Our class has now completed all five of our site visits. Although it took up a lot of class time and required some travel it was my favorite part of our class so far. I was able to learn a lot about nonprofits and the way they are run but I was also learned about Broome County and Binghamton. The site visits also supplied the class with information about the organizations that we would not have gotten from a piece of paper or a website. For example, I personally was very hesitant about supporting the Lourde’s DAASP program based off only their response to our RFP because I didn’t really understand what the program was trying to achieve or how it was going to be structured. After with meeting with the people from Lourde’s and the specific program I was able to learn more about the type of program they are interested in starting. I also liked that they passed around papers with answers to the questions that we sent them because it allowed our class to learn more about the program from their responses but also saved time for us to ask new questions that we may have come up with that day.
One of the most interesting questions to hear a response to was Professor Campbell’s question about why the employees got involved in with their organization. I really enjoyed hearing the responses of all the representatives. Their answers definitely showed that they were not there for the money, but because they truly cared about the lives of the children and want to see them be successful.
When comparing the site visits, I think one of things that made the biggest difference for me was the attitude of the person or people that were presenting their program. It was great to see Dan at the YMCA be so passionate about his job and the programs they offer. It was also great to see Jennifer and her co-worker at Urban League talk about the kids that they help with their programs. It seemed to me that they are excited to get up and go to their jobs in the morning, and that encourages me to help support their organization.
Based off site visits alone the top two organizations I would like to support are the Urban League and Lourde’s DAASP. I think both of the programs that they proposed help youth in need, which is what our class wanted to see happen. The programs were also presented in a very positive way and their presentations helped us to see what the programs would accomplish. A highlight of the Lourde’s presentation was when they got our class involved in a game that they would play with the youth in their program. The Urban League stands out to me because of the passion of their employees and the scrapbook they passed around that was made by their own students.
What did you think of our site visit experiences? What organization would you like to support based on the site visits alone? Do you think it’s fair to base our decision solely on the site visit or are there other things we need to consider?
Based off of the site visits, I also really liked Lordes. Being part of the group that presented on the organization, I could have been biased for the organization but I definitely went in with some concerns. From the RFP alone, the organization looked sort of underdeveloped and undersupported, and I was apprehensive.
ReplyDeleteI also think that an organization's employees can make or break its efforts. The Lordes representatives were extremely passionate about the students that they help, and really seemed to believe in them. They were well-versed in their needs, fully explained all the resources they offered and seemed extremely confident in how the summer program that they plan to fund with a grant from our class would be beneficial for them.
A major point that the site visit addressed that I found extremely important was the career/future benefits this program would bring to the kids. Many of them do not have anything except arrests on their track records, and holding a job for the summer would allow them to create a resume with productive experiences.
I know a few members of our class expressed concern that we would be funding a project that had no promise of continuing itself going forward. Personally, I have faith that this program will be impactful enough to find funding for years to come. But alternatively, I also think it is important to realize that the effects that just this summer can have on the kids' futures is extremely beneficial.
I also found professor Campbell's question on why people do the work that they dedicate themselves to very fascinating. Any time I meet someone or have an interview at an organization I would like to intern for, I tend to ask them how they got to where they are and why they like doing the work. Especially being college students trying to figure out who we want to be in the world and what we want to do, it can be very inspiring to learn about the paths that others have taken.
ReplyDeleteI believe that our site visit experiences have been a really great way to get the bigger pictures of what the organizations offer. Also, it has been very exciting to see the "heart and soul" behind the proposals and budgets. Getting to see the sites in-person have allowed us to understand the various aspects of each organization, get an idea of their needs, and ask questions in person that gave us quick, honest, and comprehensive answers.
While the site visits have been greatly informational, I do not think it is possible to use that experience as the only determining factor about what organizations receive the grants. All of the organizations have varying sites and ways in which they are physically structured. Therefore, just comparing the site visits without all of the documents they submitted would be like comparing apples to oranges without considering the health benefits and tastes of the two fruits. If we were only to consider site visits as the sole decision-making resource, then there would be no point in our creation of requests for proposals and requirement of proposals and budgets for submission. The proposals and budgets give us the objective perspective that is necessary to make sound decisions.
I really enjoyed the site visits for many reasons. Firstly, they put a face to the organization. This is really important because when thinking about the site visit, my first thought is who we talked to and if they were helpful and/or passionate about what they were doing. In places where we were met with multiple people it was important to see a sense of professionalism between the workers.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that we should base our decision solely on the site visits for a few reasons. To begin, a lot of the info that was mentioned at the site visit was not mentioned in the RFP and vice-versa. I think that the two need to be considered as a pair and we should not make judgments based on one without the other.
Based on the RFP and the site visit, am still undecided between 3 organizations; the YMCA, Urban League, and the detention center. After the site visits, I feel as if Urban League and the detention center also would benefit greatly from our donation. However, my gut says the YMCA would also make a difference. After talking with Anita today in class, I feel as if the class should take her advice and look at things the way she does when making a decision. The YMCA and the detention center are the only two organizations that take place at the schools or offer transportation, which is a concern many of us had. Because of this, I think that I am leaning towards these two organizations to receive our grant.
I agree that going to the sites was very important for making the decision because being there allowed us to understand the people and the program way more than reading answers off the RFP. I think we are lucky as a class to be able to give to an organization that is really passionate about what they do because all of them are. It would make me really happy if we could help everyone of the people we met with because they seemed like genuinely great people. However, we are not going to be giving grants to everybody. The trickiest part for me is the program grant because I liked every organization, but not the individual programs as much. Children's Home seems like a great organization, but I'm not sold on putting a small number of kids into apartments instead of helping more than 18 kids. Also I do not fully understand the YMCAs program due to Dan focusing on the YMCA as a whole and not the specific program. I feel that my favorite organization was the Urban League. My favorite part of them was that they are trying to put people to work.
ReplyDeleteHello Maria,
ReplyDeleteOur five site visits presented another side of an organization to me. As a student, I usually go to an organization to volunteer and the supervisor will direct me to my responsibilities. The only time I get to hear about an organization’s future plan is on the first day of training or when other volunteers hear through rumors. However, as one of the donors, my experience with organizations have allowed me to sort of be on the “upper-hand,” and know the direction the organization wants to go. And it is very interesting to see how an organization can grow within their target issue.
To address your second question, after learning about the organization through their proposals and site visit, I really liked Lourdes Alternative Detention Program. Like I mentioned in a previous blog post, I will like to support a new program because I know how challenging it is to gather supporters. But what really stood out about the organization was the fact that they focus on the strengths of the youth. Working with youth with a record on their history can be challenging, especially when they are susceptible to being the target for bullies. Like Ralphalla said, it takes a long time for these youth to trust others because they have been exposed to different environment from us. Instead of labeling these youth who were dealers as the “bad/naughty” kids, the social worker saw them as a good sales person or someone who is great at math. It was eye-opening and very interesting to see what these social workers or supervisors thought about the youth they work with, and this made me believe they are passionate about helping these students because they were able to see beyond their mistakes.
A site visit can tell us a lot about an organization, because it can show us what the leaders wanted to present to us, but we can also see what type of person the leader is. Whether he is passionate or not will be one of the factors for me when evaluating these five organizations. However, this is not to say that the proposal can be ignored because some presenters might be a more eloquent speakers compared to others. And I think one of the decisions we need to decide as a group is what factors are most important to us as we vote for our final choices.
I have greatly enjoyed going to the site visits and seeing what the organizations are all about. It is difficult to visualize what the location may look like or how exactly they operate just based on existing knowledge prior to visiting. Going in person helped shine light on many aspects of the organizations which were not evident based solely on their responses to the RFP and other accessible information from their websites. Of course, in person, we were able to pick up on the space that the organizations have, what the employees are like and their passion, and hear more about the programs they have to offer which might have been unclear from their responses to the RFP.
ReplyDeleteBased on the site visits, I would like to give to Urban League and Lourde’s DAASP program. I believe the site visit is one of the most important factors to consider, yet it is not the only factor. For instance, their RFP responses are important because a lot of that information might not be explained in person such as their budgets. Additionally, many of the questions we asked after reading their responses were extremely important and would not have been answered had we not been prompted to ask by reading their responses. However, as Annita discussed during our skype call, seeing the passion an organization has, as well as feeling a connection to what they do are important to consider, as well. There are also many other characteristics of an organization and their staff members that might be determined by going including how knowledgeable they are about their services and youth (or whatever field their expertise may be in), their professionalism, and their pitch. Both of these organizations demonstrated these traits and I might not have felt this way or chosen them as my forerunners if not for the site visits due to the inconclusiveness of the RFP responses.
I do not think it is fair just to make our choice based on the site visit. During the visit the organization is going to put on its best act to try to persuade the class to give them the money. Even thought the site visit at the YMCA was really amazing and the guy who showed us around did a great job of selling the organization, I cannot consider giving them the money because I do not think the program is worthwhile. At the same time, I thought the Children’s center had a good program; however, I thought their pitch to our class was weak. I was not impressed with their presentation and it was embarrassing when they could not respond to a question, based on material they had given to our class. I am in real quandary about how to process the money.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree, Maria, that going to these site visits has been the most satisfying experience of this class. Actually seeing the sites as well as hearing about (and gaining a more intimate understanding of) the inner mechanisms of their operations has been a much more tangible and rewarding experience than any amount of research standalone, in my opinion. The Urban League is the organization for which I find myself most supportive, as it stands at the moment, and not just because of my prior contact with Jennifer. It is because of an aspect I noticed similar to what Professor Campbell was trying to elicit with that question you'd mentioned, Maria: specifically, I'm talking about how the staff very obviously incorporates their respective reasons and passions for their jobs towards helping the children at hand.
ReplyDeleteHearing Jennifer, the CEO, say that she tries as often as possible to play with/interact with the kids as well was perhaps the most obvious example of this. Her job is solely to oversee and plan the operations of the nonprofit; however, she doesn't separate herself, as one might think, from the people working on the ground, so to speak, with the kids, because of how passionately she feels about the Urban League (especially from inspiration from her adolescence). An example from the other perspective displays perhaps even more earnestly how intensively the workers approach the children, and how effective this can be: after all, the children themselves are obviously very keen on their time with the Urban League workers, seeing as they made that scrapbook themselves, filled with pleasant memories. It's apparent from flipping through that scrapbook that the question I had about whether or not the students actually enjoy the activities provided and imparted by these workers and the Urban League is very much answered by the images of smiles and integrating groups of children strewn throughout that book they made.
To me, this kind of depth is the most holistically effective for changing children's lives, especially because of how personally and closely all of the Urban League members clearly focus on the children. And, honestly, that sort of information couldn't have been gleaned from an RFP, and is why I'm ultimately so thankful for having visited all of these sites, and especially the Urban League, after the fact.
I agree that although the site visits took some time out of the classroom, they were my favorite part of the semester so far. I feel that from actually walking around and seeing the facilities of the nonprofits, you learn and understand the nonprofit far more than you ever can from reading about them online or reading their RFP.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it is really important to see and hear how the employees respond to the question "how do you like working here/ why do you do what you do?" This is something you can not get over email, reading an RFP, or reading their website. This is when we can see how much their day to day work truly means to them, and how devoted and dedicated they are to the work that they do...bringing them happiness and joy everyday. I agree that this attitude of the presenter definitely has a big impact on the vibes of the tour and our take away from the site visit. If the presenter is enthusiastic and clearly has a deep passion for the organization, we can feel that passion through the way they speak, and this is very important.
After going through the five site visits, I feel as though the organization we should support is the Broome County Urban Leauge. Although I may be biased, as this was the organization I presented on, I really feel that they successfully accomplish everything that we originally wanted to see in an organization, with an emphasis on childhood education. In addition to going above and beyond with children and their after school and summer enrichment programs, the Broome County Urban League helps hundreds of families and adults in Broome County, whether it be with their technology center or with helping pay family's utility bills, the Broome County Urban League truly does it all. I feel that they should receive our Program Grant and our Operating Grant because they are the best fit for it.
Great post Maria, you make a relevant point on how important site visits are in the decision-making process. How much should we really way them? I think the site visit process, is a huge sphere in the many aspects to a philanthropic organization. The site visit displays the character of the organization, and some of the organizational issues as well. Our site visits have really given us an inside look to many of these organizations, and has influenced my decision-making heavily. I think the site visit is much like an interview too. At first we take in applications, guage our interests, then extend them an opportunity to interview with us, where we provide additional questions to get to know them. An article on philanthropyroundtable, talks about an important point in the interview process, and that is, the ability to pinpoint inconsistencies in particular (1). Some of these inconsistences, could be something as simple as understanding the true goal behind their process, or simply them leaving out information. For one thing, Catholic Charities was a difficult organization to give an accurate prediction, because they were often on different wavelengths when it came to professionalism. In person they appeared together, but there's no denying it got difficult at times to get a hold of them, and they did not respond quickly.
ReplyDeleteBased on site visits alone, I'd most likely say Urban League. They displayed the most character, and I felt that I could trust them. Again, since this is like an interview, its important to be as presentable as possible, but also display a lot of passion. From the site visits, I should be able to feel something during it, and not just understand the facts. Urban League appealed the most to that emotional aspect for me, especially in their passion in dealing with special education students. I could tell also, that they had a high rate of efficiency, because they were just so smart in how they handled their resources. They used student volunteers for example, to cut back on costs for watching the kids. Even so, they maintained amazing relationships with these interns, and I think that goes a long way to understanding the mentality behind the operation in an organization.
I do think, though it is a bit unfair to judge it solely on the site visit, because it leaves out hugely important factors such as financials, which can indicate, also how fiscally intelligent they have been in the past. There's also so much information you cannot ask in a site visit, due to the virtue of time and the environment, so there are other topics that you'll often miss. The site visits are big piece of the puzzle, but they should not influence our whole decision. As a class we need to fundamentally look at not just the character we learned at those visits, but also how they conduct themselves on other interfaces too, and their important past contributions.
(1)http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/a_better_site_visit
Based on the site visits and everything else we have learned about the organizations and programs, my top two choices are Lourdes and Urban League. I think it would be really great to jumpstart a program, especially because we might be the only ones who are willing to take that risk. If no one else wants to fund it, it will never get started. I think taking the risk of starting a new program is worth it because it could potentially be very successful and grow in the future. I believe Urban League and Lourdes both have the most holistic approach in that they don't just deal with academics or social problems, but combine them to make very comprehensive programs.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I think we should definitely be thinking about what would happen to an organization if we didn't fund it. In the beginning of the class, that wasn't on my mind so much, but many of us have brought it up lately, and then Anita talked about it in her Skype call. I think it is an important point because it is a way for us to determine where we could really make a difference.
I too have enjoyed the site visits a great deal. They have given us an opportunity to see, at some level, how the organizations/programs operate. It has been nice to see where these organizations operate, to see their space, and get a better feel for the environment of the organization. The site visits have also been probably my favorite part of the class as well because we have been able to get closer to seeing the change being made in the lives of Broome County youth.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we should make our decision based only on the site visits. While they should be a major factor for consideration, we need to look at the proposals and all our other interactions with the organization as well as what we learn about them from other sources. At the site visits, these organizations were putting their best foot forward and trying to make a good impression on us; we must take the "fluff" with a grain of salt. While it can be a resource and a determining factor, it cannot be the only thing we consider. At some of the visits, we did not get to see the actual location of the programs, which that obviously benefits those where we got to see where the programs happens. Some visits, the representatives may have been nervous or ill, and that should not be blatantly held against them. There are so many other factors we must consider along side the site visits. To only consider our visit would mean we are not performing our task properly. We must consider as much information as possible and make as well informed a decision as we possibly can.