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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maggie

This week we really focused on how we make informed decisions about how we will give away our money. The readings, practice interviews and the guest speakers helped us focus on our priorities and how we determine potential organizations.

The practice interviews compelled me to reevaluate what I thought the class as a whole was looking for in an organization and specifically what we wanted to learn from them. How could we ask questions that allow us to establish a connection with the interviewee and obtain sufficient information about their work to ensure we are able to find a proper fit? I believe it was apparent that as a class we wanted the interview to transpire more like a conversation than an interrogation. Watching the three groups interview “Jane Addams” really helped to expose some of the flaws in different techniques, as well as, some great questions that can potentially reveal a lot about the organizations.

The guest speakers provided us with a lot of input on the process of determining the right organization to receive the grant. One important point that was made, emphasized the fact that we don’t know everything, and we can potentially learn a lot from the different organizations we consider as long as we keep an open mind. Another point broached the idea that giving a grant is establishing a partnership, which consequently means that we are not greater or more important than those applying for the grant. There are a lot of worthy organizations doing good work, we are simply trying to find one that coincides with our goals and will partner successfully with us. One approach to finding the right partnership that was discussed asserted that determining the right organization required a combination of gut instincts and hard data. I think this is an important point to remember when doing the interviews and site visits, that there are crucial aspects beyond the facts we are given that need to be taken into consideration.

I am excited about moving forward to interacting with the different organizations. To discover how exactly we will determine the best fit for us, as well as how we will manage to overcome differences in opinion.