Monthly Archives: February 2017

The Plurality of Opportunities

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By Diana Castillo, BA 2017

We have made it! Finishing the first chapter of our briefing book was a roller coaster, yet it was an enriching experience. There were nights of struggles and nights of success, yet through researching our topic and learning more about what philanthropy is aimed to do, we feel more prepared for what is to come.

At this point, we have started learning about individual organizations assigned to us because they work, approximately, in the issues we’ve been researching. We have gone from learning theory to now diving into the more practical things. Pitch day is right around the corner and now we begin the journey of exploring the plurality of opportunities. There are so many great organizations, and each of them has something great to offer. And even though there is a variety of opportunities for what can be done with the resources we have, with time I know that we will be prepared to make wise decisions and truly make an impact in our community.

Pitch day, the day we meet face to face with some of our potential partners, is exciting and nerve-racking at the same time. There is so much knowledge to share and so many things to ask, yet our time is limited. With only 15 minutes for our meetings, it is essential that we manage our time well! In preparing ourselves for this step, we started reading more about how to ask questions and how to build good Grantmaker-Grantee relationships. Some of the articles we have read include: Kierra Johnson’s “Four Dating Tips to Sustain Strong Grantmaker-Grantee Relationships,” Sean Thomas-Breitfield’s “Ask Questions, First to Listen, but Then to Act,” and Elizabeth Cushing’s “Walking a Different Kind of Grantmaker Walk.” All of these articles have great tips and insights about partnering with organizations, yet when reading the Breitfield’s work, the purpose and process of what could happen through pitch day became clear. When meeting with each organization, it is important to go through “the process of asking questions, learning from the answers, and then changing the funding strategy to fit what grantees were saying actually,” instead of basing the funding strategy on what one thinks is necessary (Breitfield). Through research you get to know the opportunities available, yet in asking questions you get the chance of better understanding each organization and its needs. Through the responses to these questions, we will then learn and feel more prepared to be good stewards of the resources we have.

In the quest of understanding philanthropy’s purpose, I have gained so much experience and knowledge. Graduation is in May and, just like in this class, I have a plurality of opportunities available. After four years in Waco, I have fallen in love with the community and have decided to stay for the next few years. I am excited to use what I have learned here and take that wherever God takes me. I am thankful for this class and for the chance of working with a great team. This semester is not over yet, and the plurality of opportunities continue.

What should today’s philanthropy aim to do?

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: Haley Haskew, BBA/MACC 2018

The bulk of our discussions so far this semester have been centered around defining what philanthropy means, its purposes, and its functions as it relates to the public good. Questions we have asked include but are not limited to: What is philanthropy? Who is philanthropy for? Who can participate in philanthropy? How can we do the most good with the resources we have? What does it mean to be philanthropic? What is the purpose behind philanthropic actions?

Ever since our first meeting of the semester I have felt my mind constantly racing as I try to search for and pursue the answers to these difficult questions, and my chase continues. One of the most important yet simultaneously most difficult aspects of philanthropy is that it is focused on people. Behind every decision and answer made there is a real human face experiencing real dilemma and feeling real pain. This is the great complexity behind philanthropy: it is not centered around crunching numbers or meeting deadlines, but rather is is centered around changing human lives for the better.

My group is specifically researching concerns relating to health care accessibility and mental health, but before we began our research we attempted to answer the question of what should today’s philanthropy aim to do? In reflection of several different readings, we decided that today’s philanthropy should aim to take action for the public good by focusing on people in need, engaging them to partake in decision-making, and enabling them to live a more satisfactory life. Rather than concentrating on a problem or a solution, philanthropy should concentrate on the specific people whom it is trying to serve. In order to do this, people participating in philanthropic actions should first ask the people they are engaging with what their needs are. Our group noticed an existing gap between the giver and receiver in philanthropy where the giver assumes it knows what the receivers needs and chooses the solution they think is best. Instead, givers should empower those whom they are helping by allowing them to participate in decision-making and decide for themselves the best answer to their problem. Finally, philanthropy should aim to enable the person whom it is helping to live a continuously better life. Philanthropy is not a bandaid or quick solution to a problem, but rather it is aimed to create a permanent change leaving the receiver in an everlastingly better position than they were in before. 

In our class discussion, Andy said that today’s philanthropy should aim to promote human flourishing. This is rooted in the fact that people are not identified by their problems or lack of resources. The things a person does or does not possess do not fundamentally impact who they are and the greater purpose they have in the world. Philanthropy pursues the enrichment of the lives of both giver and receiver, and results in a tangible and intangible impact for both parties, leaving each person more fulfilled than they were previously.

Philanthropy should not aim to give everyone in the world health care. It should not aim to feed every starving person. It should not aim to bring everyone out of poverty. Rather, philanthropy should focus all of its endeavors, efforts, and resources into one thing: people.

Discovering our purpose

Date
Posted by
Comments0

CJ Lemanski, BBA 2020

The past few weeks in Philanthropy have definitely been busy. Today is actually the deadline for chapter 1 of the Briefing Book. The Briefing Book contains personal writing on how philanthropy should work, and also dives deep into some of the issues that my group is focusing on. For me the past few weeks and the overall course has really been incredible; I have learned so much. Before this class all I really knew about philanthropy was that normally a check went from one party to another. Obviously there is way more to it then that, and that is what I feel like I have been learning a ton about recently. That the process of how that money is exchanged is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. The process is very in depth and is deceptively tedious. That when it comes to giving it should be taken very seriously and should be strategic. One of my classmates shared a story during group discussion of a village in Africa where a group was donating mosquito nets to prevent malaria.  There was a big issue because there was a man in that village who made a living by selling mosquito nets to the villagers, and this put him out of business. This is great example of people trying to do really solid work, yet due to lack of effort and research it actually hurt the lives of others. That is why giving has to be done extremely thoroughly.

Also, there is so much amazing work going on in our world that has the ability to do a lot of good, so with that it really takes time and focus to decide where to give to make the biggest difference possible. Also something that really has struck me is how giving is about so much more than just money. The whole idea of philanthropy includes time, presence, energy, and resources. It is not just about money. For giving to be successful it should give all these things in equal parts. Being present and investing time into philanthropy is very important. Building relationships is absolutely essential in successfully giving. Sometimes people do not necessarily need money, sometimes they just need a friend, someone to do life with. Sometimes this is harder than just giving money or writing a check. Being relational in philanthropy may sometimes involve leaving the comfortable world you live in and going somewhere uncomfortable, which is definitely hard for people. We also have been learning that Philanthropy should aim to empower people and should not just be a one and done fix.

I am really excited for the future as we shift out of the learning side of things and start deciding what organizations we want to give to.

Transformational Giving

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: Shannon Foy, BBA 2018

This week in class we are knee deep in research on our issues while also doing a lot of inward group analysis of what we are looking to accomplish in this class. This inward research was encouraged and developed through various readings and podcasts, but the two that stuck out to me were “Four Gifts” in We Make A Life By What We Give and the podcast by Malcolm Gladwell called “My Little Hundred Million.” These were essential in changing my thinking about what philanthropy should really be looking to achieve: a transformational impact. In the Gunderman reading, he discusses that liberal giving is the only type of giving that will truly “[liberate] the human aspiration to give.” Giving and ultimately philanthropy should not be about solving wicked problems or resolving issues, but rather to transform humanity into eternal givers. By using philanthropy to liberate people from the temporary things that are restraining them, they are given the freedom, opportunity, and desire to then give themselves. This endless cycle will prove transformational for society, if philanthropies approach the idea of liberal giving as their end goal.
This goal of “transformational giving” might be easy to discuss and establish in theory, but implementing it seems to be the real task. The podcast by Gladwell was able to give us a tangible example of how this is put into practice. His theme was the idea that we should push to “secure the floor” instead of “raising the ceiling.” He tells the story of a philanthropist who decided to give to a local college that served primarily low-income students, instead of prestigious MIT, which he attended. He described this type of giving through the analogy of a soccer team, how studies have been shown that increasing the success and skill of the worst player on the team will help the team more than simply training or gaining a new star of the team. This analogy runs parallel with the trend Gladwell observed of the massive amounts of funds that are given to firmly established and prestigious universities instead of those colleges or schools which hold the majority of the student population. If those least privileged are never shared with, then the best will only keep getting better. This idea coincides with Gunderman’s idea of liberal giving as freeing not just one section of society, but all of humankind with the freedom and desire to give. We must all rise together, from the ground up, or we will not be able to rise at all.

At the conclusion of this week, I realized that the goal of philanthropy is not something that is necessarily quantifiable. I really identified with what Andy said in class this week, “People are far more complex than the sum of their needs.” Therefore, the needs of humanity cannot be solved by any means of quantifiable dollars, programs, or service hours. Our goal as philanthropists should be the pursuit of impacting and transforming humanity into a society focusing on sharing and giving.

Giving to Create Givers

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: Mark Richards, BBA 2019

This week we returned to the classroom, fresh off a few weeks of meeting as groups to research and discuss our issue areas of interest. We are continuing to craft our philosophy of philanthropy, and we have also begun considering some of the logistical processes that grantmaking entails.

In our discussion on Tuesday, we referred to Richard Gunderman’s book We Make a Life by What We Give, in which he describes four models of giving. The first, egoistic giving, is giving that is based in self-interest. This could involve, for example, a person who donates money to demonstrate his or her success. Despite causing change, this method is the least desirable of the four because of its selfish motive. The second model is compassionate giving, which seeks simply to meet immediate needs. This method, though quite accessible for many people because it does not require great wealth or expertise, carries risks. One risk is that a consistent flow of gifts will cause the recipient to become dependent on those gifts and apathetic toward his or her own progress and achievement. Gunderman’s third model is scientific giving, which was a historical response to compassionate giving that focused more on eliminating the root causes of needs rather than merely meeting the needs themselves. This model can be summarized by the maxim “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.” Scientific giving is markedly better than compassionate giving, but it unfortunately widens the gap between givers and receivers, because tackling the roots of an issue often requires much greater resources than the average individual can offer. This leaves many people to wonder if their comparatively small contributions could actually make a difference. The final model of giving is liberal giving. It aims to alleviate needs and eliminate their causes, but above all else it aims to make receivers into givers. These four models can each be effective, but Gunderman argues that this final model of liberal giving is the most ideal.

We have discussed principles similar to the ones behind liberal giving on several occasions in class, and those conversations have greatly informed my understanding of philanthropy. At the start of this class, I understood philanthropy as donating money in order to relieve needs or abate their causes. I didn’t realize that, more importantly than (and in tandem with) those goals, philanthropy should aim to create givers from receivers. A person’s joy in giving to and sharing with others ought to appear so attractive to the receiver that the receiver then strives to obtain that joy. Thus, as Gunderman puts it, philanthropy will make us into “people who concern ourselves more with what we can share with others than with what others can give to us” (29). I had never considered philanthropy in this way before. As we progress this semester, I intend to remind myself of this idea so that I regularly consider how I can inspire others to be better sharers through my philanthropy.

Gratitude Before Generosity

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By Gracie Kim, BBA 2018

The first or second day of class, Professor Hogue told our class to get out a piece of paper and think about the ways in which we have personally been the beneficiary of philanthropy and someone else’s generosity.

Words flowed out from my pen as I began to write and write and write … names of specific people, organizations, professors, scholarships, the sacrifice of my parents, people who made it possible for me to engage in rich and cultivating experiences, the church, mentorships, discipleship, prayer… just to name a few vague categories. It wasn’t until I filled my once blank un-lined piece of paper top to bottom with scribbles that I realized that who I am, what I know, and where I am is truly all because of the sacrifice, generosity, and/or kindness of someone else. Someone else that believed my life could or might “amount to something” (Gunderman, 9).

Now that is humbling. Because I truly know if it weren’t for these people, experiences, and communities, the Gracie I know today, with hopeful and ambitious dreams, would not exist. In a sense, our communities and environments shape us incomparably, as much as we want to believe that we are the only influential ones that shape ourselves and control and create our own “destinies.”

And I think this is one of the very “things” that awaken me to give as I become simultaneously more aware of my own blessings and brokenness. Giving inspires the thought that perhaps it isn’t all about us. We forget that we are all on the same team, that we are all human! We are much more interconnected than we think and we are to “recognize, accept, and celebrate the full extent of our interdependence” (Gunderman, 65). When we begin to recognize that our friends and our enemies, our neighbors and our children are each our own brothers and sisters; when we start to own that our world is in fact, our world, and our city is our city, giving and sharing seems like a more natural response, a right response, and even a logical response. The sweetness in philanthropy lies in that it “invites us to look beyond the distinctions of giver and receiver, and to see one another as sharers, parts cooperating for the benefit of a larger whole” (Gunderman, 12).

The more I am learning throughout this course, the more convinced I am that philanthropy and giving is something we both contribute to and partake in. In addition, the more I learn, the more I realize how increasingly complex it is to give well even with good intentions.

Nonetheless, I love that we started this course this way because as stated by Professor Hogue, “generosity is downstream” and “gratitude always comes before generosity.”

I am so grateful that there is much to be grateful for.

“only when we are woven into a larger tapestry that our full beauty and strength emerge” (Gunderman, 66).