Patrick Britt’s Review of the Semester’s Top Student Posts

Learning the ins and outs of philanthropy throughout this semester was incredibly intriguing. I have always been interested in the concept of it, but never really knew how deep it could get. Having the opportunity to learn about it from an incredibly knowledgeable philanthropist and with more than 30 other interested students was truly special.

While going through other students’ posts on the blog, I related strongly to what Adam Smith wrote. He talked about how we chose Fonkoze and then mentioned how even though selecting them was essentially the end of our class, it was really only the beginning of our relationship with Fonkoze and our relationship with philanthropy as a whole. He also brought up how we may not see an immediate difference through our donation and how it may even be tough to measure an impact at all. This is important and was something that I kept in mind throughout the entire process.

I also resonated with what Courtney Williams wrote for the blog, talking about her past experience with philanthropy and how it helped shape her involvement with the class. Towards the end of her post, she said that it was tough to look at these organizations and set out to find flaws in them after looking at non-profits with such positive views before this class. It definitely opened my eyes to the fact that, unfortunately, not all organizations are doing what we wish they would be doing, but it is important to notice this and take this into consideration.

All of the posts that I read were original and brought up great points and experiences, but Michael (Mikey J.) Smith’s post was really intriguing and eye opening. He began his post with a personal experience of how he had the opportunity to spend Thanksgiving break in Paris with his friends and the concepts of deservedness and privilege. Those two topics are things to keep in mind when thinking about philanthropy and Michael brings this up several times.

This class was a great experience and all of the different concepts and topics that were brought up by both my classmates and Professor Counts himself were all extremely eye opening and are things that I will not forget anytime soon.

Diana Silbert

I read through an article on social media summarizing the August 2018 book “Winners Take All”, by Anand Giridharadas. He addresses the phenomenon of elite organizations who tackle global issues via market influence, creating a “win-win” solution that solves the problem and benefits the entrepreneurs. The irony of this, which he highlights, is that the global elite perpetuate some of the same problems they’re “solving” in the first place, by exporting jobs to low-wage, low-regulation countries, replacing public services with low-bid private contractors, and perpetuating the myth that business leaders are more qualified to address public services than democratically elected politicians.

I have an affinity for this narrative. The peril of private business’s unhindered social influence is a topic I’ve been presented throughout most of my education. Several of the topics addressed in the article were frighteningly relatable. The first was dissociation of the youth: working for companies like Goldman Sachs or McKinsey seem more promising to the younger generations than working for NGOs or the government, whether for personal advantage or for the chance to change the world. They create a false assumption that corporate social responsibility and philanthropy can solve any problem. In freshman year I made the mistake of enrolling in a private out-of-state university for a Corporate Communications major, with the assumption that a market-focused career was the greatest guarantee for both personal success and for a chance to have an impact on the world. I was wrong, because I had bought into a message that overvalued the beneficial impact of big businesses, neglecting my personal talents and passions.

The second topic was the platform economy. A growing portion of our lives is dependent on businesses such as Facebook, Google, Youtube, Amazon, or other products of the Silicon Valley, where “win-win” optimism is strong. Spawned by entrepreneurs with vast ambition and little cognizance of negative impact, these companies were major innovations that inadvertently created conflicts of interest between a democratic userbase and oligarchic CEOs. Today, they are characterized by censorship, mental health issues, fake news, data theft, and employee mistreatment. Even though many of those company’s owners have conducted philanthropy and charity, their failures, their vast negative impact on the world, are not substantially addressed or rectified. Despite being fully aware of their offensive and exploitative practices, I still have to rely on those four tech giants for social media, information, news, entertainment, and shopping. This creates a serious cognitive dissonance, exasperated by the difficulty of finding reliable alternatives to such platforms.

What ties these concepts together is the fact that mutual aid between the global elite and the global disadvantaged is barely feasible without outside intervention. In a capitalist economy, a private organization exists to generate profit for shareholders. They have no inherent obligation to bettering social conditions unless forced to by the government or the consumers. This is a realization I’ve had long before I’ve started this class, but it also echoes a discussion point from class a few weeks ago, where we argued whether private business or nonprofits are better at philanthropy. While the course content has touched on this concept briefly, I look forward to having more opportunities in the class to discuss the damage super-rich philanthropists have on the world.

Article URL: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/anand-giridharadas-winners-take-all/

Economics vs. Emotions in Philanthropy, A Final Reflection by Hannah London

In our last class of the semester, one of my classmate’s brought up the idea about being emotional when choosing which organization should be our grant recipient. She then realized that all the organizations have that kind of emotional component to them. It got me thinking about economic giving versus emotional giving.

John D. Rockefeller is one of the most well know American philanthropists and he donated money based on a method he called “scientific giving”¹. Rockefeller gave to causes that he believed would have the most return on investment so to say. He gave a lot of money to medical organizations and educational organizations. He would not sit on the boards of those organizations and left it up to professionals to use the money as they saw fit. Scientific giving means looking at philanthropic organizations from a business perspective. Which organization needs the money, can use it effectively, and have an impact that can far out stretch this donation?  This is a logical approach to philanthropy. Massive organizations probably do not find small donations very useful and an organization that is already failing is probably not going to be saved by just one donation.

The Rockefeller lens is just one way of looking at philanthropy. Giving money to an organization can be an emotional experience. One of the largest criticisms our class had of Mayan Hands was that their impact evidence was mainly anecdotal. In terms of our RFP criteria, this was an issue as we had asked for the organizations to have quantitative data. However, anecdotal data is not drawback. The fact that real women are benefitting from Mayan Hands and have these amazing stories to share is not something to be overlooked. Philanthropy is the business of helping people and in that business, success is helping real people. External studies and quantitative data are important but seeing how just one person is helped is just as meaningful. That one person’s life is changed and that will radiate to all the people around them. Their families and friends, their children, and their coworkers will all benefit from the help this one person received. That is something to be celebrated. And if an organization only puts forward data and statistics, it brings into question if the staff even knows or cares about the people they are helping.

It may seem that these two methods are at odds. Those who give scientifically do not want to be caught up in the emotional component, while others argue that philanthropy is inertly emotional. However, economic and emotional giving are not mutually exclusive. Thomas Kelley wrote in his chapter of Giving Well, Doing Good² about his experience of economic giving that ended up being emotional. When Kelley was in the Peace Corps in Niger, he would give one of the beggars some money to watch his bike while he was shopping in town. He made a point not to get emotionally attached to this beggar because he believed that panhandling was not a beneficial way to get money. Kelley would give methodically to one beggar in exchange for a service. Years later Kelley returned to Niger and found that this beggar had saved all his money over the years and used it to start a business. Without knowing it, Kelley’s economic giving contributed to one person’s life completely changing. This outcome will most likely forever stay an anecdote and never contribute to some quantitative study, but that doesn’t make the outcome any less real or important. Perhaps it doesn’t matter the way you give, so long as you make sure to give.

====

Grimm, Robert T. “John Rockefeller Sr.” Notable American Philanthropists: Biographies of Giving and Volunteering, edited by Ed Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002, pp. 256–260.

Kelley, Thomas A. “There’s No Such Thing as Bad Charity.” Giving Well, Doing Good: Readings for Thoughtful Philanthropists, by Amy A. Kass, Indiana University Press, 2008, pp. 245–247.

Adam Smith

Last Thursday, we selected Fonkoze as the target for our grant, forgoing our chance to donate to the four other charities we considered this semester. This decision was made in one of our final class meetings, and provided relief from the tension and suspense which had built up to this point in the process. Now that the uncertainty has been dispersed, our next two meetings must contain the resolution and conclusion of the thought-provoking and intriguing journey which we, the students of PLCY388G, have undertaken.

Though we near the end of our class, our donation marks the very beginning of our relationship with Fonkoze, and the chain of events which will lead to the betterment of hundreds of Haitian lives. It is likely that our donation will continue to improve the lives of Haitians for months or years to come. Although our donation of $7,500 is rather small in the grand scheme of things, we can trust that in the hands of Fonoze our donation will affect many lives as new possibilities and opportunities are opened for impoverished Haitians.
As Fonkoze is based heavily upon the principles of microfinance, the impact of our donation will be difficult to measure. In the long term, if Haiti can attain economic strength and sustainable growth, we may one day be able to look at a wealthy and successful Haitian society and wonder what role was played by our donation in their success and liberation from the hold of poverty. Even if this bright future fails to materialize, or progress is disappointingly slow, we have two important lessons from this class which cannot be discounted.

First, we have tried to make a difference, which is more than many have done. During the course of this class, we have educated ourselves on the merits of various charity organizations and made an educated decision on where to target donation. No matter what, our money will improve the lives of scores of Haitians, and we (and those who contributed to the donation pool), have made a sizable impact on their lives. Although Fonkoze was the winner of the final vote, many of us made passionate arguments for other charities and it is likely that they may see donations from some of us in the future. Thus, we have learned by giving, and so also learned to give.

Second, we have learned a great deal regarding philanthropy and humanitarian work in general. We are now likely to pursue a higher standard of rigor when selecting charity organizations. Owing to the numerous arguments and viewpoints articulated during our class discussions, we have many things to consider regarding future philanthropy work. This will ensure that we will make informed decisions and select the organizations which are the most deserving, efficient, and oriented for long-term success.

In truth, the donation to Fonkoze is only the beginning of the impact of our class. In time, many of us will have opportunities to apply the knowledge gained from this class. Though our charity was limited to Fonkoze and the people of Haiti, there are no limits to where and how we can seek to improve the lives of our fellow men and women, financially or otherwise.

Onward and upward!

Courtney Williams

For as long as I can remember, my sole career objective has been to find a job that helps children. In pursuit of this goal, I have fallen in love with a myriad of organizations and become invested in innumerable injustices worldwide. As a preteen I promised myself I would do my part in combating child abuse. I discovered Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) and tore through the website finding ways to get involved with the organization, writing research papers, and fostering conversations in my community on the topic. After learning about the Sentencing Project in high school, I dove into discovering everything I could about prison reform, the prison industrial complex, and the atrocities associated with America’s criminal justice system. As immigration issues began to flood into more mainstream media, I could not stand by and watch families be torn apart. I added a minor which I thought would equip me with the necessary knowledge to counter these disturbing new policies. And this summer, after interning at First Focus, a children’s advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., I realized I wanted to focus on advocacy work.

These examples are not meant to demonstrate that I am flighty or unfocused; I pride myself on being quite the opposite. I continue to care deeply about each of these issues and organizations, and will for as long as I have the ability to do so.

I have always looked at the nonprofit sector with rose-colored glasses. I have glorified each organization I read about, saw on television, or attended an event with. This is not because I am naive or easily persuaded, rather I am just optimistic and empathetic. Previous to this course, I had never examined an organization as in depth as we have, or with such a critical tone. It was difficult in the beginning to read about organizations set out to to tackle some of our world’s most significant problems and have to find flaws in their strategies and falsities in their claims of impact. However, because I learned to do this during our long journey, I have emerged a stronger philanthropic thinker. I’ve developed the ability to distinguish between empty claims and statements backed by facts, and find organizations that match up to with values.

Our course readings, decision making process, and lively class discussions have made me become more comfortable and confident examining organizations on my own terms. I still harness that same hopeful and ardent attitude in regards to service and philanthropic work, but I will use this new skill-set and analytical techniques to inform my decisions going forward. As I enter into my final semesters at the University of Maryland, I need to dedicate my time to organizations that I know I want to work with in the future, and this course has given me a set of guidelines to follow for this process.

Sarah Weese

On Thursday, our class was tasked with making a difficult decision. After spending multiple weeks getting to know five different organizations, we had to decide which nonprofit would receive our $7,500 donation.

After researching all five of the finalist organizations and writing a paper on how each matched our key selection criteria, I decided to recommend that the nonprofit Mayan Hands receive our donation. While reading all about Mayan Hands for the purposes of my essay, I found myself getting really excited about the organization and its mission. I really believed they were doing good work and I found that they truly aligned with nearly all of the class’s key selection criteria.

But beyond them meeting our key selection criteria, I also had personal reasons for liking Mayan Hands. I liked that they focused on marginalized women. They are a smaller organization so I wanted to root for the “underdog.” I also thought our donation would make a bigger impact. Additionally, I appreciated the empowerment aspect of their work and loved how they provided Mayan women with fair compensation for their beautiful work. In short, I became emotionally invested in Mayan Hands and I really wanted to see them “win” our class’s donation. So, of course, I was very excited when they made it to the final two!

During class, while we reviewed the pros and cons of our final two organizations, Mayan Hands and Fonkoze, somewhere in the middle of all the back and forth, I thought of Rockefeller and his ideas of “scientific giving.” No offense to Rockefeller, but I felt like in that classroom, there were a lot of emotions surrounding both organizations and that these emotions did not hinder our ability to make a decision about which organization should get our donation. Rather, I think those emotions showed that we cared, that we were invested and above all, that we were learning.

I don’t think involving emotions in philanthropy is necessarily a bad thing. Anyone observing that class period could see how each student cared enough to do their due diligence on the organizations and was invested enough to argue criterion by criterion for their recommendation. We all demonstrated our learning when, after thorough deliberation, we came to a majority decision. Based on our key selection criteria, the quality of interviews, and overall alignment to our class’s mission statement, Fonkoze earned our donation.

While I understand the appeal of scientific giving that made Rockefeller a very successful philanthropist, I personally see value in keeping your emotions involved. They keep you invested and help ensure you choose causes and organizations you believe are important and worthy. I see value in Mayan Hands, so if you’ll excuse me, there are women who I can support and there is an adorable felted wool gingerbread ornament that I just know my mom will love.

Samantha Williams

With only two more gatherings in the semester, I found myself reflecting on PLCY388G — the class I was going to dread. The class I was going to fail. The class I would gain nothing from other than a few general education credits. This beastly course quickly became the only course of the semester I was thoroughly interested in. Maybe it was the power I felt when conferring with my classmates to allocate a $7,500 grant, maybe it was the refreshing feeling philanthropy brought to my schedule, or maybe it was just the joy I felt when pretending to know what I was talking about. Regardless, I found PLCY388G opened my eyes to all new aspects of this world we live in that I had never even thought about before.

For instance, never had I thought about consequences of charity. I now see how some charity initiatives don’t truly aid their target population. As the spotlight shifted to illuminate the importance of agency, I realized that reliance on charities is far from a sustainable and effective solution. A tremendous aspect of philanthropy is considering whether the target communities can sustain themselves rather than continually counting on the aid of an outside resource.

Furthermore, as an educator myself, I saw no relevance for this course in my career. But little did I know I was in for a great surprise. Education is a major philanthropic initiative. Throughout my academic and professional careers, I’ve always felt there were major gaps in education policies that were unlikely to be filled. I have a newfound respect for philanthropy’s impacts on improving education where the government cannot and/or  will not help.

Overall, I have a sense of nostalgia for this class that was once destined to disappoint. I can’t help but feel as if I was meant to put myself in this once uncomfortable, discouraging situation to realize that philanthropy is more than rich people throwing their money at poor people. Philanthropy is a thoughtful, complicated, effective, and systematic giving of resources to promote agency, sustainability, and growth within a target population. Our class alone spent the whole semester deliberating how to allocate one grant. Needless to say, there is an immense amount of time, and consideration put into philanthropic efforts. Helping change the world isn’t easy nor careless. Just as I was enlightened throughout this course, global efforts in giving well and doing good are meant to enlighten the lives of our fellow earthlings. The ultimate mission for anyone willing to accept.

Arielle Vertsman

Nowadays, any money I normally receive from my parents is attached with prefixed provisions. Call it an unwritten contract. Either deposited into my account or handed to me monthly is money with predetermined expectations, almost like a guaranteed destiny. As much as I would love to indulge myself with a new hand bag, the money I receive from my parents is solely distributed to groceries and rent. I am fortunate enough to have parents that provide me with more than enough to get by. That is, in terms of the bare necessities, excluding any decadence. I am expected to oblige.

Such is the case with nonprofits and the concept of restricted funds. Nonprofits are known to seek high dollar donors, engaging with some of the wealthiest in society. Yet, engaging with the upper echelon isn’t without its own expense. Established philanthropists, propelled by their own passions, desire and distinct vision of a better world will rarely solicit money without its own conditions. High dollar donations are used to fund specific programs, subsidize novel campaigns, and often, contribute to the image of the philanthropist. To be a philanthropic magnate, a great bearer of social change, is to have your contributions alleviate social ills in measurable, noticeable means.

Pens. What significance does a writing utensil have in one’s vision of a more equitable society? What potential does a meagerly supply have to produce lasting change? More than one would expect. Nonprofits experience a peculiar paradox in terms of their budget. Though they maintain copious amounts to fund their own research into great causes and campaigns, some lack funds necessary to sustain day to day expenses of their organization — to write down a change in schedule. This was the case with Fonkoze USA, one of the organizations selected in final list to compete for our class’s grant. Fonkoze specifically requested the money to be used towards funding their operational and administrative expenses. A pen to a nonprofit is more than just a writing utensil. A pen to a nonprofit is scheduling a meeting with an ambassador, noting a delay in a program’s launch, writing the date and time of a highly anticipated site visit; a pen means survival. And yet, very rarely do high dollar donations support the operating and administrative costs, the bread and butter of nonprofits, the foundational means for which the ends of great social change are attained.

The fact of the matter is this: high dollar donations should be expected to produce the maximum output and take on the highest amount of risk. Philanthropic giants will probably continue to want to maintain a very specific vision of their goals and path towards attaining those goals. But what if we were to shift the dependency from high volume donations to smaller volume donations? What if we were to circumvent the strings attached to thousands by expending efforts on, say, tens? Or hundreds? Maybe the solution to the paradox that nonprofits face isn’t engaging with more Rockefellers or Carnegies, but thousands of ordinary people giving thousands of unrestricted, ordinary donations. Maybe then will more organizations be able to do things like securing partnerships with governments while also maintaining the means to write meetings with them into their schedules.

Michael (Mikey J) Smith

Let’s start here; over thanksgiving break, my grandparents sent me and a few of my friends to Paris. It was either a late birthday gift, or an early Christmas present, depending on how you look at it.

Now, I’m not bragging. I don’t want, or expect, any to be jealous of how I spent my holiday. In fact, as with most days of my life, I would prefer that people saw it for what it was and keep it moving. But, as with most days of my life, I’m sure people will stare, lingering over that one statement.

Unfortunately, when you’re a guy who wears a full face of makeup everyday, you just have to get used to the attention. But I don’t want to get get sidetracked here.

The reason that I brought up my trip was to question my deservedness.

When reading the case study on Oprah Winfrey’s school for girls, we learned that one of the criticisms of the school was that the girls did not need the excess that the school offered them. We read that it was insinuated that, because these girls came from such poor areas, spending such a large amount of money on them made no sense, and that a more modest environment would better suit them.

The thing is, no one questions how I, with my many character flaws, deserve to live such a privileged life? No one seems to have a problem with my family’s ability to send not only me, but my friends out of the country. And no one would dare say that I don’t deserve these things, because that would be in “poor taste.” That’s a direct quote from my grandmother.

But I question it.

How, when there are so many people who can barely feed their families, let alone themselves, do I deserve this? What makes me different than those girls? Why does society view me as better?

The answer is nothing. Nothing makes me different. Nothing makes me better. And I think that some people would agree with me. But not for the reason you may think. Some people view me the same as they view those girls, because they view me as less than.

And the reason for this is our skin.

But, you’re not surprised by that claim. I know you aren’t. Because it’s nothing new. But the thing is, those girls are not less than. And I am not less than. We are not less than. And neither those girls, nor I, want anyone to throw money at them because they are a group of “poor little black girls.” Because they are so much more than that.

And that was the point of the school. To give the girls so much more than they needed, because the girls were so much more than anyone saw.

But Oprah saw.

I believe that that is the point of philanthropy; to see the value and potential of the people that you are helping. Instead of wondering whether or not someone deserves something, perhaps it is better to wonder whether or not that person has the potential to become something. Because the answer will almost certainly always be yes.

When a bit of help is all a person needs in order to become something great, how could anyone ever say that they don’t deserve it? Because when someone becomes great, they add greatness to the world. And I don’t think anyone would ever say that the world doesn’t deserve more greatness.

 

 

 

Emma Schiliro

An upcoming step in our grant-giving process is conducting site visits. In Joel Orosz’s book “The Insider’s Guide to Grantmaking,” he outlines the important aspects involved in the site visit process. One compelling argument he made was that “site visits usually should be reserved for projects that the foundation is leaning toward funding rather than for those that it is leaning against funding” (131). After phone interviews groups should be thinking about whether or not they feel confident in the organization because traveling to these sites could be a sunk cost. It is also not fair to an organization to prepare for a site visit when you are leaning towards them not receiving the grant. Regarding site visits, each group member should be observing and taking in the how the office runs. However, in my group’s case, Landesa’s headquarters is in Seattle, Washington making our site visit a “Skype visit” instead, which differs from Orosz’s ideal setting. Orosz highlights that grantees should be looking to see if phones are ringing and if people are interacting in an efficient and respectful manner, but this will be nearly impossible to do through Skype. This poses a question for Orosz: for grantees that cannot make the trip to a site visit but feel passionately about an organization, how should they host it over Skype?  How will grantees observe central signals of whether or not this is a productive and impactful organization through a small computer screen? One way I believe a Skype visit could be productive is by preparing questions in advance of areas and people (or groups of people interacting) that you would like to see at the site. You can also occasionally ask the individual giving the tour to move the camera from side to side to get a full view. Although there is nothing more beneficial than an in-person site visit, there are ways to make a Skype visit just as valuable. Orosz should begin to consider guidelines for Skype visits as technology continues to advance and become more integrated in the grantmaking process.