This blog is generated by students in the College Park Scholars Public Leadership Program who are taking a course in philanthropy. Join us as we develop our vision of the social good and then learn how best to deploy resources to achieve an impact. During the semester, we will go through the challenging and exciting process of giving away actual money to achieve beneficial change in our local community. Thanks for reading!

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Brendan

This week in lieu of class we attended a site visit for at least one of the five finalists for our grant. I was only able to attend the Campfire USA site visit but I did get the chance to speak with my roommates about their site visits to Mentoring to Manhood, Prince George's Tennis and the Latin American Youth Center. From what I saw at Campfire and from what I heard about the other organizations it seems like we are going to have a very interesting week next week with some heated debate.

After the first stage of the application process Campfire USA was one of my top organizations. Now after conducting the interview and going on the site visit Campfire has solidified itself as the top applicant in my opinion. On the site visit I saw a lot of things that I liked. The kids all seemed to be really engaged in the activities while having fun at the same time.

It was especially interesting to see how each activity had so much more going on than appeared on the surface. One of the activities that was going on during our site visit was an ice cream making session. The kids were all really interested in this because of the promise of ice cream at the end of the activity. However there was a lot more to the activity than just making ice cream. The activity leader was teaching the kids about what went into ice cream and giving them an idea about where those ingredients come from. The activity also gave kids a little insight into chemistry without them even realizing. When they saw the salt out with the rest of the ingredients they thought that it went into the ice cream. However they later learned that the salt went in with the ice to make the ice water colder and prevent it from freezing at the normal temperatures.

These kinds of activities are what really set Campfire apart in my mind. In my experiences working with kids it can be really difficult to sit them down and get them to sit down and focus on academics. Campfire provides such an innovative way to integrate fun activities with an educational component.

If this week has done anything I think it has created a set of students who are going to die hard for the organization they support. I live with 3 other PL students (Jason, Eran and Dor) and we have all ready gotten in to small arguments about which organization is most deserving of the grant. I realized that none of the organizations are more deserving than the other organizations. All of the organizations do amazing work and have huge impacts on the young people that come to their organization. As a class we need to figure out what organization fits us best and where do we think that we can get the biggest “bang for our buck.” Looking back on it deciding to make only one large grant rather than 3 small ones might not have been the best idea. There is not a lot certainty when it comes to philanthropy, but one this is certain, next week is definitely going to be interesting.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Claire

Ah, what an interesting week! It’s getting closer and closer to decision-making time, and from what I hear there’s only one consensus: it’s going to be difficult to select the recipient of our funds. With this in mind, I asked Professor Grimm on the site visit to the Latin American Youth Center if we would be discussing how we were going to decide, as a class, on the final organization before we started discussing reactions to site visits and references. I’m concerned that somehow that we’ll all be strongly set on which organization we personally think deserves the $10,000, and if we haven’t previously established how we’re going to finally decide as a group, we’ll all try to suggest systems that favor one organization (our preferred) over another. And what’s more, it just occurred to me today that we may have trouble narrowing down past three non-profits! Scary thought. Exciting, too, I suppose.

I’ve only been on one site visit thus far, but from what I understand, most people’s experiences with leaders from these organizations have one thing in common: a clear demonstration of commitment to their work. It’s reassuring to see how invested these leaders are in their causes. One would hope, of course, that the person using such blood, sweat and time to better their organization would be dedicated to its worthy mission, but I still found my site visit this week refreshing and heart-warming. I was reminded on the trip that most of the adults that we’re meeting much like Andre Benepe, go above and beyond their official job descriptions each day. And generally, it’s because they care so deeply about what they do. It’s not for money or prestige.

These are role models. These are people who are encouraging us to get involved with their organizations, to be active parts of what they do for a living. Most of these organizations have opened their doors to us, whether for a day or for a year of involvement. But what about even longer periods, like making work in non-profit our careers? This class has opened a window into the lives of these strong, dynamic people who we respect and may some day want to emulate. I didn’t anticipate such an outcome from this class, but it’s certainly a benefit.

So. Do I have strong opinions about where I think our funds should go? Yes. But despite anticipating some difficult decisions in the near future, I am calmed by the growing knowledge that the organizations that we’re considering do wonderful, valuable work, and no matter what we will be investing in leaders who will carry out tasks and programs in which we all see the good.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Avinash

The past week has been very interesting for our class. As a whole, we gained valuable insight as to which organizations are preferred. Phone interviews were conducted with eight organizations, three of which were done in class. Students listened to the other five outside of class. The interview gave us a deeper look at each organization and allowed us the chance to seek answers to any pressing questions we may have had. The general consensus of the class seems to be that no organization gave a particularly bad interview. That being said, there was a relatively clear distinction in regard to which interviews were better than the rest.

The most interesting part of class this week was on Thursday, when we decided the number of site visits we would go on and which organizations we would be visiting. As a class, we agreed that in order for a decision to be made, twenty-one out of the twenty-five students must be in agreement. After eight phone interviews, we could only agree as a class on two organizations to visit. This was surprising- there didn't seem to be any overwhelming dissatisfaction with any organization, yet we still could not agree on who to visit. To a certain degree, part of the problem was that students backed the organizations they interviewed. Ultimately, a decision was reached, but it was definitely not as clear cut and easily done as most of us had hoped. I can't help thinking that if deciding on site visits was this difficult, making a final decision for funding will be even more so. Hopefully, the site visits next week will make our decision a little easier.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Chris

From Tuesday on, this week gave new insight to the students in deciding which organizations to chose. In class, we started off the week with three phone interviews. Unfortunately due to time constraints, the other interviews were done outside of class, recorded, then posted online for the rest of the class to hear. While listening, I thought that this seemed to be one of the most valuable processes of the selection process because it gave us insight into the organization beyond just an application. It was more personal and easier to find the answers to tough questions that really show the type of organization we are in contact with. Asking questions like “What is your biggest failure and how did you cope with it?” seemed to me almost invaluable. However, in the end, my favorite part of the interview was just getting to know the story behind what these organizations are all about, and not just numbers on a page.

With the interview process, however, came a few problems. The main concern beforehand was that students would have a bias towards the organization that they talked to. While this happened to some degree, it did not impede the ability for the class to come together and make decisions. In a medium sized class with ten applicants, I thought it would be harder for students to remain unbiased, but with a well rounded and compromising class, we managed to decide on which organizations to visit this coming week.

I look forward to the coming weeks of class. Not only has the interview process proven my pessimism wrong, but it also looks like the site visits will be just as revealing. After interviewing, and reading applications, this may be the most important deciding factor. Personally, I can’t wait.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

James

The past few weeks have been a great exercise of the many things we have learned throughout the semester in our class. We were fortunate enough to get a range of applications in from a pretty good selection of organizations throughout PG county. I think that many of us were relieved when Saturday came around and we saw the bounty of applications that we had feared might not come. Having a broad range of applicants has been great because we can really use the knowledge and viewpoints we have developed over the course of this class to debate and whittle down the list of applicants until we decide on who we want to interview and visit.

I think that having the panel speak has been a great asset for us. Several panel members cautioned us to not place too much weight on the application because some great organizations might not have the best writing while conversely terrible organizations could have really great writers. I think that advice has been instrumental in our decision to interview by phone a broad range of applicants to give everyone a chance to make their case. We received several applications that people weren't too crazy about due to poor writing or budget presentation but myself and many others feel we have nothing to lose by giving them a chance in a phone interview.

Site visits are another story as we have very limited time left in the course and many people have very busy schedules. I think that we need to be very careful in where we decide to visit as we should only explore the best options to be able to better decide amongst them. I don't think we should copy our plan with the phone interviews and give the underdogs a chance because I think that by that time they will have had ample opportunities to make their cases. I think that the site visits are too valuable as opportunities to distinguish between organizations doing really good, efficient work and those who aren't as invested in their work.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Andrew

This week in class has been an interesting one. We finally received and reviewed applications from ten organizations in our community, which is what we eagerly anticipated after weeks of deliberation, dissenting opinions, constructive criticism, compromise and informative readings and hearing from experienced philanthropists. As a class, we agreed that we wanted to help an organization that works with children in grades K-8 in Prince Georges County, but it was interesting to see the diversity of programs just within that field represented with just ten applications. During the week, were able to narrow down the applications to our top choices and are currently working to develop questions for our interview, and plan our site visits. I personally look forward to putting a face to the applications so to speak, and get a first-hand look at the potential organizations we will fund. Personally, this is the first time I’ve been in a position where I’ve received applications and must decide which ones to deny and ones to approve. This made me aware of things that attracted my attention in an application; ranging from the amount of specific details included, the overall presentation and appearance of the application, and the technical aspects such as diction, syntax and grammar errors. By recognizing what features make me favor a certain application over another, I will be able to incorporate these things as I myself continue to apply for scholarships and eventually a career.

Our next step in the process is to eventually make site visits in the upcoming weeks, as well as conduct interviews. The site visits will give us an excellent chance to get up close and personal with the remaining organizations and gain better insight to how our donation will impact that organization. Two weeks ago Mr. and Mrs. Levenson, the two individuals who gave our class the money to donate, mentioned the importance of the site visit among other things. Many applications may be very appealing and are well-written, but visiting the organization’s site may tell a different story and vice versa. The interviews are the final step, and will allow us to ask questions that the organization didn’t answer, or were unclear about. After these two steps, we will have all the information we need, and the deliberation and debate process will start once again in order to make our final decision. I wish the best of luck to all of the organizations that applied in their future endeavors.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Talia

The main focus of Tuesday’s class was the assigned case studies, specifically the Change in Management case. This case was primarily about Lawrence Frymire, the Executive Director of New Jersey Public Television, who was essentially forced to resign from this position, which he had held for nine years, after the station had recently been faced with a change in leadership. The purpose of our class discussion was to try and identify who was to blame for the change in management at NJPTV while considering the multitude of different factors. Was it the whole Commission’s fault? Was it the head person of the Commission, Meade? Was it the new Governor Bryne, who came into his position as governor already showing dissatisfaction with NJPTV? Going into class, I believed the change in management was due to a fundamental discrepancy between the old and new leadership in regards to the nature and direction of the NJPTV. I believed that with more communication regarding the new leaderships concerns over the old management, the change in management could have likely been avoided. However, upon completing our class discussion, my opinion on who was to blame changed. Our class’s analysis of the case study and Frymire made me realize the person to blame for the change in management was Frymire himself. While Frymire was a man of integrity and could be considered successful at his job in many regards, as a leader he failed to remain adaptable to change. Even after a new leadership was implemented, Frymire adamantly stuck to his old ways of running the station, disregarding Governor Bryne’s and the Commissions suggestions for improvement. Reading this case made me realize a critical quality of any successful leader is adaptability and openness to change.

I believe our class’s intelligent discussion on and thorough analysis of this case was a reflection of the progress we have made as new philanthropists and as public leaders in general. By gaining more insight into and knowledge of what it means to be a successful philanthropists and leader, we in turn are becoming successful philanthropists and leaders.

Jason

There was not much news this week in terms of applications coming in. As of class on Thursday, there were no applications in. This worried me a little, but was assured that some organizations were going to submit an application on the due date, Friday, April 2. Because we were still waiting for applications to come in, the class read up on a couple leaders and an all-women giving circle.

The leaders we read about were Lawrence Frymire of New Jersey Public TV (NJPTV) and Adrian Benepe of New York City Parks Commissioner. The contrasts between the two were amazing. Frymire was more of an anonymous leader, while Benepe was more known. I thought that Frymire was a great leader for NJPTV, and even though he was forced to resign, I think he could have kept doing good things for NJPTV. Benepe I also think was a good leader. I was amazed at how committed Benepe was to the parks. He personally looked out for vandals, and he went to events to promote donating to the parks, which he hated doing. I think both leaders were good for the job they had. I feel that Frymire did not need to promote NJPTV as much as Benepe had to promote the parks, so Frymire not going to events was did not harm NJPTV.

The all-women giving circle, the Hestia Fund (HF), was also a very interesting reading. I really enjoyed how hands-on HF was towards the organizations they funded. Also, making sure that not only organizations get money, but also the women in HF learn about philanthropy. This is an amazing concept, and it helped everyone want to be a part of HF. The impact that 40 women made with just $5,000 each was extraordinary. The read was very interesting and seemed to parallel what we are doing in class. We are a bunch of people that are trying to give away money, and we seem to run into a few of the same situations.

Overall, this week’s readings were very interesting and exposed me to a couple ways to lead and how those leaders ended up. Also, learning about HF was interesting as well because of how successful the fund was, and how much it paralleled our class. I am also hoping that we get some applications back for next week.