Dan Pallotta’s blog post about the effectiveness measurement of nonprofits interested me because I’d never really thought to measure the effectiveness of these organizations. (I suppose this is because so much of the information we take in is a novelty to me.) This idea of knowing the effectiveness of organizations in order to make better decisions about which to donate to seemed great to me. I like Pallotta’s way of measuring the effectiveness, too. By the end of the article I began to wonder what else the effectiveness rating or score could be used for. If an organization was rated low enough would they be shut down, or would the low rating in effect cause the organization to fail. It reminds me of this new trend that is happening in the restaurant business—grades. Apparently (and I just read this a couple days ago, so forgive me for not citing the source) restaurants all over CA, and along the West coast in general, are starting to be assigned a letter grade just like in school that is then displayed in their window or door. I think (or assume) it is decided by highly reputable food critics what the grade of the restaurant is, but I have no idea what information comprises the grade. So, if a charity is given an effectiveness score, then I think we as the public a have right to know what that score is made up of. Which, if I read it right, is what Pallotta believes too. Could the effectiveness rating affect whether or not an org. gets grants and publicity, etc? I think so, but how public would it be? Would they be required to make it public information that is easily accessible, like how the restaurants post their grade on the front window or door? Just some questions I was left with.
The estate tax reading was a bit of a mystery to me. I understand that the top rung of our socioeconomic hierarchy is probably salivating at the tax decrease of an estate that will most likely be left to a family member, but what does it mean to the nonprofit sector? With a lower amount of that money going to the government, I would hope that these people most affected by the tax cut are more motivated to invest some of that dough into charities, but that’s not what I think really goes down. Maybe it is? Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum it is hard for me to believe these people are charitable in the least because I am often blinded by what I think they ought to be doing for charities, etc.
Tim Harford’s blog post was awesome! It was relatively old information for me, but nonetheless interesting and thought provoking. I love this depiction of the person who does not want to donate to a charity but feels pressured by the door-to-door representative so he or she hides behind the couch. So funny! I agree that people have varying motivations for their altruism, but I also think that there are more than three categories. Perhaps it is best to think of these three as the main ones that everything else kind of falls under. His post relates perfectly to the chapter we read from the text about religion. I think that a lot can be said for social pressures within religious organizations to do prosocial things within our larger communities. That’s a huge part of why religious groups are have survived so long in our history as a species, these organized groups of people build trust in their common belief systems, and it’s been great for our survival.
Lastly the charitable deduction article worried me. If this law were to pass, I believe that nonprofits would be crippled because the larger donations that help to really keep these organizations alive are often incentivized by the deduction the donors receive for giving away such large sums of money. I did like the idea of the organizations receiving the an additional 15% of the donations though, in effect giving the government a portion and the nonprofit organization of peoples’ choice a portion of the money taxed.
Some additional stuff:
A short (less than a page) article about religion and altruism/cooperation.
Another RSA video if you have the time (~10 min.). This one talks about how the formation of religions and shared belief systems influence our cooperative/altruistic behaviors
That's a really interesting take on rating non-profits. As I read that article, I remembered seeing an investigative report about the better business bureaus grading or rating system. It turned out, the businesses that got the best grades were the ones who were members of the BBB and also advertised heavily with them. I hope the non-profit sector isn't rated the same way. Imagine, small non-profits with little in extra resources to contribute to the rating agencies, as Pallotta suggested, getting a poor grade and receiving even less funding than before they were rated. I believe that as more people rely on rating agencies to direct where their giving goes, it's even more important that they clearly state the criteria used for their ratings.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the article you posted was particularly interesting. It confirmed a thought I was too unsure about to voice. I know that people give for various reasons but it's strange to think that religous people give more for fear that god is watching or that there peers expect them too. It almost makes me feel like they are some how less generous than the nonreligious giver. Giving out of guilt or concern for your own eternal soul strikes me as insincere( and highly polItical). Though this does not mean that their money is not doing good things, because of course it is and it is clearly a huge source for many non-profits. I guess when working in a nonprofit you can't worry so much about why the money is coming. Best to take it at face value.
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed Tim Harford's article and his explanation of how some people feel forced to participate in the giving/donating that is engrained in the American lifestyle. As a Religious studies minor, I agree that this pressure speaks toward why so many religious people and or organizations give back. Religion is big part of why cultures and communities survive during hard times and who better than a holy figure to encourage others to give to those less fortunate. In my opinion it doesn't matter who's "watching" people should donate or volunteer where and whenever possible but understand that some people need a little more "motivation" or pressure.
ReplyDeleteI am the person who hides behind the couch! I also agree that there are more than three categories of givers. They completely missed a person donating to charities because it is something that affects their life such as cancer or Alzheimer’s research. No matter how the information is presented and no matter what your “style”, you’ll give money because you believe strongly in the cause.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don’t understand why the government would pass any laws that would make things harder for charities. If there were even the slightest chance that passing a law would create a situation where people gave less money away, the government would be getting less assistance. We all know that charities pick up in many areas that they government should be financially supporting. I appreciate you digging up extra articles and videos.