While I appreciate Mr. Caplan’s desire to draw attention to the needs of many non-profits during the lean summer months, his article perpetuates a narrative many organizations are working hard to rewrite.
Mr. Caplan rightfully applauds organization’s that seek to work cooperatively with other organizations, as well as those who prioritize working with local partners. These actions are a part of a relief and development model that is now considered “best practice” by most NGO’s. But his understanding of the donor perspective in assessing an organization is out of date and does little to help someone who is motivated to give consider anything of great value, as the title of his article suggests.
To use terms like “begging” to describe the activity of raising funds for important causes creates hurdles for many prospective donors and worthy organizations. This term suggests that there is an “us” and “them” in a transactional experience.
The reality is that inherent in the act of giving is an opportunity for a mutually transformative relationship. Making the decision to release personal resources for the benefit of another is a truly radical act in a culture that regularly tells us success in life is dependent on the accumulation of more. Yes, the recipient of donate funds, goods or services may find his or her situation transformed, but in choosing to release these resources, the donor has exercised his or her personal values. In doing so, the donor has become more like the person they hope to be. This is a great reward and of great benefit for the giver. By giving, the donor has chosen to express a love for humanity, the very definition of being “philanthropic”.
Mr. Caplan also chooses to extoll a tried and not entirely helpful measurement matrix, one where the highest virtue an organization can express is that of efficiency. In this system, top marks are given to the organizations with the least amount of administration costs, this being the working definition of efficiency in non-profits. The trouble with this matrix is it does little to assess an organization’s effectiveness. I, for one, if ask to choose between efficiency and effectiveness, would choose to give to the organization that was having the greatest impact, the organization that is most effective. Not that efficiency isn’t important. It can be a good measure of how seriously an organization takes its responsibility for stewarding well the resources entrusted to it. That said, if 100% of the money I give to an organization is designated to “administration” but in doing so, that organization can change the lives of thousands of people, rather than hundreds of people the organization could help when holding fast to a policy of spending no more than 20% of its budget on admin, I say “designate my gift for administration and blow the roof off the efficiency metric”. I want to see impact, it’s the number one reason I give.
What most donors long for is to participate in making the world a little bit better. When choosing an organization to partner with choose an organization that helps you best express your values. Then terms like “begging” and “efficiency” will have little to do with which organizations you consider and how you ultimately choose to express your love for humanity.
For more info on DOING GOODER visit doinggooder.com
No comments:
Post a Comment