Heather

This week in class we started the crucial process of drafting missions statements. We were first asked to consider and write about our own personal philanthropic philosophies. After completing our personal statements we were split up into two groups to create missions and values statements that will help guide where we will eventually spend our funds. We also discussed the proposition of trying to find someone to match the $10,000 we already have to work with or fundraising to add to it.

The readings for this week focused on the types of grants that can be made as well as things that should be considered when deciding whom to give money to. By the end of class on Thursday each of the two class groups decided they would like to focus their efforts on youth in the local area. One group’s mission statement focused mainly on education, however, while the other wanted to support youth involvement in the community. In addition, the first group wanted to focus on smaller organizations in either Prince George’s County or Montgomery County, while the second group limited their scope to Prince George’s County without specifying how large or small the organization should be.

I think the work we did this week was extremely important. Not only did it get us thinking about the specifics of where we want the money to be spent, it also forced us to start considering many of the logistical aspects of the philanthropic process. One of the readings highlighted the importance of a mission statement by offering an example of an organization that was forced to refer back to their core values and purpose when they were unable to fund all of their desired projects. This reading had a particular impact on how I viewed our assignment. It made me realize that the work we started this week will be pivotal in setting limits on our spending and helping us choose a worthy organization to give to. In terms of logistics, the class was forced to compromise and prioritize values and goals in order to complete the mission statements. Personally, I would like to see the two groups eventually merge and form one mission statement. I think our goals are similar enough that we could come to an agreement as a class and use all of the funds to promote one cause. By remaining in separate groups the class will be forced to split our already small sum of money into two smaller portions that ultimately may not make as great of an impact.

Connie

In the beginning of this week, after all the chaos of the blizzard subsided, we held our long-awaited debate on America's Top Philanthropists. Each of the five groups represented one philanthropist; on the panel were Jane Addams, Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, Julius Rosenwald and Black Elk. We developed opening statements for our respective philanthropists and created "hard-hitting" questions directed at our opponents.

Jane Addams was a favorable philanthropist because she immersed herself in the poor neighborhoods and allowed herself to truly understand the root of the problem (of poverty). Some people viewed Rosenwald as a man before his time because he strove to help African Americans. Some people also liked Rosenwald’s and Carnegie’s philosophies of giving and making a difference when alive. I think The Kaplan Fund was a good example of good intentions gone wrong when money and expectations were put in the hands of younger generations. Also, some argued that Carnegie’s “ladders upon which the aspiring can rise” was placed a little too high off the ground by only building libraries in communities where they could afford to maintain them. Others argued that Carnegie’s method made the communities more connected with the libraries because they had to invest their own money and efforts into them. Rockefeller, another popular philanthropist, was favored because he hired experts to take care of his organizations in efforts to ensure that they were successful. Black Elk, though the least popular in class, valued giving as a way to express one’s humanity and membership in the community.

We also had the pleasure of receiving advice from Terri Freeman and Angela Hackley from the Community Foundation National Capital Region. One of the obstacles our class is going to face is deciding who to help, and who to turn down. Most likely, all the organizations will have honorable causes and missions, making our decision difficult. Terri and Angela stressed the importance of finding a group with strength. Not necessarily strength in its application, but strength in its organization. Do people in the organization talk to each other? How is the power distributed among colleagues? Are its goals and missions lucid and understandable? Can we make an impact this way? Dr. Grimm added that it is a balance between the head and the heart that we must find.

Carlos

This week was quite interesting in terms of learning various aspects and different approaches to philanthropy. We first examined 5 very different philanthropists in American history (Jane Addams, Andrew Carnegie, Julius Rosenwald, John D. Rockefeller, and the Lakota Tribe). Addams approach was very hands on and she delved right into a problem area and got on the level of those who needed aid. Carnegie was very adamant about giving away almost all of a person’s fortune while being alive and refrain from leaving to heirs or giving away money after passing. Rosenwald was against perpetual endowments and again was similar to Carnegie in believing one should be philanthropic before they pass. Rockefeller’s philosophy on philanthropy was based on the idea of “scientific giving.” He wanted to know as much information as possible and know that he was giving to a worthy cause before donating to a particular organization. The Lakota Tribe considered philanthropy giving to their immediate community and instead of giving what they had left over they gave everything they had. The philosophy I found to be the most effective was Rockefeller’s idea on “scientific giving.” It seems that by knowing as much information about a cause and organization as possible, you and the organization can get the most out of a donation.

On Thursday, February 18 we welcomed Ms. Terri Freeman and Ms. Angela Jones Hackley, president and vice president of the Community Foundation National Capital Region. They informed us a little on their organization and how a community/public foundation works. They stressed some points about the surrounding regions of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County and how their philanthropic and community needs can be addressed. They also made a very good point that “philanthropy alone will not fix a public problem, but it can be catalytic and leverage more money.” We as a class must realize that once this process of giving a grant away is completed, we are still indebted to the community and the receiving organization to remain active in trying to better whatever aspect of the community we target to fund. A great idea was also brought up during class about possibly being able to have another organization or various people and businesses to match our $10,000 grant and increase the impact we have on our community. This is an interesting opportunity that we as a class can discuss and decide on whether this is an attainable goal to pursue (Ms. Freeman said it was!). Keep brainstorming on ideas for what problems we want to address with our grant and I’ll see you Tuesday.

Nicole

CPSP318P has really hit the ground running in the first two weeks of class. With only four meetings under our belt, we’ve already jumped head first into our discussion of philanthropy. Through a series of readings and case studies, our conception of philanthropy has widened. The readings that stand out most in my mind are those that address the potential obstacles we may face throughout the course of the semester. For example, the reading The Snow Image describes the possibility of attempting to help someone, without fully understanding the circumstances of their need. In that situation, the potential of making the situation worse for the people you are trying to help is great. It brought to our attention the need to fully understand the needs of those we want to help, before rushing in, head first, and attempting to solve the problem any way we think we should.

The other reading that stands out most in my mind was the Kaplan Fund’s case study. This reading showed the importance of strong leadership, and organization in a fund. Being that we are all in the Public Leadership program, this particular lesson seemed to resonate throughout the class. It also inspired a nice discussion about how we would like to come to an agreement on where we think the money should be going. In this discussion we debated the pros and cons of splitting up the money among several organizations versus giving a larger sum of money to one organization.

Beyond the readings, I have been most struck by the quality of discussion among our classmates. With every topic at hand, there has been at least one comment made by one of my classmates that would not have occurred to me on a normal basis. These first few classes have made me very excited for the semester, and everything our class will be doing. We have a great group of students who are all very excited about our project, and I have already learned so much, just within our first four classes.

Loretta

Our first full week of classes has just ended, and I have begun to get a better grip on the concept of philanthropy. We know that we will receive $10,000, we know that we will be giving it away, and we know will be involved in the philanthropic process. But what is philanthropy? What does it really means? As a class, this week we began to delve into these topics.

We analyzed a reading called, “True and False Philanthropy.” We discussed if there is such a thing as true philanthropy versus false philanthropy. Is it better to give to the world or just to your own community? There were many different opinions on this issue. Some felt that giving to your own community was better because you would be more involved in the process. Sometimes that is very hard to do on a large scale because it is much easier to lose track of where your money goes. At the same time, we must not forget the people in the world who are in need. The tragedy in Haiti was mentioned. Haiti would not be considered as part of our community, but they are dependent on U.S help. We talked about what it would it be happen if the US just focused helping those within its borders.

We read two case studies. We learned that it is important for an organization to have a concrete plan with measurable results. Just because we agree in helping a cause does not mean we should jump to donate money. It is best for our money to be used most efficiently, and the best way to do that is with a plan we accept and approve. We also discussed whether it is better to give money as one gift or if the money should be split into smaller gifts. As a class we decided it would be more effective to give one large gift because in that we would be able to make a greater difference.

Later in the week, we looked at history and philanthropy. We read about some of the first philanthropists such as Benjamin Franklin, Cotton Mather, and John Winthrop. There was criticism of Franklin in the way he left money for apprentices after his death. Some argued it was better to give while you are alive because you would be able to see results and be involved in the process. Some believe that some issues are long term and one cannot simple give all one’s money when they are alive because it is better to give in a way that is sustainable.