When Laurie from Mom’s House visited our class, she spoke
about the organization’s self-sufficiency philosophy. Only 3% of Mom’s House’s funding comes from the government
and the rest comes from grants and donations from the community. Several of the finalist organizations,
such as Family Planning, depend on government funding to run their
programs. With Family Planning,
the government coverage of the cost of condoms and emergency contraception was
cut, forcing the organization to turn to outside sources for help. This raised several concerns about
whether or not Family Planning would be able to sustain its programs. Since Mom’s House does not depend on
government funding, this is not really an issue for them.
Mom’s House receives most of its funding through grants and
community donations. After the
floods of 2011, Mom’s House was basically destroyed. However, with the help of the community, the organization
was back up and running in under two weeks. This truly shows how much the community values the presence
of Mom’s House. I believe that
community involvement in an organization is crucial to its success.
http://www.mott.org/files/publications/CaseForCommunityPhilanthropy.pdf
This article addresses the importance of community
philanthropy. According to this
case, community philanthropy “taps into the drive of local people to help each
other.” Much like our discussion
in class about the importance of constituent feedback, this article argues that
if people have more of a say in the development of a project, they will be more
invested in its success. Though
this may seem like common sense, Mom’s House is an example of how community
investment can help an organization flourish.
Some of the advantages of community philanthropy include
flexibility, sustainability, and knowledge of community needs. Since funding comes mostly from the
community, the community gets to choose where this money goes. Government funding is often allotted
for a certain project, while community funds can be used for any problems that
arise. Additionally, there is no
uncertainty about whether or not money will keep coming in for a project, as
the community members know exactly where the money is coming from. This form of philanthropy is
particularly effective, as no one knows the needs of a community better than
the people living in it. They can
figure out where the money should go to produce the largest result. Also, since the people involved in
building an organization are the same people being affected by it, they will be
aware of what they need to do to sustain the projects.
As you can probably tell, I am strongly in favor of
community philanthropy and self-sustaining organizations. However, I want to know what you all
think. What are the advantages and
disadvantages of being a self-sustaining organization? Would you be more willing to give to a
government funded organization or a self-sufficient organization? As a class, how should these ideas affect
our final grant decision?
While I agree with you, Martha, that there are several advantages to community philanthropy, I do not think that means we should think of self-sustaining organizations more highly than government funded ones. Just because an organization receives money from the government does not mean it cannot also receive money from the community. Sure government funding is not as flexible or open about where the money goes, but they money can still go toward a need of the community or organization. For instance, Family Planning needs condoms and emergency contraception. I do not think, at least in this case, it makes a difference where the money comes from for that specific coverage.
ReplyDeleteI do see the benefits though of money that comes from the community in that the organization has greater freedom to choose what to do with the money. In addition, I liked the examples in the article of organizations that have started all over the world because of local residents coming together to solve a common problem. It is inspiring to see that kind of initiative. However, I think that other organizations can be just as dedicated to their cause even if they may not necessarily be the ones facing the issue. Why would they choose to have that job in the non-profit sector with that specific cause if they didn’t believe in it? Also, it is the job and responsibility of the people working for that organization to find out the needs of their target population or location (hopefully by directly asking those individuals or through constituent feedback) in order to be most effective.
Also, I disagree with your concerns regarding Family Planning’s sustainability after losing government funding for condoms and emergency contraception. Family Planning was caught off guard with this cut. They had already created a budget with the assumption that the government would cover those cuts. In years to come if they still do not have the funding, they said they would carefully budget their finances to accommodate for this lack of funding by prioritizing and making cuts elsewhere, if necessary. Also, similarly to how Mom’s House was destroyed after the floor and then rebuilt with the help of the community, Family Planning could also seek out the community for donations more so than they are now to supplement for this funding cut.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMartha, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post. You raise some interesting points. However, I do not seem to agree with the view point you hold. Although I understand that you support community sustained organizations for well supported reasons, I find it rather difficult to find a preference for an organization based on whether they are funded by the community or by the government. Similar to what Lauren stated above, just because an organization is funded by the government does not mean that it will not be funded by the community and vice versa. In fact, some of the most powerful and influential philanthropic organizations are funded both by grants, community, etc as well as by the government.
ReplyDeleteTo the point you make regarding your preference towards community philanthropy and self-sustaining organizations, I cannot fully comprehend what makes these organizations better than ones that may solely by funded by the government. In my opinion, it is not who or what these philanthropic organizations are funded by that should come to judge the identity they form. This has been a point that I have made repeatedly throughout the semester on many blog posts-- we should treat all organizations with equal treatment. Regardless of what the organization is seeking to better in the community whether it be the fine arts, school programs, etc. we cannot and should not give preference to the types of organizations individuals choose to support. Similarly we should not rank organizations by the sort of funding they receive. Instead we should rejoice these organizations for the good work they put into the community. Therefore I do not believe we should five preference to an organization simply because they are funded in one manner as opposed to another.
I believe self sustaining organizations hold a similar amount of advantages and disadvantages. For instance, self sustaining organizations have to worry about their financial stability and whether they will be able to allocate the money needed to fund respective programs. An advantage of a self sustaining organization could be that those who are truly fond of the organization will constantly be funding such a cause.
I would not allow whether an organization is self funded or government funded to affect my decision making in the grant process nor do I think this reasoning should affect the final decision making of the class. Instead I think we should take other factors into consideration when making the final grant decisions-- factors that I will not discuss in this blog comment.
Although I do not seem to fully agree with you on this topic, Martha, I really appreciated and enjoyed reading your input on self funded vs government funded organizations.
I find it very interesting that you chose to blog about this topic. During the presentation by Mom’s House, this idea of being sustained by community funds was one that stuck with me as well. However, it stayed with me for a different reason.
ReplyDeleteWhen I heard about this philosophy, I unintentionally felt some apprehension. I know this is probably illogical, but I can’t help but worry that, at any moment, the funds can just stop. You’re probably all thinking that this is a threat with government funding as well, especially in the light of an economic crisis. However, in a stable economy, a single substantial government grant (if the organization qualifies) is a more sure thing than receiving hundreds of individual donations.
With community philanthropy, there is much left up to chance. What happens when multiple individuals don’t donate one month because they assume others will donate? What happens when they simply forget to donate? What happens when they want to buy a new microwave instead? What happens when they decide they are tired of hearing that non-profits need their help when they can’t help themselves? These are sad realities, but they happen. They especially have a significant impact on non-profits in smaller communities. Any slight change in public donations, even if it doesn’t reflect a decrease in support, can send an organization into damage control mode.
Essentially, community philanthropy is leaving a lot up to people and people are fickle. While the chance that the organization will receive absolutely no donations is slim, these organizations certainly work on tight budgets. They often don’t receive all the donations from the community that they would like and that’s just the nature of community philanthropy. Persuading the public is a constant battle and they need to consistently make their presence known. They can’t ever stop finding ways to tap into our pathos, ethos and logos.
That being said, the source of funds should not influence our grantmaking decision. These organizations are doing the best they can with the options they have. Funding is just one area where there aren’t a lot of alternatives and the two that we’re debating are equally good and bad. I just wanted to point out that, while community philanthropy has its merits, it still is still a very unpredictable thing.
I was also surprised by the idea of community philanthropy during the presentation by Mom’s House. I believe this philosophy is an awesome way to provide help to those in the community. While it may not be true for all organizations, having this philosophy works the best for Mom’s House because they are strengthening the community and helping create stronger community members. People that regularly donate to Mom’s House obviously support the mission. And I would like to say that it does not only depend on large donations from a few people, they hold fundraisers year round that all people can participate in. I agree that community philanthropy is a great way because isn’t that was philanthropy is supposed to be anyway? I feel like in some cases receiving grants from the government for an organization could defeat the purpose of bringing the community together, but rather further increases the dependency on government aid. Even if it is not directly from the government it is still a handout from the government taxes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, as much as I am in favor there are still disadvantages. For example, no matter what when there are issues with the economy people are not able to donate as freely because they must provide for their families first. It is still an issue for government funded organizations but they are still likely to get some sort of funding as long as they qualify. In this article it lists a few basic pros and cons of government versus private funding.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-public-vs-private-grant-funding-12449.html
While I have my opinions, I do believe that for some smaller organizations (Mom’s House) being locally funded is a good way to go about providing service, while for larger organizations like Family Planning they require larger grants from the government because of the size and number of people they reach in the community.
I enjoyed reading all of the responses to my post. I would like to address each of your comments, as they all raised interesting points.
ReplyDeleteLauren, I understand your point that government funding is not any less important than community funding. I think that all funding, regardless of where it comes from, is extremely beneficial. I suppose I was trying to make a point about how money that comes from the community can make more of an impact because it inspires unity. I definitely agree that Family Planning should look more to the community for support, and I think that applying for our grant is a good start.
Heawon, as I already said to Lauren, I think that my point did not come across the way I wanted it to. I personally am more inclined to donate to self-sustaining organizations because of my own values, which I would never want to force upon anyone else. I understand why others may value the structure that government funding may provide. Sources of funding are part of my criteria for choosing an organization, but this may not be nearly as important to others.
Kaitlin, I agree that people are fickle. This can pose a problem for organizations that are entirely self-sufficient. However, only 85% of Mom’s House’s funding comes from the community. Though this seems like a large percentage, the other 15% could potentially compensate for any fluctuation in community funding.
Meredith, I like your point that local funding works better for smaller organizations. These organizations, which often more directly impact the community, would benefit from community support more than a larger organization. A larger organization might not have as much of a focus on developing a community feel. Perhaps this is a generalization that I cannot make, but this seems to be a trend that I observed among the grant applicants.
Like Kaitlin, I was skeptical of the (almost) complete dependence of Mom’s House on the surrounding community for its funding. However, after learning more about the organizations ways of raising money, I believe this dependence is perfectly fine. They receive a relatively small amount of government funding and look to the community for the majority of the support. They do not passively request donations, though. Instead, they actively raise money through fundraisers, which the organization’s participants work at. Through this active approach, they can be more certain they will receive donations. They are not simply hoping residents will recognize their need, but rather they draw attention to themselves and show their passion by spending time working for the money they get.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Meredith that local organizations will probably be more successful with getting community funding. However, some national organizations have mastered the art of fundraising, too. The Girl Scouts, for example, immediately come to mind. This organization offers a unique product through its fundraising – cookies! Because of their original product, they are able to raise a lot of money in a relatively short period of time! I think this is the key to fundraising – having something unique that people actually want.
Mom’s House obviously does not sell Girl Scout cookie. They do, however, participate in fundraising events with companies in the community and host banquets to support their cause. For example, by eating at Outback Steakhouse on April 24th, residents will support Mom’s House, as 15 percent of their check total will be donated. Individuals are not simply expected to write a check to Mom’s House – they get something in return.
While I think it is great that Mom’s House prides itself on being almost self-sufficient, I do not think it would be effective in all cases. An organization has to actively seek funds if they decide to minimize government funding. I understand that there are pros and cons to both government funding and community funding. Being completely dependent on one source or the other seems risky. A balance can be found between the two methods so that an organization can easily rebound from a decrease in funding from one source.
Knowing where an organization gets its funding would not influence my decision to donate to them. Whether they depend on government funding or community donations, as long as they are targeting a community need effectively, I would be willing to donate. I would think many of the applicants for our grant depend mostly on the community for support. However, as others pointed out, government money is often granted for a very specific purpose. So, even groups with government funding may turn to the community to cover other expenses.
One aspect of community funding that I really like is the sense of unity it creates. If a community feels strongly about a cause, they will probably donate more. And, if an organization recognizes the community’s support, they will continue to serve effectively because they know their work is appreciated. Yes, there are other ways of showing appreciation for groups that don't depend on the community for funds, but, in my opinion, donations are the most obvious gesture of support.