After our class met with the heads of
the Kopernik Observatory and the Family Enrichment Network this past
week, I've spent a lot of time thinking about reasons to donate. As I
mentioned during our class discussion, I was almost swayed to want to
give more to Kopernik because of the fact that they're a much smaller
program. They lack the money and resources and help that a huge
program that gets millions of dollars receives (like Family
Enrichment Network). It seems unfair to me that the priorities of
those who are capable of giving (and the priorities of the government
and grant-giving institutions in general) tend to be focused more on
these huge agencies that already receive money. I absolutely think
that the Family Enrichment Network is doing an incredible service for
the community and needs and deserves the money that they are asking
for and more; at the same time, it's scary to me that well-deserving
places like the Kopernik Observatory are at risk of not being able to
sustain themselves. It seems that these smaller organizations and
projects are the ones that really need our help and that need to be
built up so that they can eventually be as well-funded as places like
Family Enrichment Network. At the same time, it does seem that places
like Family Enrichment have much more costs to cover than Kopernik
and the more money they have and receive, the more they need to
continue building and growing.
I think that given the fact that we
have 10,000 dollars to invest and not ten million, perhaps our money
will go to better use at smaller places like Kopernik and the results
and products of our investment will be more tangible because a
smaller amount of money will be worth more to them than somewhere
like Family Enrichment. The issue becomes with these bigger
organizations that they have to show to us exactly where our money is
going and how it will be used – the knowledge of something tangible
like another working telescope at Kopernik (our funding helping them
to have four functioning telescopes instead of three) is a more
concrete result than knowing that we are helping to support a project
at Family Enrichment Network (not that this project is any less
important than a telescope at Kopernik). Where do you guys think our
money will make more of a difference?
Finally, the last thing I want to
point out is something that I already mentioned briefly in class. At
the very core, both of these groups provide similar services – a
focus on childhood education and helping children by using education.
So why is it that Family Enrichment Network receives so much more
funding than Kopernik?
This is a pretty interesting document
I found offering help for people to decide which non-profits to fund:
http://sogpubs.unc.edu//electronicversions/pg/pgsum02/article4.pdf?
It doesn't really help with an
understanding as to why some non-profits receive funding while
other's don't, but it's an interesting perspective on the
governmental aspect of funding.
Like you, and I’m assuming many others, the distinction between donating to a larger organization like Family Enrichment Network or a smaller organization like the Kopernik Observatory has become increasingly prevalent after hearing from both groups. Your post raises many good points, including the fact that, on the scale that we are operating, $10,000 would most likely make a bigger impact at a small place like Kopernik, as it would be a more substantial sum to them compared to their relatively small budget.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your comments wondering about the great difference in the amount of funding and attention between the two programs, I have thought a bit and have come to a few conclusions as to why this is so. At first glance, it is much more apparent the impacts that Family Enrichment Network is attempting to have (it’s right in their name). Though both entities do offer very similar programs, a naïve person might not be aware of the youth programs offered at the Kopernik Observatory. Darrell Newvine from Family Enrichment Network spoke to some length about the importance of the group’s name and he certainly did not overstate its value. The first thing people know about an organization is its name and this can influence whether or not they consider donating to a certain not-for-profit altogether. In addition to the name, large organizations have far more money and other resources which can be used to get their name and their message out there, helping them grow even larger. Effective branding is invaluable for the success of any organization, corporation, or not-for-profit. Our class can bypass both of these obstacles with relative ease because the organizations are coming to us by applying for a grant, thereby leveling the playing field between smaller and larger applicants and making it solely a comparison of their effectiveness, efficiency, and area of concern.
One thing that I want to bring up is that in some cases, a larger organization does an effective enough job at aiding a certain target group that there is not much of a need for smaller not-for-profits with similar goals. Like some presidential elections in the past where the majority party has lost because of having two similar candidates running, having more groups representing a particular interest is not always a positive thing. It could potentially divide the efforts of people trying to assist a certain cause, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of both not-for-profit groups as a whole. These are definitely things to watch out for when it comes time to choose our organization(s) to grant money.
I disagree with what you are saying Kyle. Charities have a number of goals, yet I think you would be hard pressed to find one that wants to destroy its competitors. These organizations try to work together. To say there are two groups who do simlair objectives that exist in the same town is plausible. To say that they would not work together or combine forces when their is a lack of resorces is ridiculous. Their primary goal is to help and they need as many people in support of this goal as possible. People from seperate institutions do not see the others as enemies or competitors, just other people who also help the community.
ReplyDeleteAlso I disagree with the idea that these two organizations are inherently simlair. I see that both do help children. Yet that can be said about hundreds of different programs. Both do help the community and there are hundreds who also do that. One needs to be specific when do scribing a program and it's influence. The family enrichment network. Works to help and teach the youth of their community, while giving new parents a well deserved and necessary break to get their lives on a better track. The kopernick observatory tries to create a love of science and technology. It tries to get people to be more curious about the world around us. It's purpose is to educate and inspire. In these ways the two organizations differ greatly, and defining how they work can greatly help us decide which we would rather give too. I also believe size matters, but one should judge the size relative to need. For example how many observatories does a town need how big does an observatory need to be? The answer is quite small. It does what it needs with a small group while a network of programs which support families obviously need more. Yet if we see an organization with resorces greater than we believe their causes deserve or resorces far less than we should judge them respectively for what they need and deserve to receive.
It is hard to decide between the two after meeting with both reps in class. Maybe thats why last years class choose to donate to both because they both are doing great things for the community. However, I think any donation to either a small or big donation will be helpful no matter what. The Family Enrichment Network rep said it himself that despite their larger budget they still have so many costs that will help their programs.
ReplyDeleteBy donating to both organizations and giving them money for specific reasons such as the sandbox and the telescope repair it was extremely productive and helpful to each cause. They both needed specific items and we were able to provide the money for them. Both these item were essential to the goal of both organizations despite the fact the one is significantly smaller.
It is hard to say where our money will make more of a difference because sometimes it's hard to measure. It is also hard because every organization aims to help others. It is an interesting question to raise why both organizations dealing with education receive such different funding. It is a disadvantage to Kopernik. I understand that there is certain criteria to qualify for funding however, whoever writes the criteria is responsible for the imbalance. Because of this its up to us to decide.
Ultimately the goal is to help these organizations carry out their mission and help society. I think that being able to split the donation money is a good thing. There are many organizations that deal with the same issue but have different focuses and ways of dealing with that issue. Donating to either a smaller or larger organization could help tremendously. Larger organizations receive more funding because they have more costs and expenses. But both types clearly need money for certain programs or materials. The flexibility of splitting the donation money will allow us to decide which is best. To me big or small doesn't matter. I think an un-bias approach of looking at the applications to see which organizations match our values is the way to go, not what size they are.
This blog post and the comments have helped me understand my opinion on this matter. First of all, I understand Sharon's argument that both the Kopernik Observatory and the Family Enrichment Network ultimately have the same goal of helping children, but I have to agree with Itai in that they do it in completely different ways. While the Family Enrichment Network seems to be helping with more basic needs (overall care and development), the Kopernik Observatory is much more specialized. The observatory focuses solely on education in science and technology. Both causes are respectable, but I would personally choose to support the Family Enrichment Network, as its goals line up more directly with my own values.
ReplyDeleteNext, the question of size seems somewhat irrelevant. As the director of the Family Enrichment Network pointed out, despite their large budget and government funding, they still have needs. Donating $10,000 to a large organization may seem less beneficial that donating to a smaller organization because it is a smaller percentage of the large organization’s budget. However, $10,000 is $10,000 – its value does not change no matter the size of the recipient. In my opinion, size should not be a major factor in determining how much of the money we grant to a specific organization. We should focus instead on the group’s cause and how the funding will help it.
The only reason I may choose to donate to a smaller organization instead of a large organization, holding all other factors constant, is the fact that it seems more likely that a large organization will be able to find the funding elsewhere if we do not end up granting them any money. While large organizations may have a hired grant writer who applies for many funding opportunities, smaller organizations probably apply for fewer grants and, therefore, it would be a more devastating loss if they were to not receive any money. Other than that, I see no reason to fund a smaller organization over a larger one just because of size.
Finally, Kyle mentioned the idea of competition for funding/resources among groups with similar missions. I had not considered this idea before. It seems logical – the laws of supply and demand support the idea. However, like Itai said, it is unlikely that members of different not-for-profits view other organizations with related causes as competitors. In reality, they all are just trying to improve the community. In our Skype interview with Kevin Salwen, he mentioned his philanthropic acts involve donating to a number of charities with the same goal (I believe it was related to ending hunger). Each group approached the problem in a different way, but ultimately they all helped. If multiple tactics are effective, why not fund both?
We were fortunate enough to hear from the directors of the Kopernik Observatory and the Family Enrichment Network. While the organizations were very different in size and approach, they were both clearly dedicated to helping the youth in the community. The presentations raised some questions for me, but by reading and considering all of the content in the post and comments, I think I have come to understand my position on some of these issues. While smaller organizations may seem more deserving because of a lack of government funding, larger organizations still consider consideration, as they have unmet needs. In my opinion, the organization’s cause and plans for using any grant money they receive should be considered when deciding where to donate. The size of the group should be left of the equation.
To me the decision between Kopernik Observatory and the Family Enrichment Network is one similar to choosing between a low-risk and higher risk investment. The Family Enrichment Network is a large organization with a dedicated grant writer, it is growing consistently and helps to provide an important service to many young children and their families. An investment here would surely be utilized and help to grow the organization, but if it's lost I don't think the organization would fail. They are large enough that a single investment choice could greatly benefit them if granted, but also won't cripple them if allocated elsewhere. On the other hand, Kopernik provides a similar service except that it seeks more to fuel passion and curiosity in an older age group. An investment here, to an organization struggling more to get by, may very well keep the organization afloat, but more importantly comes the issue of whether or not it will help the organization grow to reach out to more individuals. I think investing in a good yet small organization with clear plans for growing their services could help to foster a new aspect to the community. The Kopernik representative talked about plans to unite their organization with similar STEM promoting facilities, which could help to drive many youths into STEM fields. Kopernik may be a riskier investment as the organization is smaller and less able to deal with unforeseen obstacles (like a broken telescope), however it also may help to provide lifelong benefits similar to the Family Enrichment Network. If investing in Kopernik could create a community more promoting of STEM fields while the Family Enrichment Network continued to succeed in their work, I think this would be a successful investment. And in hopes of achieving that I believe the investment is worth the risk, and that smaller riskier organizations should receive at least part of our funding.
ReplyDeleteI felt the same way that you did Sharon. It was pretty harder listening to both reps talk about their respective organization and seeing the large contrasts in their financial situation. It was difficult to hear that Kopernik Observatory left the year with only $32 (or something like that, I forgot), while Family Enrichment pays grant writers to augment their budget (I also forgot this number, but it was significantly larger than Kopernik's budget). I think this is a pretty common issue in philanthropy, especially when choosing a nonprofit to give to. I think it comes down to the question "what does the community need?"
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that Kopernik Observatory serves the community well, and the new summer program, and future plans that they have, will absolutely benefit Binghamton, but, when compared to Family Enrichment, does Binghamton really need it? He even said it himself, how can you compete with toddlers? And as important as I think having an observatory is, it isn't as necessary as having the head start program.
We have a limited amount of money, and our decision process will be a taxing one. But, I feel as though just because Family Enrichment has a larger budget doesn't mean we should necessarily kick them out of the race. It is easy to assume that because Family Enrich is a larger organization and have professional grant writers that it is less imperative to give to them,but if everyone thought like that, they would get no money. It sort of relates to the concept of diffusion of responsibility, where someone is less likely to do something, or take responsibility for something, if there are other people around. It's natural that we feel more responsible giving to the Kopernik Observatory because Family Enrichment has other sources of money. If we, as a class, do decide to give to Kopernik again, I am indifferent; however, we shouldn't dwell on their size to help make our decision.
-Chelsea Desruisseaux