So, the time is coming.

As the days dwindle down and our class comes closer to having to choose nonprofits to give  to, I feel the need to speak about a local nonprofit that I really care about. When I was thinking about what to write for my blog post this week, I had a lot of difficulty. And so, for my philanthropy class, I am choosing to talk about CHOW, Community Hunger Outreach Warehouse. I've talked about CHOW in my comments, and I've probably mentioned it in class once or twice, but I'm taking this opportunity to showcase the amazing work this organization does. I credit my experience at CHOW for my philanthropic core values and also as the thing that opened my eyes to the real perils and inequity of this world. 

Food insecurity is a huge problem in Broome County. There are many cases of food blight in the lower socioeconomic and rural parts of the southern tier of New York where people don't have access to fresh, unprocessed foods. So, there are neighborhoods where there are 3 McDonald's but no supermarket or places to buy groceries are moving out and farther away, which makes not only hunger but malnutrition a more prevalent problem. And we all know the repercussions of being hungry, you're cranky, distracted, and can't work to your full ability, furthermore obesity is a problem in areas of food blight since the only access to any kind of food is fast food. And so forth, before anyone can fully contribute in our society, I believe everyone needs a good meal to begin and end their day. 

Now, back to CHOW, this wonderful organization has a warehouse full of all kinds of food and toiletries for the people of Broome County. Everything is donated and every year they have a Hunger Walk to raise money to keep the warehouse going. Something that I found the most interesting about CHOW is that if you call the office, they will refer you to the nearest church soup kitchen and if you need baby formula, they will provide that too. CHOW addresses the issues of food head-on by directly providing food to those in need. And something else I love that they do is they hire a lot of recovering addicts, those recently released from prison, and some elderly; they provide jobs and food to te community to help stop the cycle of poverty. 

-Chelsea Desruisseaux     

A New Way of Giving: Data Philanthropy

http://unglobalpulse.org/data-philanthropy-where-are-we-now

In class we have discussed a few times whether or not researching and data are important for people to be giving to.  Some of us have argued that statistics are just numbers and we should be giving to more direct organizations that provide relatively immediate relief instead of research causes.  However, in my opinion, research can provide us with what the most significant issues are in a certain place, the root cause of those problems, and possible ways to address them.  Without being fully educated on the issue, one cannot use their time or money the most effectively. 

In this article I found, it discusses a concept called “data philanthropy”, which is when private sector companies share data for the public good.  By donating data, companies could be helping the major issues our world faces, sometimes indirectly.  For instance, the article states that data on cell-phone location was used to determine how human travel affects the spread of malaria in Kenya.  There’s a large range of possibilities that data can provide and I think some people aren’t aware of its potential.  Do you guys agree that data can be this helpful or do you just see them as irrelevant numbers?  I know some people for their core values talked about awareness and I agree that it’s an important value to hold.  If society is unaware or ignorant of certain topics or information, then we are hindered by what we do know.  Knowledge is power and with it comes the potential to use it for the public’s benefit.

However, data philanthropy does bring up some issues though regarding privacy and market competitiveness.  Companies are hesitant to share their data because they feel that they would be giving up a competitive edge since sharing their data would allow other companies to see their trends.  In addition, the article talks about how companies have a responsibility to keep their individual customers’ information private.  Arguably, don’t the companies also have a responsibility to provide information that could help save lives or the environment?  It’s possible that researchers are wasting millions of dollars on research that private companies might already have.  This is a waste of time, effort, and money.  Isn’t there a way for companies to share their information or at least the general trends without providing identities or individual information?

I think that this concept of data philanthropy is a really neat idea.  It’s something I’ve never thought of before and yet I can see how in the future it could be used to benefit a variety of issues.  What do you guys think about this form of philanthropy? Is it even considered philanthropy?  Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages or are there too many obstacles to overcome for this method to be utilized?  

Community Needs Assessment

It‘s hard to think about what people need in their lives. For this class as we have to decide where to donate $10,000, we really need to understand the community’s needs and how this money can help. So where do we begin? Do we take a Maslow approach of addressing needs hierarchally? Or do we take a Ponsioen approach and assess needs for all people? For me, I like an in between approach. Start from the bottom and work your way up while trying to fulfill the needs of the whole community as best as you can. It’s hard to create a minimal threshold for all people because not everyone might have the same need.  It’s also hard to figure out what anyone’s needs are. To address this problem I found a website online that provides a great way to conduct a needs assessment.

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and-resources/conducting-needs-assessment-surveys/main

If you open the link and read over the main section it addresses what a needs assessment is, why and when we should do them, and how to carry them out to benefit the community. The assessment guidelines provided on the website present a great approach into getting information directly from the people within the community. It can tell us what we need to know about the community problems and issues. It could also lead us in a specific direction in which we can do research in a particular area of concern. This can help us figure out what’s causing it and how to solve this problem to meet the community’s needs.

 http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/assessing-community-needs-and-resources/conducting-needs-assessment-surveys/main

This video on YouTube also provided a great way to determine what community needs are by starting with non-profit organizations. They’ll be able to tell us what they think needs are because they work closely with community members. Next, ask the individuals being helped by non-profit organizations. Asking volunteers can also provide insight as to what they believe community needs are because they work directly with people in need. Lastly their approach is to ask teenagers what they believe community needs. I like this because they are the future of the community and world. If they have input on how to make their community and future better than it is something extremely important to consider. I think a major concern about all community needs assessments is the participation. There is no better source to find out what the community’s needs are from the people themselves. However to get everyone involved is extremely difficult. I think talking about it at schools would be a major help. Kids in the school will become aware and could influence their parents to participate. Going to non-profits and those serviced by them is also a good idea because they are actively trying to make the community a better place.

My suggestions and examples may not be helpful in terms of figuring out what Broome County’s needs are. However it is a place to start thinking about how to go about this. We may not be able to conduct a survey or go door to door but we can find this information in other ways. We can research the philanthropies in the area to get their opinions. We can look at statistics and media to see where the community is and feels like its struggling. Searching google for Broome County needs assessment is another great way to start. There are assessments already done on different issues. If we can get an idea of what the community’s needs are then it will be easier to decide where to donate to and what issues to focus on. It will help us make a bigger difference in this community.  

Technological Advances and Social Media: Opportunity or Obstacle?

The inspiration for my blog post came to me as I was reading my economics textbook entitled The World Is Flat. It’s mainly about the impact that technology has had on corporations, changing them from mainly local to national and then to global entities over the past several decades, with incredibly expansive and interwoven networks of relationships and communications around the world. I thought, “Well, technology must have had a similar impact on other human interactions too,” and then philanthropy came to mind. Here’s what I’ve found on the subject.

In addition to the interconnectedness that our world has felt due to the increased importance of the internet over the last few decades, the rise of social media has further brought our world together. Some good supplementary information can be found in the following article: https://philanthropy.com/article/How-Nonprofits-Can-Use-Social/126402/

The main point the article was trying to drive home was that through the introduction of social media, non-profit groups have been attempting to use virtual campaigns in conjunction with tangible action in order to increase both individual participation and the multitude of people their cause reaches. It also emphasizes common mistakes that non-profits make when utilizing social media to reach their supporters and offers some helpful tips to use social media to their advantage. In summary, it shows how social media outlets could potentially be both constructive and destructive forces depending on how they are utilized.

But to every positive innovation, there seems to be a drawback; in this case, the increase in technology has caused some to lose sight of people's problems other than their own. Despite efforts to get their message out there, the messages of many non- profit groups still fall on deaf ears more often than not. Is it probable to believe that even with growing consumerism in regards to technology, which allow people to tune the world out with high-tech headphones or expensive gaming consoles, it is still possible for non-profits to reach an increasingly wide range of genuinely caring individuals? This article I found seems to address this question: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-bootcamp/201102/is-technology-making-us-less-empathic

It seems that, at least with what I have noticed, the growth of technology and social media has fostered quite a bit of disinterest in others, as people become fixated on accumulating more and more of the newest gizmos and gadgets. While technology has brought many people together, it has made others into introverts who distance themselves from others and other people’s problems. Can this shift in mindset caused by the rise of the “Digital Age” be overcome or will it counteract all the potential good that can come from the interactions social media allows groups to create?

So what is to come of these technological and communicational innovations that we have seen especially over the past 10 years? What are some thoughts on the potential impacts that social media and the “Digital Age” as a whole can have on philanthropy in positive or negative ways, at both the global and the local level?

What Motivates you?

I think it's safe to assume that we can all agree that philanthropy is good. However, what each and every one of us deem to be 'good' may be up for interpretation-- I will not be discussing that in this blogpost. Instead, I will be blogging about what I believe, is rarely given thought while discussing philanthropic work: motivation.

People find themselves donating their time/efforts/money for a multitude of reasons. Some donate because it makes them feel good, others because they feel a moral obligation to do so, and the rest because it's what everyone else seems to be doing. Regardless of the reasons that one aspires to partake in philanthropic endeavors, the outcome always seems to be the same: the world gets just a little bit better. However, for the group of individuals whom choose to donate because it makes them feel like better people, how long does this feeling last for? And once this feeling dissipates, assuming that it eventually will, what then? Is this when another act of philanthropy ought to ensue?

This is something that I always found quite puzzling. Like all others in this class, I agree that philanthropy is good... in fact, it's great. But how often do we take a step back and try to analyze why people are choosing to donate? Instead, we blindly appreciate the outcome without ever questioning the motivation behind it. Although it would be entirely difficult to decipher each and every reason for each and every philanthropic deed, I think it would be interesting to try to evaluate and pinpoint the reasoning behind each individual's acts of generosity. We all need to be motivated by something and once we locate our source of motivation, I believe it shines throughout the choices we make in our everyday lives.

This topic has been on my mind ever since I won the tweet of the week contest. Mostly because I am trying to locate my own source of motivation, which I hope will point me in the direction of an organization to donate to. Also by identifying my source of motivation, I hope to further solidify myself as a well-developed woman who is spirited in her beliefs.

It'd be great if you guys could comment with some feedback regarding what motivates you guys. Who knows? Maybe you can help pinpoint my source of motivation.

A Nuanced Philanthropy

We have discussed multiple ways that philanthropists can approach donating their money. As I scrolling through a Google search on philanthropy, I came across a Wall Street Journal article (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323372504578466992305986654) that discussed a relatively unheard of fund that took a very nuanced approach to giving. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation, started and primarily funded by a couple bearing the foundation’s name, uses an approach referred to as the “Moneyball” approach. In short, the Foundation tackles issues whose results cannot necessarily be given a number at the end of the project. They discuss their work with obesity, the Huston Food Bank and pension reform.

This week during class, there was a poll question about whether we wanted our class to focus on affecting a few people in the short-term or more people in the long run and another question asked if we preferred to own the project or contribute to an ongoing project. In my opinion, the “Moneyball” approach focuses on long-term projects that they create themselves. Is this combination the most effective way to achieve the best results? Will this approach do more good in the world than conventional methods? And if this is not the best answer and you argue that the traditional approaches are not working, what approach or combination of approaches will be the most efficient?

I found it interesting that the article does address some of the drawbacks of this type of approach. One that they mention is that none of the projects focus on immediate concerns. Again, this goes back to the question of whether or not philanthropy should be focused on the short run or long run. Another concern that was brought up was the degree of failure by the projects that are being undertaken. John Arnold acknowledges that many of the projects will not go anywhere but he states that without risk there is no reward. However, there is a lot of money at stake. Should risks be taken that involve millions, sometimes billions, of dollars? Or is that equivalent to throwing money out the window?

Our class obviously does not have the billions that the Laura and John Arnold Foundation have, but could we take a “Moneyball” approach to donating our money? Should we be taking an action like this? Is it even possible to take the “Moneyball” approach when you aren’t a top-dollar philanthropist?

Struggling to Identify My Core Values

Struggling with identifying your personal core values?  Scroll through this website that gives a few examples and explanations of the common core values instilled in our society.  Be sure to hit “expand all” underneath all of the terms.

http://blink.ucsd.edu/finance/accountability/ethics/core-values.html

As Mahatma Gandhi said, "Your beliefs become your thoughts. Your thoughts become your words. Your words become your actions. Your actions become your habits. Your habits become your values. Your values become your destiny."  In other words what we believe comes out in our actions and our future.  We must be aware of them to understand how we will fit into this world and attempt to make it a better place.  During class, we discussed core values and how our values shape our philanthropy.  As we talked about the readings we were assigned, I realized that I did not know what my core values were.  While I felt I could decipher right and wrong, therefore knowing that it is right to help others, I was unsure how I was supposed to recognize and identify my core values specifically.  It seemed like quite a daunting task to label my values, and I was embarrassed to admit that I could not easily come up with my core values.  I was asking myself, how am I supposed to develop and act on my values when I cannot even identify them?  

Core values are the guiding principles that help us determine what is right and wrong.  They help us decide what is important to us, and before we can apply our core values to the our philanthropy we must know how they apply to us and why those specific values are important to us.  It took time for me to come up with only three ideas that seem to reflect my feelings and beliefs about the world.  After many Google searches and YouTube videos, recognizing my core values became easier.  I finally asked myself, what is important to me when I think of human to human relationships?  I came up with three words, and defined them in my own words, explained to myself why I felt this way and what situations made me feel this way.  What I came up with was not surprising, because they made sense with feelings that I have expressed about issues in the past.  

My three most important core values I identified, although I am unsure how I will instill them into my philanthropy, are fairness, justice, and community.  For fairness, I want people to be able to have an equal opportunity to succeed no matter where, or who they born to.  Vulnerable populations include but are not limited to children, uneducated adults, single parents, pregnant women, mentally or physically disabled, the elderly.  While everyone is entitled to equal opportunity, it is also of the utmost importance to take responsibility for their own actions despite the possible outcomes.  The idea of justice and responsibility connect with idea of fairness because if justice and responsibility are followed then true fairness can occur.  We must not be selfish, and be willing to help others.  As the un-vulnerable populations, we must be able to accept the responsibility of ensuring that the vulnerable populations are treated equally.  Following that personal core value, I will be able to apply that to my philanthropy efforts and be able to determine what my passion is as well as follow my core values.  Also, I value community, because without this I would not be able to grow as person.  What I am able and willing to do in my community reflect what I am capable of doing globally.  And while I admire all the people that work and support third world countries, because the basic necessities to a decent life are so desperately needed, I also feel America faces many of the same issues here right in our own country that should be addressed and worried about just as much as all the problems in other countries.  It is a tough subject that I have a hard time deciding whose lives are more important, a topic that Peter Singer brought up in his book The Life You Can Save.  As a nursing student, I am hoping to use my profession to help people in my community while serving vulnerable populations. I am unsure exactly how, but I know it will happen because of the basic core values that I hold will come out in my actions.

• How did you know or come up with your core values?
• What are your core values?  Why are those specific values important to you?
• Do you see yourself easily applying your core values to you future career and philanthropy?  

The Creative Philanthropist

In class this week we discussed the values that lead us to give, along with the values that help us decide where to give. As a person who thought I'd had myself totally figured out, it was interesting to see how difficult it was for me to pinpoint exactly where I'd like to get involved. This Huffington Post article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/albert-ii-of-monaco/philanthropy-a-new-approa_b_4677102.html - helped me to further understand what values are of highest priority to me. 

The article discusses the new generation of philanthropists that has been born and the innovations that their characteristics and the available technology can bring to philanthropy. The article also highlights a new award, the Prince's Prize for Innovative Philanthropy, which the author will be awarding, "Later this month [to] a particularly creative and inspiring individual." He hopes that this award will shed light on the innovative work that is being done and inspire future giving. 

This article helped me to understand the importance that innovation and creativity have in philanthropy and how important those qualities are in influencing my giving process. The issues that exist today aren't new. We have been trying to combat hunger, poverty, economic instability, corruption, etc. forever, but these problems continue to challenge the developing and developed world. What we need, and what is highlighted in this article, are new ways of approaching these issues. A creative philanthropist is an artist who's work manifests itself in the form of new methods to solve old problems. S/He is a painter of ideas that can help philanthropy to evolve and transform to create real change.  

This article gives a few examples of innovative philanthropists http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2012/1118/Giving-back-Eight-innovative-philanthropists-around-the-world/A-bike-as-economic-engine. The first example really struck a cord for me. It explains how the World Bicycle Relief's donation of a single bicycle helped one farmer double his profits, allowing him to send his children to school. Transportation is a huge issue in developing nations, where costumers, doctors, and, in many cases, clean water, are a lengthy distance away. A simple, basic bike has solved this problem for many, along with provided jobs at the six facilities in Africa where the bikes that the foundation donates are assembled. This is just one example of successful innovation, but the possibilities of similarly small solutions to large problems are infinite. 

I challenge you to pinpoint where you have been innovative in your philanthropic work and the effect that it had. I'd like to know what role you believe creativity plays and where you've seen it lead to success in philanthropy. 

Juliette

What are your values?

After our last class where we spent a significant amount of time discussing our core values, I was drawn to the fact that so many of us don't really know what our values are. To be entirely honest, when we were doing our class overview at the start of class on Tuesday and I saw that we would be discussing our values, I immediately became really nervous. I know I have values – but to verbalize them and to put them into words and concrete thought is an entirely different matter. I spent the remainder of class (and the rest of the day, and really, the rest of this week) attempting to do just that: to make concrete and put into words what my values are.

The even more important question (for this class, anyway) becomes how our values influence our philanthropy, and how our values influence our choices in so far as giving go. Obviously, treating everyone as equals is incredibly important and paradigms of utility like maximizing happiness are values that many (if not most) people share. In terms of what our values are, we also have to think about what issues we want to address in terms of giving and which people, problems, and places we want to address in doing so. The class makes it easy for us in terms of giving us what place we are to focus on – local philanthropies, so those in the Binghamton area – but we still have to consider what people and problems we want to address in where and to whom we give.

Considering how much I have been grappling with this issue this past week the question I want to pose to you is this: what are your values and what are your struggles (if any) with verbalizing them? Is it something that you just know and are automatically aware of, or are these values something that you have to consciously think about. We all want to do good for the world – or so I would assume, considering that we are all in this class but what are some thoughts you are having as to what your values are?

Over the past few days, I've spent a good amount of time googling things like “value in philanthropy”, and “values and philanthropy” and I've found some pretty interesting things I want to share. The Philanthropic Initiative lists their core beliefs (values?) as “The application of private resources for public good is a central element of a healthy and democratic society.

-The best philanthropy envisions giving as a serious investment opportunity and an entrepreneurial service to the common good.

• Successful philanthropic endeavors aim for long-term positive impact – and thus, strategies with the greatest potential for change are grounded in an understanding of whole systems and causes, rather than symptoms of problems.
• Effective partnerships between donors and recipients respect the experience and ideas of all parties and produce mutual learning and better results for society.
  The most rewarding and sustainable giving is based on the intersection of a donor’s passions, critical community/social needs and strategic philanthropy.
• Everyone has valuable resources to invest in the public good.
• Our vision will be reached earlier and most successfully through abundant sharing, collegiality and collaboration.”

This seems to me to be a pretty good way to encapsulate values – but when there are so many possibilities and ways to go from here, it seems to me to be a little bit overwhelming to find where we can maximize the amount of good and happiness achieved from our giving.

Why We Give - Is There a Selfless Good Deed

This week in class we discussed what values lead us to participate in philanthropy. Many people were unsure of what their values were or were not able to articulate them. When thinking about what to write about this week I thought of the values discussion and decided to look up why people give to charity. I found an interesting article called “Why Do You Really Give to Charity? Why Donate?” by Joanne Fagan (http://evasvillage.org/wordpress/why-give-to-charity/).

 The article explains two theories that social psychologists have for why we help others. The first is “Public Benefit” which states that we help because we believe that our actions benefit others even though we don’t believe to gain anything for ourselves through our actions.  The second is “Private Benefit,” which states that we help others because we see ourselves benefitting in some way. Many studies show that helping others has brought surprise benefits such as, “reduced stress and depression, better immune system functioning, a greater sense of life satisfaction and in the case of corporate volunteering, helping increase employee morale and productivity.”  Which of these two theories leads you guys to donate?

The article also talks about how thinking about giving makes us give less. Research has shown that thinking about details such as how we should give, how much, and which cause is best, reduces the emotional responses that lead to giving at all. I thought that this was another interesting topic to bring to you guys because we obviously talk and think a lot about donating. What do you all think of this theory? Could there be some truth to it?

This article reminded me of an episode of Friends where Joey tells Phoebe that there is no such thing as a selfless good dead. Phoebe then goes on a mission to find and do a selfless good dead. She ultimately ends up not being able to find a good dead that gives her no benefit. If you need a reminder or haven’t seen it here is a clip, you can skip to a minute in, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DowJfUmlzeI. This is an interesting idea. Thinking about good deeds I have done, I find it hard to find one that I did not gain anything from. I challenge you to think of things you have done for others, did you receive anything from it, including joy, happiness or new knowledge. But my question is, if there is no such thing as a selfless good dead is that really a problem? If you donate half your income and feel happiness because you helped people does that really reduce your good dead in anyway? I would love to hear your thoughts on whether there is such a thing as a selfless good dead and whether it matters or not. 

The Role of Religion in Shaping Our Core Values

            In class, when we were discussing what shaped our core values, several people expressed how their religion helped them have a clear idea of what these values were.  I would like to further explore the role that religion plays in the development of core values and of our idea of philanthropy.

            Growing up in an Episcopal Church, I was taught many of the core Christian values such as the importance of love and service.  We were taught that since we were all so fortunate, it was our Christian duty to help the underprivileged.  Each Sunday in church, we passed a plate through the pews and each person made a monetary donation.  Even kids were encouraged to give through a program that only required us to donate $1 per month.  As a child, I was always under the impression that these donations went to the people we learned about, the underprivileged.  I was both surprised and disappointed to learn that most of this money actually went towards paying the clergy.

            To make things worse, every week we were encouraged to give more.  A representative of the church would get up in front of the congregation each week and preach about the importance of “stewardship,” saying that we had a responsibility to the church to donate all that we could.  Though I am fully aware that churches require money to run, wouldn’t it make more sense to donate this money to an organization or group of people who truly need the money to survive?  In his tweet a few weeks ago, Charlie questioned why a religion that preaches selflessness and giving would spend so much money on ornate buildings instead of giving it to the poor, an idea that I struggle with myself.

            A few years ago, I became very annoyed at my church’s concentration on its idea of stewardship and complained to my mom.  I found out that I was not alone in my questioning.  For the past few years, my mom had been keeping track of each time pledging more to the church was mentioned during a service, and for each mention, she made a charitable donation.  I was impressed at my mother’s ability to turn her annoyance with the church into a charitable game.

            I know that this is probably a unique experience, and it has not changed my perspective on my religion as a philosophy, but rather on my religion as an institution.  I wanted to share this experience, as it helped shape my core values.  Though I still believe in the Christian values I was taught in Sunday school, the church itself is not what motivates my philanthropy.  How has your experience with religion (or lack thereof) shaped your core values?   What motivates your giving?

Should We Give Locally or Internationally?

A thought provoking discussion came up in class on Tuesday about what is more worthwhile: local philanthropy or international philanthropy?

If we are talking about giving our time, it seems obvious that it is easier and sometimes more worthwhile to give our time locally. We are so close, we can see the direct impact, and we don't need to spend money on airfare or accommodations like we would need to in order to give our time in a developing country. However, if we are talking about giving our money, the debate between local and international non-profit organizations is prominent and requires some thought.

After winning the tweet of the week and thinking about how to give the money away, it became clear to me that deciding whether to give locally or internationally was going to be a struggle and a tough decision. After researching many charities, I have come to the conclusion, as of now, to give to an international non-profit and here's why:

It seems that all the local charities are good causes. There's Action for Older Persons, Southern Tier Alternative Therapies, Crime Victims Assistance Center, and so on. All these non-profit organizations are worthwhile to give to and help people in need but they seem relatively insignificant when they are competing for our money against non-profits that are working to save lives and cure diseases in developing countries. If you agree with the proposition that all lives are equal, which I do, it is hard to deny the injustice of giving to a local charity for alternative therapies rather than to non-profit organizations that literally save lives.

Although, when giving to local charities it is much easier to see where your money goes and to make sure it is directly helping people, it is also decently easy to see where your money goes with transparent international non-profits. For example: International Crisis Aid gives to aid relief. 90.7% of your contribution would go directly to the programs and services that it delivers. Only 9.3% would go to administrative expenses and fundraising. With International Crisis Aid, you know where your money is going and that you are making a big impact on the lives of others.

So, if our highest priority when giving money is to save human lives and reduce as much suffering as possible, isn't giving to international non-profits that do just that the logical choice? Singer and many other philosophers claim that not giving to saving human lives is like watching a child die before your very eyes. And, while I would not go to that extreme, my question is that isn't saving human lives and curing disease/preventing disease much more important than Action for Older Persons?

What are your opinions on local versus international philanthropy? Which is more beneficial/worthwhile? Is my view on the issue too black and white and where is the grey area?

- Charlie Scheftic

Is saving the environment comparable to the life of a child?

We have talked about the importance of philanthropy throughout the first two weeks of class, and Singer's book added to the conversation other ideas on where we should be giving our money. Our discussions brought me to particularly question the actions of Paul Allen, as I mentioned in class. His unnecessary and frivolous spending on items such as a 200 million dollar yacht could not only be better put to use to help starving families in poor parts of the world, but it also is damaging the environment. I just feel that the environment is something precious to us as human beings, and it makes me wonder if it would be better to put money towards helping the environment rather than trying to maybe save a starving child in Africa.

            The obscene amount of fuel that his yacht uses damages the environment more so than any one of us could even if we were trying to damage the environment. The environment is extremely important, it's where we live, and we only get one. If we continue to degrade it at the rate that we are, how much longer will it be until the conditions are unbearable and nobody can live a healthy and comfortable life? I think that the superrich should eliminate their immense spending on environmentally damaging activities, like Paul Allen's yacht, and that they should use their money to help clean up the environment as well as looking into alternative energy sources. It would be beneficial to the world as a whole because if sustainable energy sources could be expanded to be affordable and implemented across the globe then we could move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are beginning to run out as it is now, and finding stable alternative energy sources could be the best thing that philanthropists could do to help the most people as well as future generations.

            Now this is not to say that we should all of a sudden neglect the children in need, but we also have to think about the future. In my group in class this week, we all agreed that family would come first, and if this is true, then isn’t it important to make sure that the world that our children and our children's children are going to grow up in is a healthy a safe one? 

Escaping a Vicious Cycle in Philanthropy

Early in class this week, we discussed for a little bit what experiences of ours inform our attitude on philanthropy. For my blog post, I'd like to share (one of) my answers to that question.

As I mentioned during our first class, my mom started a non-profit called Big Learning, Inc when I was in seventh grade. Its goal was to provide after-school enrichment classes that touched on a wide variety of disciplines, from math and science to history and art. She started the company completely on her own- she had no financial backing from anyone, no employees, and no one to even help out besides my dad. Additionally, the recession made it a very bad time to be starting a non-profit.

One of the biggest problems she encountered over the years of growing her non-profit was how hard it was to get grants. Over an over, foundations told her that they wouldn't fund Big Learning because it was too small. It didn't have employees, and it didn't have a large circle of influence. However, these problems were very hard to solve without funding. This left my parents running the entire non-profit by themselves, doing everything from developing and running classes to marketing to packing materials. Big Learning grew for five years, at which point it merged with a larger non-profit, but it never really solved the issue of needing funding for growth, but needing to have already grown to get funding.

Big Learning is not the only non-profit to get caught in this vicious cycle. Even though this is such a big problem in philanthropy, my parents could only think of a couple potential solutions. One charity, A Wider Circle, collects unwanted furniture and distributes it to people who need it. They got off the ground very quickly, at least in part to their very simple (though still worthwhile) mission. Many charities and non-profits can't describe what they do in half a sentence, and thus, find it more difficult to get funding. Another non-profit organization, KIPP, started with one very rich person providing the financial backing. With enough money to grow the organization, KIPP soon became very widespread, and escaped the cycle enough to be able to get grants to sustain itself. Obviously, not many non-profits start with millionaires backing them, so this strategy can't be counted on either.

Since our class will be deciding which non-profits deserve our funding, I think this is an important issue to consider. I'm not saying that new, unestablished charities are better than established ones. In fact, the opposite can be true. However, with all the talk about successful charities that don't spend their donations efficiently, I think it is worth considering giving to new charities that are struggling to get going, especially since new charities may be addressing a community need that larger, established ones aren't.

What is your opinion about non-profits that need growth to 'deserve' funding, but need funding to drive their growth? Will our class be able to do anything to combat this problem?

-Jesse Cole

Are the Rich Addicted to Money?

http://www.today.com/money/former-wolf-shuns-money-addiction-tackles-hunger-2D12024397

I was watching the TODAY show last week and overheard an interesting story about Sam Polk, a man who renounced his strong addiction to money.  The headline, “Former ‘wolf’ shuns money, tackles hunger,” caught my eye because the central theme was philanthropy but also because it would describe the mentality of a “wolf on wall street.”  This man had come into a very rewarding position on Wall Street and was making millions of dollars; however, he later gave up his infatuation with money to create a nonprofit, called Groceryships.

In class this week, we talked a little about they very rich, their inability to donate larger sums of money and their extravagance.   All of their actions, such as wasting enormous sums of money on yachts instead of donating, are indeed voluntary and quite deplorable.  However, in looking at this article, I also wonder if the issue goes deeper than just selfishness.

Sam Polk, whether intentionally or unintentionally, put the issue in the light of psychology.  He refers multiple times to his love of money as an addiction, an interesting concept.  He lived everyday obsessed with when would he receive his bonuses and constantly compared his rewards to others at the company.  While some of the super rich today may not be as obsessed with the idea, I am certain they are always inadvertently comparing their wealth with other frontrunners.

By living in an elite world and having our culture reinforce the idea that, if you have a lot of money, you are a celebrity, we’ve created a kind of monster.  These extremely wealthy individuals gain a lot of personal satisfaction when they receive a large bonus or when their salary gives them millions of dollars.  It could be that wanting money and not being able to give it up are difficult habits to break, much like quitting smoking.  Do you think this addiction exists among most of the super rich?  Or was Sam Polk’s addiction a unique case? 

Sam also mentioned that he was grown up in a house that thought having money would answer all of life’s problems.  He wanted to be rich since he was 12 years old.  This also brings up another interesting issue.  Do you think an individual is more likely to have this obsession with money if they are born into a wealthy family or if they are raised like Sam (thinking that to have money would solve everything)?