Hey everyone, our remaining class sessions are dwindling down and the decision is going to be made on Thursday. Some of you already have a specific charity in mind that you'd like to choose, others may be on the fence. I would like to discuss two more factors that could possibly influence your decision. Those two factors being program size and age of the children in the program. We have talked about these considerations in class, but I would like to explore them further as I believe they can have a large impact on the final decision.
First I'm going to talk about program size. On the surface, it would make sense to think that a bigger program is preferable because more kids are being serviced. However I am not sure that this is the case. For me, the trade off of having a larger program is having a less personal program. It really comes down to width versus depth. The programs presented by the YMCA as well as Catholic Charities seem to be wider. They service many more kids than the programs offered by Lourdes, Urban League and Children's Home. Of course it is great that they help children in need, but how intimate can these programs be? Catholic Charities program has an average of six sessions per child, and the YMCA program only meets a couple times a week for a few weeks. While the Catholic Charities meetings are one on one, the length of the program is on the shorter end in my opinion. And the YMCA services so many kids that they are more likely to be seen as a number rather than an individual. I would like to give to a program that helps a smaller amount of kids, but helps more per kid. So Lourdes, Children's Home and Urban League are preferable in this sense. Also, the duration of each of these programs is longer. The Children's Home program would help the beneficiaries 24/7 seeing as we would fund the apartments that they are living in. The Lourdes program is active to six individuals for the summer, and Urban League is run during the summer all day long. It seems that since these programs have less children, more time can be allotted to each child, which is very important.
Another factor I would like everyone to consider is the age of the children in each program. The Children's Home program will affect young adults, Lourdes and Catholic Charities programs are more likely to help middle school and high school aged children, and the YMCA and Urban League programs will benefit younger elementary school aged kids. Their are positive and negative aspects of helping each age group, but I feel that the best result will come from helping the youngest kids. The main reason I think this is because young children are very impressionable. It is very possible that a child in the younger age group will learn something, or gain a role model that can keep them on a straight path and out of trouble. I remember some of the adults and teen helpers from my after school elementary program that taught me about hard work and honesty. If a kid learns about nutrition from the YMCA program, or is doing fun activities at the Urban League instead of on the street because of us, then I think that our donation would have been very valuable. Furthermore, (not wanting to echo my mother) but teens do tend to be more rebellious than younger kids. This should not deter potentially helping these teens, but I'd prefer to work on the more malleable younger minds.
Given these two factors, I am favoring giving to the Urban League. It is helping a manageable amount of young children. I think that our funds could do a lot of good for the program presented by this organization. I am curious to know what you guys think, and what charity is your top one going into this week.
Here are some potential questions you may want to answer.
1. Are there factors that you want to talk about that haven't been too thoroughly discussed in class.
2. Do you agree that my two factors are important? Why or why not.
3. If you agree that my factors are important do you agree with my conclusion? (Ex. you think program size is important but a larger program is preferable.)
Billy that was a very insightful post. One thing that I am considering that you did not mention is the staff. I think the staff plays a pivotal role in the direction of the organization and, makes a huge difference in the lives of the participants of the program. For that reason I could not consider the Children’s Center or Catholic Charities. I thought that the presentation at the Children’s Center was boring and unprofessional. I think it says a lot about an organization when they are not able to answer a question about their organization. It shows a lack of preparedness, oversight and accountability. I cannot consider Catholic Charities, because there seemed to be a lack of passion as well as knowledge regarding the specific program. I agree with your two points, but I think staff is a very important component and perhaps one that is overlooked.
ReplyDeleteHi Bill that was a great post. I think both of the criteria you brought up are very important for our current decision-making process. When making my own decision, the size of the program had a big impact for me. I came to the same conclusion as you that some programs affect a large amount of kids but their impact is far from deep. I prefer the programs that make a significant impact in the affected people's lives. This is one of the reasons that I've chosen Lourdes' DAASP program as my final organization. The age of the children in the program is an interesting factor to consider. I can understand why people favor young children as the target of a program. Starting youth services at a young age establishes a good foundation that will stay with them until the future. However, the programs of DAASP and the Children's Home deal with older ages who are in need of help before they are stuck on a certain path. These programs are a last effort to make a meaningful change in their lives. I think an early foundation it important, but I also believe that we can't leave behind the older kids who didn't receive that foundation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that age is an important factor to consider when discussing programs. However, I believe that helping older children creates more immediate and necessary change. I believe that the demographic we should be focusing on is young adults. This demographic is often pushed under the rug or neglected because it is assumed that they are difficult to reach out to or that it is “too late”. Even in our tour of Children’s Home, we learned that often times, programs wait for young adults to be placed out of foster care so that they are no longer a liability to the program. Young adults serve as an opportune demographic because they don’t have to wait to apply lessons in team building or professionalism that programs teach. They are at a ripe age to seize opportunities that require these skills. If we neglect this demographic just because we don’t think they will retain their experience as well as a child, or because we don't want to put in the effort to work with them because it is perceived as difficult, is an offence to them and excuse to keep casting them aside.
ReplyDeleteWhat is great about the Lourdes program is that they are teaching necessary skills and helping children put those skills to the test immediately through the internship program. Teaching these skills to a child is an investment for the future but teaching these same skills to an older demographic ensures that they will be applied presently or in the immediate future. Perhaps these young adults didn't learn these skills as a child but we can give them the opportunity to learn them now and apply them as an adult.