Monthly Archives: September 2016

Love thy neighbor

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By Janessa Blythe: BA University Scholar, 2018

About a year and a half ago, my mother and I took a trip to San Francisco. We were just there for a few days and we spent most of our time seeing the typical tourist attractions. In my short time there, the number of homeless people I saw in the city struck me. It seemed like everywhere I went there were people begging or sleeping on the side of the street. The image of hopeless faces lining the street corners was an image I could not get out of my mind. I wondered what was being done, and if it was helping.

A few months later I heard someone talk about San Francisco’s homelessness problem and how there were too many organizations taking too many different approaches for their work to be effective. I did not know what to think of this claim at the time, but I thought about it once again as we began to look more deeply at the aims of philanthropy this semester.

One of the questions our class has been asking is what philanthropy should be directed at. As I started to read looking for an answer to this question, I started to see that philanthropy is a very personal thing. People’s motivation to give often stems from personal experience such as a sick sibling, a love for an alma mater, or a sense of religious duty. There is not only one reason why people give, nor is there one cause they can all agree to direct their money at. Giving is influenced by personal experience.

The idea that a person can use their own set of values and beliefs to inform their giving left me reconsidering San Francisco’s homelessness problem. The formation of many nonprofits results from the same kind experiences that motivate people to give. The resulting organizations work in a variety of different ways towards a variety of causes. They are freely formed with the aim of doing some sort of good.

When I started to look at the constellation of non-profit organizations in that way, it became beautiful to me. These organizations bear witness to the existence of people who see a need and give of their time and money in order to make the world a better place. They love their neighbor by giving of themselves. There are so many different organizations in existence, and each one is motivated by a slightly different set of values.

Though the motivations behind giving and programming are important, I want to be careful to note that giving ought to be strategic and programs ought to be effective. Aiming for these things makes the expression of giving and the work being done more impactful.

The social sector is a place where human goodwill drives what is being done. America provides freedom to do good. I don’t know exactly what is being done in San Francisco to resolve their homelessness problem, but I do know that whatever good is being done probably relies on the good will and effort of people in the community. Perhaps more strategy is needed from donors, and perhaps organizations need to ensure their programs really are effective, but those needs do not fully eclipse the beauty of people expressing love for their neighbor as they give and serve.

Atmosphere of Authenticity

Date
Posted by
Comments0

Matt Wilborn, BBA 2017
There seems to be a potential power struggle in that philanthropy, often, is composed of those who have money and those that need money. It also seems that the number of groups that are seeking funding continue to grow, which is a great thing. Yet at what cost are organizations willing to pursue funding. Is the process of trying to portray the best aspects of an organization presenting the organization in a way that is far from reality? What is the balance between seeking funding so that the organization can continue to serve those in need, while also being honest about the struggles faced in day to day operations? The balance occurs when grantmaker and grantee approach a problem together. Problems are solved when the grantee is willing to admit there are sometimes problems or difficulties. Problems only get solved when the grantee is more concerned with the problem rather than appearing like the perfect organization. However, it is not only about how the grantee presents itself, but also in the way the grantmaker is willing foster an atmosphere of authenticity. The grantmaker must realize that the organization is not perfect and will have struggles. If the grant maker is willing to come alongside the grantee, rather than pull support at the first sign of struggle, then issues are  more likely be resolved because everyone will be operating on the same playing field. There is a temptation for the grantmakers to exploit power dynamics between the grantmaker and the grantee. The politics further escalate and the solution is further delayed. As grantmakers, we need to be careful about how we ask about how funds will be allocated. There is a place for questions about metrics and a place to ask about results. Yet as grantmakers we are only able to ask those questions when viewing the organization not as another piece of data, but as real people trying to solve real problems. As we enter this time of learning about lots of different organizations, we as a class need to honor their experience in the field.

This coming Tuesday as a class we will have the chance to learn from the heads of a number of organizations. It is my hope that we will remember that that we have been blessed with these funds to be a blessing to others. It is my hope that this process would continue to teach our class that both grantmakers and grantees are ultimately after the same goals. It is my hope that we would approach Tuesday with a desire to learn and a desire to create an atmosphere of authenticity between ourselves and the grantees.

Digging Deeper

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: Kristen Hendrickson, BBA 2017

There has recently been a shift in our focus for this class. So far this semester, as previous blog posts have reflected, we have been discussing philanthropy, what is important to us, what it means to be a philanthropist, etc. However, lately we have begun to dig deeper into more specific issues that our society is facing today, in order to learn more about what is really going on in the world – an attempt at understanding the issues before we take action.

Something that we discussed in class, which really stuck with me, was how all too often good intentions can lead to harmful outcomes. This can occur because those who are giving do not fully understand the issue or context in which they are giving, and cannot foresee potential problems that their gift could cause. This is a scary thought, because the last thing that my classmates and I want to do is more harm than good. As an example, one of my classmates shared a story of a tractor that was stuck, abandoned in a farm field in another country. The tractor had been donated by Americans with pure intentions, hoping to make farming much more efficient and easier for those who farmed that field. However, when something went wrong and the tractor broke down, there was no one around that could fix it and the parts needed to fix it were not accessible. Thus, the tractor became an extremely heavy, unmovable fixture in the middle of the field, just taking up precious land. We desire more than anything that our gifts will not be tractors taking up land, but something that can have a lasting and proliferating impact for years to come.

It is our duty and responsibility to do our research, to figure out what the issues actually are and to try to understand as best we can what would really help those who are living through the issues. We are now grouped into teams to focus on certain areas, and my team is starting with a broad focus on children in arts and culture, education, and poverty. I have personally been mainly researching poverty – poverty in the United States, in Texas, and in Waco. We have been amazed to see the intricate ways in which all of these areas are intertwined. We believe that poverty can have direct impacts on any of those categories, and we hope to see the bigger picture of these issues.

It is really interesting to see how many different ways that poverty can be defined. Some define it by the federal poverty line, some by 200% above the federal poverty line, others by the average lifespan of a community, and others by child poverty. By any definition, it is clear that some in Waco are hurting. I am so excited to continue working with my group throughout the semester to build a strong foundation of understanding and to make as strategic, thoughtful decisions as we can about how to use the resources we have to give. This is an incredible and unique opportunity, and I have a feeling it is going to change the way I give and encourage others to give for the rest of my life.

Golf, Stew, and Apollo 13

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: J. Andrew Mackenzie, BA University Scholar

If anyone has yet to accept that the United States is a place of radical pluralism – a label applied to those societies with diversity of culture, race, and moral/normative worldview – they need look no further than the U.S. tax code. As the readers of this blog will know, 501(c)3 is a number of coveted significance to many of our most prominent institutions. This includes our colleges and universities (sic’em Bears), hospitals, churches and charities, museums, social clubs, veteran organizations, ect, ect. To make the point, the United States gives the same “charitable” recognition to the golf course as it does the Salvation Army.

If you think this absurd, you are not alone. What should we say of a country that gives the same tax benefits to an international emergency relief organization as they do the local golf club? For anyone who has ever been persecuted for their belief about what counts as good, one answer seems appropriate.

God bless America.

As a country, our diversity has become a mark of pride. But we are not, as many like to say, a melting pot. The metaphor of the melting pot implies that a heterogeneous society is becoming more homogeneous, the different elements “melting together” into a common culture. This, to be sure, has happened to some degree, but not to the effect that we have become homogenized. Rather, the distinctive elements remain distinctive, with the effect of enriching the entire stew. Our diversity is our strength so long as we can draw the best out of each other. In order to do so, we must acknowledge and respect our differences, while not losing site of our common humanity. It is not “from many to one,” but y pluribus unum, “out of many one,” that we have inscribed on the rotunda of our Capitol.

What does all of this talk of golf and stew have to do with philanthropy? In order for a society that lacks commonality to thrive, it must hold to a common conception of human dignity, agency and creativity. It must respect the ability of the individual to seek his or her own vision of the good. Without this common conception, the differences of pluralism outlined above will inevitably lead to an ideological power struggle. If the stew has to pick a flavor and stick with it, most will prefer his own. If someone gets to decide what constitutes the good life for everyone, everyone will want to be that someone. I would.

And so, our state gives no official bounds to philanthropic giving. One can spend their millions fighting world hunger, or creating an island filled with cloned dinosaurs. Our government will not stop you (though those with any exposure to the world of sci-fi may try).

As a student of political philosophy, I find this idea to be as profoundly patriotic as Apollo 13 and the West Wing. As a novice philanthropist, I find it daunting and humbling. We must – guided only by the light of our conscience and our faith – use the gift that has been entrusted to us well. If the government were to ordain the good and set it before us, our job would be easy. But then, the love of a man should come from within.

“To give away money is an easy matter, and in any [person’s] power. But to decide to whom to give it, and how large and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every [person’s] power, nor an easy matter. Hence it is that such excellence is rare, praiseworthy, and noble.”

–Aristotle

How We Give

Date
Posted by
Comments0

Paul Kiekhaefer, BBA 2017

Entering into this semester, my interest in the Philanthropy Lab centered primarily around the prospect of being able to meet with local organizations, learn about their missions, and finally give them funding to help them accomplish their goals. While that experience will be valuable, the time spent these first few weeks pondering the overarching themes that are guiding philanthropy has been an effective primer for us to make decisions later.

In the past, when I would hear a phrase like “donate to charity,” I generally lumped all giving into one category. However, giving can be generally divided into two types: expressive and instrumental. When engaging in expressive giving, people donate to something as a token of gratitude or for a personal reason. For example, if as a high schooler one was positively impacted by a mentorship program like Big Brothers, Big Sisters, one would be giving expressively in donating to that same organization as an adult. To the donor, expressive giving focuses primarily on self and has goals related to a feeling of self-actualization. In contrast, instrumental giving involves less emotion but has a more utilitarian approach in attempting to alleviate a specific need. Funding a food pantry, refurbishing a school, or building a homeless shelter would generally be classified as instrumental giving. In contrast to expressive giving’s self-focus, instrumental giving is concerned with the broader needs of society as a whole.

Learning about the difference between types of giving has altered how I view philanthropy and philanthropists. Coming from the business school and being an economics student, I have an inclination to solve the most efficient outcomes. To borrow a finance term, evaluating the return on investment (ROI) is a concept which has shaped many of my actions including giving. Naturally, instrumental giving would appear to be the much more practical and useful of the two types of giving (one could even say superior). Expressive giving seemed akin to the economic concept of deadweight loss in that it aimed to solve less tangible needs, like focusing on personal fulfillment rather than measurable issues like food insecurity or inadequate healthcare. To me previously, it was fairly clear-cut that because instrumental giving is geared toward the most basic needs on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, it was the better of the two.

This class has changed my view. The first day of class, we were posed the question: “What is your philanthropic autobiography?” In other words, how have I been affected by philanthropy as both a giver and a recipient? I realized quickly that a lot of my personal journey in finding self-actualization and development as an adult was the result of expressive giving. Due to the extensive generosity of mentors and friends, I have been able to experience personal growth. In addition to my personal experiences, much of my college education has been bankrolled by the expressive giving of donors. It would be foolish to discount expressive giving altogether.

As we are continuing to examine how we want to go about our own philanthropy experiment, I have come to the conclusion that it is imperative to blend both expressive and instrumental giving. Pure expressive giving may not be the most effective and pure instrumental giving would lack personal involvement and emotion. It is crucial to combine the two in order to be effectual on multiple levels.

Why We Move

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: Lucy Bray, BBA 2017

After the first week of classes in Philanthropy & the Public Good, I had concluded that there is something enormously unsettling about a foray into philanthropy and public service.

When I initially registered for the course, I was so eager to begin the grant-making journey, and I was so excited to delve into its process. Feedback from students who had taken the course previously had ignited my imagination, and I began to look around at the Waco community and wonder how the class would enable me to be involved in it. In the midst of my zeal and enthusiasm, I had not yet stopped to consider how personal the grant-making journey necessarily would be, but the first day of class alone challenged me to reflect on a higher level. I quickly realized that the most successful philanthropy is personally meaningful for the philanthropist, and that this course would require putting my heart on the line alongside the oversized check I hope to grant. After several weeks in the class, I have become convinced that the good my classmates and I intend to do is enhanced by the degree to which we commit to it personally.

When the class began, I was reminded that before my classmates and I could begin printing those oversized checks, we would need to answer what qualified us to print them in the first place. This required a deliberate, careful review of our personally-held values. Most college students do not reflect introspectively on their values on a regular basis. The pace of college life encourages and demands us to act quickly and decisively, leaving little chance for us to move forward with confidence as to why we move in the first place. We are challenged to succeed personally, professionally, academically, and socially, and we have learned to tailor our progress and meet expectations to create apparent evidence of those successes. That is perhaps one way to survive the rigor of university life, but it is no way to serve our fellow man.

Upon examination, my classmates and I have discovered that our values, along with a general and shared sense of altruism, were what had inspired us to join the class in the first place, and what would guarantee the best possible outcomes in our grant-making decisions. Each of us brought different values to the table, and all of us had a unique perspective regarding what characteristics our philanthropy should encompass. We discovered strength in the diversity of our thoughts and beliefs, and a unifying sense of purpose that would carry us onward.

As we begin the practical aspects of the course, deliberating between issues we would like to address and avenues in which to address them, I am happy to say that we are all so excited to move forward. We know now why we move. We are strongly convicted in our personal values and motivations, and we rejoice that they demand a deep, personal, and emotional commitment to our work. We have discovered the passion we have for service and stewardship, and we have begun to challenge each other to achieve the best expression of our altruism. We feel more confident that we are guided by our best principles, and perhaps more sure of why we are qualified to discern ways in which we can benefit our community.

 

Beginnings

Date
Posted by
Comments0

By: Savannah Newman, BBA 2017

These first few weeks of class time in Philanthropy and the Public Good have been centered around defining what philanthropy means introspectively for each of us as individuals as well as what it means to our class as a whole. We have just been placed in the groups we will be working with for the semester, so much of what has been done so far has been laying the foundation of what we will be working on this semester.

What I have discovered about myself through these first couple weeks have been uncovering the motivations for giving back and wanting take this class in the first place. On the surface the class appealed to me because it came so highly recommended, it would be a nice break from economics and math, and I knew that it would attract other high-achieving, intriguing students that I would be able to work with. However, what these first few weeks of class has caused me to do is really reflect on what makes up my value system and what aspects of who I am drew me to this class.

There was an exercise that we completed in the second week where we first wrote down the most important values that shape our own life, then recall events that had stirred strong emotional responses, and finally describe the people who most inspire us. Reflecting on what truly matters to me helped me to adequately articulate what it is I hope to accomplish not just this semester but throughout my life. I discovered not only the reasons I had taken this class, but also the underlying motivations for my path in life. I realized the importance I place on education based off of the influence of my grandmother; I discovered my desire to empower, work with, and learn from the people I am serving based conversations with women on my mission trip to Trinidad and Tobago; I connected my upbringing in Waco to my desire to contribute to the wonderful initiatives taking place and this class. Though these events and people have always been a part of my life, I had never sat down and physically written down the connections of my values to them.

I hope to keep these ideas at the forefront of my time in this class as we move from the more philosophical reasoning to the tangible and more concrete aspects of the class. I understand that these values, both my own and the ones we have discussed as a class, are the foundation of what we are to build upon this semester. They are what we should keep in mind as we dive into the finite questions of our giving. They are what we should return to when the hard questions come and there are seemingly no answers.

Already, I see the impacts of this class on how I view the world around me and how I relate to my surrounding environment and community. I am excited about the journey ahead and the person that I will become in the process.