So in my mind just surviving as an organization is successful. If there is an issue and somebody has an idea than he should try to solve it. We need more people out in the world helping others. We do not need to do the most good. We need to just do good. If your solution is a good one than people will find out about it and they will help you help others because there are other people that are going to have the same interest in an issue area.
Here is an organization that gives help to guinea pigs,http://www.ctguineapigrescue.org/. This one, http://www.noetic.org/about/overview is out there to help the science of conscience. These organizations are not doing the most good for society, but they are helping society. In my mind these are important for the world we live in. There needs to be someone to fight for every issue out there and I hope there is. Let me know where you stand on this.
Mike, I thoroughly enjoyed your blog post as it encompassed what we discussed in class today and what we will be discussing in the classes in the near future. I completely agree with you on your point that organizations that rate and grade nonprofits do not and cannot give a definitive grade. I am a firm believer that everyone should see an organization for themselves and do their own research so that they can have the capability to make their own decision about whether or not an organization is effective or ineffective. Donors should not solely go off of what other people and other organizations say because my opinion of what makes for a good organization could be radically different than theirs. Prospective donors and philanthropists must get out there and go see for themselves so that they can make an educated decision about what to do with their money. However, I do see the benefit of these organizations because donors can use them as a guide for where to give. Uneducated donors should take some advice from the more experienced people who rank these organizations, but with that said, again they cannot solely base their giving decision off of a website which is why I believe that our site visits are the most important part of our grant making process. I am also in agreement with you that results are an integral part of determining the success of an organization. If an organization is able to elicit results and effect change in their field, then they are a very good organization and donors should donate to them if they share the same interests. Therefore, if that organization is getting results helping guinea pigs and I love guinea pigs, then I should donate to that organization because even though it may have a low ranking, the organization will achieve the goals that I want to be achieved.
ReplyDeleteHi Mike,
ReplyDeleteI really like the title for your blog post, “Not All Issues Are Big Issues” and this is a great topic that is relevant to our recent class discussion as well. When we looked at Charity Navigator in class I felt like it provided a lot of information for many researchers and bigger donors who want to do the most good they can or learn more about an organization through a third-party service. But as an average donor, I prefer to donate to where I am can relate to or feel as if I can really help make a difference. I found it very interesting when Professor Campbell shared what he learned about people in Turkey is that they choose to donate to people they see need help.
I started to see that culture and background plays a big role in how we give and even the way my parents give back is different from how I give back. For example, my mom would always donate to the New York City subway dancers because she says that they are not robbing anyone but they are performing and earning money by themselves. Therefore, I should support them so they continue to work hard instead of becoming criminals by stealing. But there are also individuals who want to see the data and numbers to support their donation. This article (http://nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/a/How-Millennials-Are-Changing-Charitable-Giving.htm) shows some of the different ways millennials might change traditional philanthropy into more technology reliance and data driven versus following the heart donation. And maybe those individuals who are more driven by results will want to visit the Charity Navigator website and GiveWell.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteI thought that your comments are valid and I appreciate reading the points you made. I do find it somewhat comical how different your viewpoints are from Peter Singer's, I'm sure you did not resonate well with his book on "The Most Good you can do." I think that all people should try and contribute to society and give back when they can. I also believe that this can become extremely complicated because we all have different opinions, worldviews, and passions. What makes one issue more important than another? However, I do find your ideas to be somewhat extremist. I think that doing something that helps the homeless is more significant than helping guinea pigs, but hey, that's just me. I don't want to undermine the importance of guinea pigs, but I also feel like services like charity navigator help us to determine how our small sums of money can be the most impactful.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDeleteI thought that your comments are valid and I appreciate reading the points you made. I do find it somewhat comical how different your viewpoints are from Peter Singer's, I'm sure you did not resonate well with his book on "The Most Good you can do." I think that all people should try and contribute to society and give back when they can. I also believe that this can become extremely complicated because we all have different opinions, worldviews, and passions. What makes one issue more important than another? However, I do find your ideas to be somewhat extremist. I think that doing something that helps the homeless is more significant than helping guinea pigs, but hey, that's just me. I don't want to undermine the importance of guinea pigs, but I also feel like services like charity navigator help us to determine how our small sums of money can be the most impactful.
Mike, I really enjoyed your blog post as it pertains to what we will be thinking about for the next few weeks. Like you, I agree that any step towards making a difference in the lives of those that need it is one that is greatly needed and should be scrutinized less. If an organization is making a difference than it should be rated accordingly. However, I do understand that donor’s worry that their funds may not go where they want them to, i.e. in the pockets of the staff. In order for an organization to run to the best of its ability, I believe that the staff needs to feel properly compensated for their work. Although the current rubric that charity navigator bases its reviews off of does effect an organizations rating, I agree that the results of the nonprofits should be most heavily weighed because this, of course, is what both the organization and the donors want to see; results.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the guinea pig charities, I believe that these are great to fund because they may have great ideas but no way to act upon them. However, I think that the name “ctguineapigrescue” may shed some bad light on these groups because people may be reluctant to donate to something that sounds like a science experience (even though it is, it may be better to donate the money to the foundation so that it doesn’t sound as risky). I do think that this organization has good intensions and someone should help out newer nonprofits. Aforementioned, because of the risk involved with donating to what seems like a science experiment, I don’t think that I would donate my money here and I wouldn’t be surprised if other people felt the same way.
Hey Mike, nice post. I think that you made some interesting points, specifically about charity rating organizations. While I agree with you that giving is almost always good, I am unsure if we can disregard charity rating organizations all together.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, results are important when determining what charity to give to. If a charity is making a huge difference and impacting a large amount of people, does it really matter if that charity is transparent? Even if it doesn't an organization that isn't transparent may not be one you wish to donate to, despite them getting good results.
I believe that charity rating organizations are important for obtaining information on charities, but shouldn't be the sole factor in making a decision about whether to donate. As you mentioned, some websites have ranking categories that may not be relevant to philanthropy at all. Also, it is hard to determine that the charities are ranked on proper criteria. In class we've talked about how there are different methods to testing effectiveness. Is one superior than another? Should we consider one charity ranking organization over another by how they collect and analyze data? I would say most likely yes.
In the end, I think it is important to research a charity before donating to it. Charity ranking websites are great ways of helping you to research before you give, but should not be the sole factor you consider when donating. I also believe that you may need to research the specifics of the charity ranking organization you're using before you can make a truly informed decision with your money.
I agree that it is important to note the ways nonprofit rating websites, like charity navigator, rate nonprofits. I believe they generally take a good approach when ranking these nonprofits, and often cover many of the important aspects one should know when considering where to donate their money. I do agree with you that the organization's results and outcomes of the work that they do is essential to know when considering which organization to donate to. Obviously a donor wants to donate to a nonprofit that is having a positive impact on the community and is effectively following their mission statement.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your comment on how it's not always necessary for us to do the MOST good, but to do good in general. I feel that when possible, doing the most good is ideally the right choice. But in an average person's real life this is not always possible, therefore doing good in general would suffice.
While I do agree that organizations by all means don't have to do the most good, according to Peter Singer's logic, I do believe that looking at more than just the results is important to seeing how a nonprofit functions.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the former, as I'd said during the week on Singer, I think that deToqueville's idea of variety in the nonprofit sector for benefits a government cannot provide or stipulate is key when discussing why the most good isn't necessarily essential. Examples such as the ones you've provided, Mike, are a testament to that very sort of variety which not only allows for multiple (and not only the subjectively "most needy") causes to be addressed, but also inspires more people to donate, because of the higher chance of personal interest in a cause inherent in a more varied system.
Meanwhile, though, I do think that only results reports are not sufficient to see how well an organization is functioning; for instance on the books an organization could appear just fine, but actually be eking out the same results with a more disenfranchised staff, a consecutively larger debt, etc., and be on the road to discord. Instead I think an approach like Crutchfield's in "Forces for Good" would be more appropriate, where a more holistic but still substantive analysis of organizations prevails over just looking at results, because of the systematic research approach he and his team used. Even more so than Charity Navigator's criteria, I think his system's level of specificity is a great indicator for how efficiently and cohesively the inner mechanisms of organizations are functioning. And while such an in-depth analysis may not always be necessary, I think that in the face of the general ambiguity of so many yields in the nonprofit world, looking more closely at these mechanisms is preferable to a more topical approach.
I agree that results are of the utmost importance when deciding how to give philanthropically. An organization can possibly be very organized and well-funded, but not achieving results. However, like you said, an organization without success is likely not to get much funding or public support, so out goes the funding. Without the funding, the organization can obviously not survive financially, so when being graded their financial scores will be very weak. This score is somewhat a representation of an organizations ability to produce results in a way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that anyone seeking to do “good”, whether it be something small like trying to build a community park, to something huge like trying to reduce poverty around the world, should be applauded. Doing the most good possible means we would probably have a lot of support behind a small number of issues and very little behind the more expensive issues. But is one project less “good” than another if they are both trying to help make the world better? These are the kind of questions we each have to consider on our own. It is not wrong to want to consult a charity grading source to see how an organization stacks up to certain criteria if that criteria is what is important to you when considering where to give. It is also not wrong to give to an organization that may have scored poorly on those grading criteria if you believe in the cause and believe in the work being done. In the end, considering our own personal philanthropy, it is your money; give it as you see fit and in pursuit of your goals. Hopefully those goals are to help make this world better in some way.