Yesterday, our class had the wonderful opportunity to talk to Anita Borkenstein about philanthropy, giving, and decision making. What I found most interesting was how many parallels were drawn between Impact 100 and our class. As we discussed Anita’s work, it was as if we were talking about our own. At the core of these two projects is collective giving. Collective giving versus individual giving presents its own risks, challenges, and rewards. I personally like the idea of collective giving. I like that collective giving creates a discussion and presents options to donate outside of our initial individual choices. Before taking this class, I didn’t realize how many non-for profits there were in Broome County alone. By working together, our interests pooled together a variety of options in different fields, industries, and practices that we would not have come up with on our own. Like our Skype session pointed out, as much as we would like to help every cause out there, our funds can only stretch so far to be effective.
What I found most useful was our discussion about decision making. We are at the point in this class where a decision has to be made. One of the questions that Anita asks herself when coming to a decision is, “Is this project transformational”? Each of our finalist organizations presents a unique opportunity to positively affect Broome County. Our grant has the potential to continue a pilot program, provide therapy to those in need, fund after school programs, or start an entirely new program. There is no doubt in my mind that whatever organization we choose, it will enact positive change. Another question we considered was, “What will happen if we don’t support an organization”? We always consider the future of the decisions we make but never the future that would have been from the decisions we don’t make. In the case of the Lourdes Detention After School Program, lack of funding from our grant will eliminate this program all together. As a result, eight children who would have been having a productive summer and developing skills will likely be on the street continuing life as they normally would. The opportunity for a challenging and positive summer experience will be taken away. Is this the future we want for them? Certainly not, but this is the cost of not funding programs like this. After the Skype discussion, I feel that Lourdes best fits the need for our grant. Their performing arts program takes initiative within the community because it would be the first of its kind that is affordable and accessible to at risk children. Without our support, this organization will not even get the opportunity to establish a pilot program to prove themselves for future funding. Unlike other organizations we have met, there are no additional grants to look forward to if ours falls through for them. Furthermore and most importantly, if this program does not happen, students lose the chance to have a paid summer internship, develop leadership skills, and be part of a structured program that utilizes creative outlets that would otherwise be left untapped. My gut tells me that this is the program to choose. I like the enthusiasm of the leaders for the program, their professionalism in preparing answers for the questions we asked them, and the effort they made in engaging us with group activities. I hope that as a class we can apply Anita’s insight on decision making towards every organization to guide our final choice. I look forward to seeing which organization we select!
Some things to consider:
How has the Skype discussion affected your decision making choice? Is there a particular organization you are in favor of or against? Were there any questions you thought of now that you wish you would’ve asked?
Christina C.
Hi Jessie
ReplyDeleteI also thought that our skype call with Anita was very beneficial. As you pointed out, the points that she made has paralleled much of what we have discussed in class. I was especially impressed when Anita said that she takes into account whether or not an organization can get funding elsewhere, and what will happen to the community if they do not get her funding.
As we wrap up the decision making process, these are two points that have weighed heavily on my mind. No, I do not think our skype discussion affected my decision making choice, because what Anita said has already been such an important topic to me. If anything it just confirmed my feelings, and validated what I foresee as my vote for who we donate to. While I am a big fan of Catholic Charities, I know from looking at their finances that they receive a lot of funding from medicaid and the government. They also have received a different grant every year, so I am confident that if we don't fund them, they will still maintain their program. The same goes for YMCA, which is also a large nonprofit.
Taking all of this into consideration, I am particularly in favor of Lourdes Detention After School Program as well. Without our funding, not only will this program not exist, but it will have a large negative impact on the community. The students that Lourdes helps have been cast off my the district, and as we were told on our site visit, are similar to the "island of the misfit toys."
Looking back, I wish I asked Anita a question that I was a little shy to ask, simply because I thought that it was not relevant to our class discussion. I was curious to see, as a woman, how she has been treated in the nonprofit world. She is the leader of her giving circle, and therefore she is the one who everyone answers to. I hope that she receives the same respect as a man in the professional nonprofit world, but I am curious to see if this is actually true.
Thank you for an engaging post!
Hey Jessie, it's cool that the Skype call resonated with you enough to blog about it. I really enjoyed the conversation as well.
ReplyDeleteTo your first point, I was definitely reminded of our class when Anita discussed her giving circle. It seems that they go through an extremely similar process when deciding which nonprofit to fund. From accepting RFP's to visiting sites and even having group presentations of each organization. I also agree that thinking about what will happen to a charity if we don't give them the money is important. I had never thought about that, and Anita brought it to my attention.
I am unsure if that question, what will happen if we don't fund a charity, has persuaded me towards any charity as much as it has you. You say that the children at Lourdes will lose a summer program that could be beneficial to them. This is true, and in no way good. However, one question I have is how bad is it to lose something that you don't have in the first place? The kids haven't been effected by the program yet and so wouldn't know what they are missing. Obviously I would love to fund the Lourdes program, but I would also love to fund every program.
I am still on the fence of which program to fund. The Skype call opened my eyes to some new questions, however it did not sway me one way or the other. To me I think the decision is going to come down to a question of width or depth. Do we want to help more kids not as much or fewer kids a lot? Is there somewhere in between? I am still unsure. Anyways, thanks for the interesting post Jessie.
I think that after talking to Anita, this has given my more tools to use towards our decision-making skills. As you mentioned, she looks for a program that may not exist if Impact 100 does not fund it and also looks for an organization that would be transformational to both the organization and those that use the program. Because of the latter, I have added more criteria to my list in order to choose an organization. We always focus on the impact of the program on the individuals that use it but not always the organization. At one of the site visits, someone mentioned that they were concerned that the organization was spreading itself too thin by getting involved too much. This is something that I think we should think about also because if the organization is not fully focused on the program that we fund than the program might fail.
ReplyDeleteI am still undecided in which organization to fund. I agree with you, however, that I liked Lordes Detention After School Program the most out of all of the organizations that we have looked at. When I walked in, the first thing that I thought to myself was “wow this looks like the basement of my friends house. There are so many choices for games.” I can tell that kids would like to hang out here which is important because we want to know that our money would be put to good use. I am undecided on which other organization we should give our money to at this point.
I also thought that our skype call with Anita was fascinating and helpful in the process. Thinking back on the question, "What will happen if we don’t support an organization?" I don't think that by not funding the Lourdes we'd have the most negative impact. I don't know for sure, but it could be that if we didn't fund the program, those kids would still be part of DAASP, just without the internship. In that case, I might rather fund a program that would provide a service that wouldn't be rendered otherwise.
ReplyDeleteTo me, two other programs also could still do most of the work they do without our funding. Children's home mentioned using our money in order to renovate their space and provide better amenities to those in the program. This is important, but I don't think that without our funding, the people in the program would be too negatively impacted. Similarly, it seems that without our funding, the Urban League would still be able to run the summer camp. Our money would undoubtedly help these programs do great things, but I think they could accomplish them without it too.
In light of this, I'm personally leaning towards Catholic Charities. They have a long waitlist, so our funding would make sure that more kids had access to much needed-therapeutic care. Without our funding, many kids would not have access to this care and their problems may go unnoticed or untreated. I still have reservations about Catholic Charities, but in asking that question, I think not funding their program would have the most negative impact.
Christina, very nice and relevant post. You raise a few thought provoking questions. I'm happy you raised them.
ReplyDeleteAnita said something that was huge for me. It completely opened my eyes. She said that we don't necessarily want to give to an organization that can acquire the funding from another source. Prior to Anita saying this, I was almost in favor of giving to an organization that could acquire the money elsewhere because it signaled to me that they were stable. While stability is still important to me, I now realize that the significance of our donation can potentially be mitigated if the group receiving it truly does not need it. With Anita's caution in mind, I still believe it is important to give to a stable organization, but I am newly committed to re-reviewing which organization needs the money to do what they want to do. This leads me to heavily favor stable organizations that as a whole have other sources of funding but are interested in going off in a new direction with a new program or the expansion of an existing program that they could only afford with our money. I feel this is a good common ground between a stable organization and one with need. I will really have to think about which organization best fits this description.
I guess my answer to your second question kind of hinges on the fact that I feel I now need to reevaluate all the options. But right now, if I had to list a few that I'm in favor of, it would be the Urban League because I was a big fan of their pitch and I respect how they run their organization--it strikes me as a very stable organization to give money to. With that being said, I now need to ask, is it too stable? But, I was a fan. I was also in favor of giving to the Children's Home because as Anthony pointed out yesterday, they clearly have a pressing need for funding, and they also seem to be running a great organization. The YMCA is also a well established organization, though. It was looking to expand on an already successful program with the money we would give them. Those three give me a lot to consider. I will do some further research and thinking, but as of right now, they would be my top three.
But, no, I'm comfortable with all we asked of Anita.
Good post! Really got me thinking.
I agree that the timing of Anita's call couldn't have come at a better time. As we enter the decision making process, I feel as though all the finalist organizations have many good aspects, and we have so much information available to us. It almost feels overwhelming to have to choose just one organization. Anita brought up multiple points that I hadn't thought of such as how collaboration can slow down some processes within a program. I thought it was interesting to see an application of collective giving outside our class. Anita gave us insight into how collective giving can operate on a large scale. I was surprised by the organization involved in the Impact 100. Each of the individual committees seemed to operate similar to how our class does. The size allows the organization to evaluate a large number of local organizations by splitting up the information gathering between the committees similar to how our class is divided into groups to research individual organizations.
ReplyDelete