So far in our class, we were able to conduct two site visits - one at Catholic Charities and the YMCA. Both were very different experiences in my opinion. Before we conducted these site visits, we were given the chance to review the RFP. After each group's presentations, we were able to get a sort of in-depth view at what the organizations requested money for and how successful they were at accomplishing their respective missions. However, I think that there is more that meets the eye than just the RFP alone - as both of the site visits were unlike what the RFP had set forth.
Upon hearing the RFP presentation on Catholic Charities, I was pretty convinced that they did a good job at accomplishing their mission statement and reaching out to as many people as possible. However, after seeing the site for myself, my high opinion of the organization sort of changes. Yes, I still believe that they are a respectable organization that should receive aid if our class provides it, but I don't think that they are a top contender on my list so far. Yes, I am well aware that we only have attended two site visits so far, but I thought that the YMCA site visit was much more eye-opening. We were able to see the facility and see actual people using the services that the Y actually provides. To me, seeing is so much more effective and emotionally appealing than just hearing someone talk about what their organization does and does not do. Rather than just chatting with us for an our, the YMCA donor outreach director took us around the whole site and even did a quick Q&A session that was rather emotionally appealing. He shared with us why he loves the job that he does and I think that that really got the classes attention. I just wish that they also applied for the organizational grant just so they have a better chance of receiving any type of funding if they do not end up winning the program fund. It is amazing how much a site visit can really alter one's opinion of the organization as a whole! Also, I think that Catholic Charities had a lot of debt that they have incurred over time - so that is another set back. The YMCA seems more established as they have the funds to support this program but they are seeking our class funds to expand to other school as well.
Here are a few questions that I have for the class:
1. What is your opinion of the site visits so far?
2. Do you think that the RFP's did a fair job at conveying the organization's goals? And vice versa.
3. What's more effective in your opinion, touring the organization's facilities or have an hour long Q&A session?
I, unfortunately, was unable to attend the first site visit. However, having now seen two other facilities I have a good idea of what I would want to see at one. Especially due to YMCA being the first site visit I attended, they set an extremely high standard for all of the other organization to live up to. As you mentioned, the guided tour was amazing, as it gave us a sense of the whole facility and the many ways it can actually be utilized. I was unaware during this visit, that this was not typical of every site visit and had assumed that Catholic Charities must have done the same, as well. Yet, finding out that this was a first really allowed the YMCA to stand out to the class due to our ability to truly visualize where our money would be going (although the program was not in that specific facility).
ReplyDeleteChildren’s Home’s site visit, on the other hand, was set up as I imagine Catholic Charities was, which was informative but did not allow us to see the true passion of the organization. However, one thing that Children’s Home did shine light on for me is the importance of paying the salaries of those who work for these organizations. Our class has discussed this topic before, and each time something felt weird to me about giving to the staff and not the children. After hearing about how much the staff actually made and seeing them in person, it made me feel sorry for having overlooked this important aspect of running nonprofit organizations; the individuals we spoke to do have a passion for helping people, otherwise they would not be there, and their selflessness should definitely be recognized. Still, as a whole, I believe the lack of clarity of the effectiveness of their services left me with an unsettled feeling about the organization.
I believe touring is definitely a great way to learn about an organization and what they seek to do, more so than the RFP. Talking to those who are going to enact the programs and being able to see their passion, as well as the organization itself, are truly what speak the loudest. So far, in my opinion, the YMCA has done the best job of explaining the program thoroughly, gave the best overview of the entire organization, and allowed us to see first-hand all the organization has accomplished. The individual giving our tour was also intelligent to provide us with personal stories and other success stories that were more impactful than simply hearing about the history or some other factual component. It is not until we have gone to the organizations that I, as well as others, I’m sure, were truly able to connect to the organization and form stronger, evidence-based, opinions. Although other organizations will certainly be impressive, making the decision even harder, I am looking forward to the rest of the site visits coming up.
I definitely do not think that an RFP is the most important way to evaluate an organization. Throughout this process, I was always a little concerned that we would end up looking at this process in too much of a formulaic fashion.
ReplyDeleteI fundamentally believe that successful nonprofit organizations are run by individuals that have a lot of passion and heart for their causes, and their drive for success inevitably shows because of this. While an organizations financials may be in order, their success still pivots on the devotion of their employees. The RFP can give us a sense of, organizationally and internally, how successful or sustainable an organization can be. But, it definitely does not tel the full story in terms of operations, long-term success and customer/beneficiary satisfaction.
Site visits with tours are definitely an important aspect of evaluating these organizations. An interactive tour, like we experienced at the YMCA, is necessary. The Q & A, mixed with personal anecdotes from our guide, was also effective and convincing. I am much more inclined to encourage us to donate our money to an organization that is run by a group of individuals who understand its mission and the needs of the people they serve thoroughly, than an organization that looks better on paper through their RFP.
That being said, there are definitely a lot of aspects to consider when deciding on an organization. But the RFP is definitely not the only one.
Someone else mention this during the first site visit and I could not agree more. When we go to these site visits and listen to these speakers talk about their experience and the reason why they are working there adds genuine humanity into the organization’s mission. I think at some point, I started to focus more on the issue and how the organization as a whole is going to alleviate the issue rather than looking at the people who are helping the issue. Yes, we asked questions about the social workers and their qualifications but we don’t really ask why they do it. It is interesting for me because when I ask someone what their major is, my typical follow up question is “is that what you want to do, if you had all the money in the world (besides traveling?). Hearing from Max from the Children’s Home really showed why the organization stayed for so long, and I believe it has to do with the people who are working at the organization.
ReplyDeleteTo address your second question, the proposals did a fair job at answering the organization’s missions and what they wanted to use the funds for. It definitely provided a good foundation for us as a class to see a small snapshot of the organization. Although the proposals provided valuable information about the organizations, it doesn’t do justice for the type of organization it is. After going to the site visits, we can tell the type of person who is leading the organization or the program is truly passionate. This article: http://nonprofitanswerguide.org/faq/leadership/what-does-an-effective-nonprofit-leader-look-like/ shows a list of qualifications they believe a good non-profit leader should be or have. And although the list is subjective from person to person I believe the general qualifications are required for a leader. From the three site visits we went to, every leader had a story that showed why they are still working at the organization over the past years. And it is truly amazing, and I think they are the community’s hero because of the work they do.
Evaluating these non-for profits has been difficult for me, especially for the program grant. The first site visit we stayed in one room and met with only one lady, Vanessa, i believe. She was part of the program and dedicated to her job, but she seemed nervous when talking to us. The YMCA trip we met with a man who has a job to raise money. He took us around and we got to see the facility. He was a good salesman and came across better than the first lady. However, he did not seem to have as much information on the specific program as Vanessa. Now at Children's Home we met with the most people and saw some of the facilities. I found this organization to be interesting, but again I am left wondering about the specific program. Is putting these kids into apartments enough to have them become successful. What does a successful outcome of a Children's Home child look like? It seems to me that they will get out, find a job and live a modest life. This could be good, however because it might give their children a chance at success, where I fear it might be too late for the ones currently in Children's Home.
ReplyDeleteChristy, I enjoyed your blog post very much as it encompassed much of what I have thought to myself after visiting the YMCA and Catholic Charities. After our two visits, my “dinner time” conversation was about how much more effective Dan was at selling us on his program at the YMCA than Valerie was at making us feel inclined to donate to Catholic Charities. Personally, I liked both Dan and Valerie, they were both very nice people who clearly care about Broome County, the people in it, and their organizations. However, Dan was much better at persuading me to donate to the Y because he was more emotionally appealing. His personal stories about how the YMCA has helped his family and him showed us why he is so passionate about this organization. I also think that an important reason why the YMCA seemed much more appealing was that Dan gave us a tour of the facility, so we were able to actually see the difference that the organization was making instead of just hearing about it. Yes, the discussion that we had with Valerie was helpful, but we were just talking about the organization and what the program does which we could have just as well done over email. When I thought of what a site visit would be like, I did not picture sitting in a conference room talking. I pictured nearly exactly what we experienced at the YMCA; a tour of the facilities that members of the organization use as the main event and then a short discussion session afterwards for our questions. I firmly believe that touring the organizations facilities is much more effective than an hour long Q&A session because “seeing is believing.” In addition, I do believe that the RFPs did a good job of telling us what the organization wants to accomplish and how they will go about doing this, but I do not just want to be told what they are doing, I want to see with my own two eyes exactly what they are doing in order to accomplish their mission.
ReplyDeleteChristy,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Before the YMCA site visit. I was very skeptical about giving them money. I was concerned about the program they highlighted for funding, because I questioned its validity. I thought the duration of the program was too short. After attending the site visit and taking a tour of the building, I am now convinced that I have to reconsider the YMCA for funding. The man who gave us the tour was phenomenal. He was able to beautifully articulate why he is so passionate about the organization and why he is so happy to fundraise on their behalf. He made an emotional appeal, stating that without the YMCA he probably would have lost his half brother. Every day he is able to get money for the YMCA, is another day he is able to help more people. Those are the type of people and organizations you want to support. Those who care about others and give back to the community.
Your point is certainly very true, especially after experiencing three site visits already. I think that we have learned really valuable information from all of the site visits, but what they all have yet to show is the programs in action. Since each program takes place at a different location then our site visits I think the program grant decision may be more challenging. I did appreciate walking around the YMCA and Children's Home greatly because it showed us the organization in action, and this may be beneficial in regards to our decision for the operating grant. Of course, only one organization that we have met with so far has actually applied for the operating grant anyway. Still, hearing from the people who help administrate and run the program has been significantly helpful, but I think the follow up information is crucial in really seeing how well these programs are executed. The decision will be hard but I'm hoping with our time left before the decision deadline each team can get a bit more followup information in the midst of our own personal rush of schedules at the end of the semester. I will say that I thought Children's Home characterized many important things including passion in that Max has been working there so long and really showed us how proud he is to be there, and that they work with such a vulnerable population, foster kids and young adults. There need is also reasonable to accomplish with our grant. Creating a food pantry, improving the community lounge and installing more washers and dryers seems reasonable to accomplish. They also confirmed that the funds would go towards the program and renovations. Now that site visits are no longer our "first rodeo" it will be interesting to see how these last two organizations compare in their presentation styles.
ReplyDeleteOur class experiences with site visits and RFPs so far have helped me to see than just what is written down in the RFP response of an organization. I think that the site visits were more helpful to show us what the organizations are trying to accomplish in their programs. They also allowed us to talk with people from the program instead of forcing us to make assumptions based on what they wrote on a paper.
ReplyDeleteI thought the YMCA tour was a great part of the site visit however I am still confused about the purpose that it served. The YMCA didn't apply to the operating grant, so all our class money will not even go towards any of the parts of the YMCA that Dan showed us. I think that the part of the site visit where we sat down in the conference room was more beneficial for me because I was able to learn more about the specific program and why the people at the YMCA are so passionate about it.
Thanks for sharing this blog post! I agree that it was really important for us to get the information from the RFP, search for information from their website and charity rating websites, as well as have a site visit. Each of these steps are part of the process, and help us to make the best informed decision we can about where to allocate our grant money. The RFPs are important, as they summarize what the organization feels are their accomplishments, strengths, goals, and states other important information such as number of employees and budget info. However, we had to keep in mind that the information could be biased because it is written by people in the organization. Also, some organizations might not have professional grant writers, so their overall RFPs may not reflect the "goodness' of the organization. So far, I think the site visits have been helpful in getting a better sense of the organization and the good it does, but I think that we get the most out of the site visits when we have a brief tour of the facilities in addition to a longer Q and A session addressing any questions we need answered. For tours of the facilities, we have to keep in mind that the organization is going to be putting its best face forward and that the things we are seeing may not be related to the program we are considering, so I think that asking questions is probably a better use of the majority of our site visit time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis blog post really nails home the notion that a RFP lacks depth in explaining the true motivations and running of a nonprofit. Recently in class we spoke about using websites such as CharityNavigator to find important information about nonprofits. But what I think what is going to matter more most to donors, is which nonprofit presents the best personality and the most passion for a cause. This notion is something found in voter psychology (1). The voter will tend to place their vote on the person that they know the most, and feel the most personal connection with, even subconsciously.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer your first question, my opinion of these nonprofits was mainly based on this mentioned notion. For one, I felt that YMCA and the Children's home displayed a tremendous amount of passion in their work. The incorporation of the tour really added a flavor, and showed that these places were huge ecosystems, and that even the buildings and campuses had their own breath and character as well. The YMCA advocate Dan, used his own personal stories and connections to Broome County, and how his own YMCA aided him, to definitely make his reasonings for giving back more concrete and real. I could feel, by the end of that tour, a sense of trust for this man. Children's Home did a great job of this as well, and their passion really showed through.
In regards to the second question, I think RFP's do a decent job of giving a background, but they do not and should not be used to make a decision alone, or be the main contention for making a decision or donation. The RFP lacks character and personality, and lacks perspective. It lacks a true feeling of reasoning or contention, and lacks any emotion. It is rather robotic. I think the RFP needs to contain, also, a few questions that cause the organization to dig deep on why they do what they do, so that we can get a greater meaning and perspective behind them. Emotion is going to be what drives donors to action. A study according to this article, found that emotional pleas excited nearly 31% of the brain matter, much more than the rational side. This is due to the brain's processing of emotional stimuli (2).Nonprofits need to understand this going forward, so that they can provide the most engaging experience possible for potential donors.
(1) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119958&page=1
(2)http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/08/31/a-central-fact-emotions-are-the-decision-makers/
Hi Christy,
ReplyDeleteI'm really happy that you brought up this point because I was also concerned that our own personal interpretations of the RFP would sway our decision making too far in one direction or another. I think that with a lot of organizations, they are focusing on conducting business as usual. A similarity in all of the finalist organizations is that they have a lot of really important work to do, not a huge staff, and not a huge amount of money of resources to do so. Therefore I believed that it would be irresponsible to judge these individual organizations based off their ability to submit a perfectly organized and well-done RFP.
Of the three visits we have done so far, I was most impressed with Children's Home. I felt that the specific YMCA we visited was not aesthetically pleasing and comfortable for children, although I do not want to completely knock them for this because he did mention that their other sight was a bit more inviting for families and elderly.
I thought that Catholic Charities was very nice, clean, and appeared to be organized. However it was difficult for me to really envision the actual work they do because it is not on site. I thought that Children's Home was great because it truly felt like a well-established campus, which I'm sure is great for those who are able to utilize this service after living in foster care for some time.
In reference to your third question, I think that a Q & A and the tour are equally important. I think that the questions help us get a feel for the staff and their commitment to this work and the goals we would like to accelerate, and I think that the tour gives us an idea how these goals are implemented and put into action.
Thank you so much for bringing up all of these important points. When considering organizations to give grants to, there are many factors to consider, including the idea that there is probably much more vital information the may get lost or left out of a RFP. Thus far, I have greatly enjoyed the site visits. I have gained a lot of insight into the work that these organizations do for the community and the passion that those who work for these organizations have. After all, if the heart isn't in the mission, there is no way that much would be accomplished. Being able to get a personal interaction with these organizations and the people within them has allowed us all to see more of what they do and get our questions answered in a comprehensive way. The benefit of interaction in-person is that there is generally less confusion or misunderstanding because sometimes factors to consider can get lost over emails. I also found the sites to be pleasant, welcoming, and in a few cases, inspiring. For the most part I believe the RFP's did a fair job of conveying the organization's goals. The RFP's allowed a lot of room for explanation and detail that went into more than was just offered online. Most of the organizations did a good job of giving us the information we requested. However, there have been some holes so it has been beneficial to get to ask questions and learn more. Regarding the tours versus the question and answer sessions, I think one could not be had without the other. In order to get the full picture, we would need to ask questions that we have prior and post the tour and if we only had the question and answer session, many of us, at least myself, would feel as though there is a gap in our understanding the organizations.
ReplyDelete