With this week’s reading and
video, a common theme of “managing to outcomes” was prevalent. This meant that
the organization was designed around achieving their intended results as
efficiently as possible. These ideas led me to examine the issue area that I am
most passionate about and the organizations that my family supports.
I am most passionate about
maintaining my own health, the health of my family, and that of others. This is
driven through two people in my family that have been affected by chronic
illnesses. The first is my brother Tommy, who has been living with Type I
Diabetes for about a year now. The second is my grandfather on my dad’s side,
who died of smoking related lung cancer before I was born. Because of these two
people, my family gives mainly to JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
and the American Cancer Society.
Looking at these two
organizations, the goals or outcomes are pretty clear – to find cures to the
respective illnesses. Neither can fit perfectly into the managing to outcomes
scheme. Ultimately, the money raised goes to researchers, and the indicators of
progress are determined by them as well. They can determine a model for giving,
but the data system and assessment are not solely their own.
This also makes me think about
the benefits and downsides of donating to organizations such as these. First of
all, you never really know that your money is going to make a difference until
a cure or better form of treatment (less invasive, fewer side effects, etc.) is
found. Realistically, we don’t know if cures to these illnesses will ever be found.
With cancer, for example, the division of cancer cells would have to be
stopped, while the division of normal cells is unaffected, which is a very
difficult thing to achieve. For diabetes, we’d need to repair the damage done
to the pancreas and prevent the immune system from attacking it again. So if we
give to these organizations with no idea of whether or not it will help the
situation at all, does that mean we have been unwise with our donations? Have
we been wasting money on dead ends while we could have been helping people
affected by poverty or hunger? But can we justify giving up on helping a large
group of people who die each year from these diseases, only because we believe
that there is no solution?
These are not easy questions to
answer, at least not for me. I think that any progress made is great, since it
gives people hope and encourages them to keep strong despite their
deteriorating health. I do not know if the money my family gives to these
organizations will eventually allow people to find cures, but we care strongly
enough to try anyway. In that way, the money is not wasted. If these goals are
deemed impossible to reach, it will definitely seem like we wasted a lot of our
time and money when we could have made a larger impact somewhere else.
I have struggled with the same thoughts, especially since health care is a very important issue to me as well. Many of my family members have been affected by lung cancer and breast cancer, and so my family donates a lot to different cancer foundations. It's hard to feel the same sense of pride and accomplishment when donating to a research fund than it is when you donate to those organizations that send you a picture of the specific person you are feeding or providing clothing or education. Immediate results are hard to compete with. However, I don't think giving to research is a waste.
ReplyDeleteIf giving to research is not results-oriented enough for someone who is passionate about health care, I think giving money to organizations that help treat preventable disease is a great way to go. As we read in Singer, millions of people die every year due to diseases in third world countries that are no longer a threat to those in wealthy nations. This is personally very upsetting, and as hard as it is for us with family diagnosed with incurable diseases to watch that person suffer, imagine how much of an injustice it is having a family member diagnosed with a disease that you know other, more privileged people don't even have to worry about. Providing medicine for malaria, measles, diarrhea, and many others are ways to give and see direct, immediate results.
I definitely think it is important to support research to find cures to diseases such as AIDS, cancer, diabetes, and many others. I also think it is a great injustice for people to die of disease that is preventable. Giving to both causes for those that are passionate about health care can help someone feel more satisfied with immediate results as well as feeling optimistic for the future in hopes that their giving will contribute to revolutionary breakthroughs in finding a cure.
Ryan, this was an interesting take on how people feel about their donations to different organizations. I agree with a lot of what Dana is saying too, she has a nice approach for people who want to see results. Of course we would all like to see results in the progression of finding a cure for cancer but the most our donations can do is support research and give hope to cancer victims. I strongly agree and support Doris Buffet's notion of helping those who just have "bad luck," it's not these people's fault that they are diagnosed with such terrible diseases, in our country we focus on giving these people hope that they will get better or give them the most we can if they are nearing their end. In other countries, it's hard to offer hope to those that have diseases that many people die of and it's hard for a family to give simple needs such as water or food to a dying loved one.
ReplyDeleteSome people are attracted to donating to causes that have some importance to them like donating to cancer research while other people give to preventable diseases that many third-world countries suffer from. The variety of giving is reflected through everyone's different opinions but it creates hope and offers help to those in need. So it is important to keep encouraging people to understand their own values so they become philanthropist and show their support to a cause that can mean something to them. If lots of people become philanthropists there will be people helping in all different kinds of philanthropic aspects and needs.
Ryan, Dana, and Cassie,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to look at the questions posed from a little bit of a different angle. I truly believe that one of the main reasons that people give charity is because to them, that is one way that they truly know that they are making a difference. Take the American Cancer Society for example. If I care deeply about cancer research, I have two main options. I can either research and begin to look for a cure myself, or I can donate the money. I can choose to donate the money to an organization or a cause that both will A) address the topic which I am passionate about and B) has more money that I have, and logically will make a bigger impact. Simply put, my 10 dollars will go farther in the field of cancer research if it is in the hands of the American Cancer Society, rather than the hands of Max Bartell.
I don't think that we have been wasting money by giving it in this respect, but I certainly think that there are other courses of action that we can take to help reduce hunger on a much smaller scale. I know that in the seat pockets of both my parents' cars there are an assortment of granola bars and gift cards to places like McDonald's, Burger King, and the occasional 16 Handles. Whenever they see someone who is holding up a sign, or verbally asking for money, the first response is to give these people some food, so they can quench their hunger and thirst for a short while. I believe that this, combined with the intelligent giving of people does, can, and will continue to make an impact to help end hunger and solve other pressing social issues.
Ryan, I found your post really thought provoking. I understand the urge to look for organizations that “manage to outcomes” because the result is tangible and immediate, and you know exactly where money is going. There is no question of it succeeding, which is a legitimate concern when donating to a research organization.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are so many diseases for which cures have been found that were once major killers. Tuberculosis, Measles, Mumps, Diphtheria, and may more were all major killers which now have vaccines. In order to create these vaccines, research was necessary. Without funding, this research would not have been possible. I do not mean to say that research for cancer and diabetes will absolutely result in the creation of a vaccine. However, those people who now never need to fear TB and the rest can definitely attest to the fact that the funding that went into the research of those diseases was not a waste. In short, finding a cure may not be a certainty, but without funding, a cure is not even a possibility.
Since I’m on the topic of vaccines that are already available, I should note that I also wholeheartedly agree with Dana. These vaccines should be available to everyone. The fact that they are not is a tragedy.
If you are still wary about donating to causes that just focus on research, donating to a cause that promotes availability of vaccines that already exist, as Dana suggests, is a great option. Another option is supporting an organization that helps people with the disease but not necessarily in research. For example, Make a Wish gives children with cancer wonderful life experiences which do not necessarily make them physically better but can do wonders for their spirit. Also, St. Jude’s is a wonderful cause because they not only treat children with cancer at no cost, but they do research as well. This way you can donate to research, but also know that children are receiving cancer treatment. It is a good mix of both the desire to facilitate research and the desire to have direct impact.
Ryan, I completely agree it's important to donate to foundations that fund research for disease--as Max said, it's the only way we'll ever find a cure or better treatment. While it's important to donate to a group that actually gives most of its funds to research (as opposed to high salaries for its board members) a makes good use of the money it receives, it's baffling to me that people could object to such donations because there's no "certainty" it will be effectual. I don't think these people really understand how science works; you don't just mix some chemicals together and all of a sudden get a cure for cancer. Scientific theory is based on repeated trial and error, and there is going to be a lot of error before there's a success...which then has to be tested, verified, and perfected. This takes an incredible amount of time, energy, luck, and money. My grandmother died of pancreatic cancer, and if there's even a tiny chance that by giving donations to fund research, I could help find a cure or better treatment for that disease, I would do in a heartbeat. Yes, it's possible my donation wouldn't do anything, but that's not a waste. If you never give a researcher the chance to make a discovery, even if you know they could fail, then you ensure that discovery will never happen.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, there are many diseases, such as AIDS, where a more grassroots approach could be taken, like Cassie and Max said. In this case, donations to an organization that funds awareness programs and condom distribution might be a better guarantee of effective-ness. Overall, to get the best outcome, I think it's important to consider these criteria when giving to a group that treats diseases:
1. How effectively is my money being used?
2. What do I want to accomplish (immediate vs long term results)?
3. Is it possible to treat the disease short-term (distributing condoms to prevent the spread of STDs) or long-term (cancer research)?
4. With 1-3 in mind, how should I give my money and to what organization?
Ryan, I agree with you that donating to research is certainly important, because if this research went unfunded, the hope of finding a cure would be tragically low. No matter how far researchers may seem from finding a way to eliminate the diseases that plague society, they will never get closer unless they are given a chance to do so.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that it's important to really pay attention to the amount of your donation that goes towards actually finding a cure. For example, while the American Cancer Society certainly does great things, it may not be the most effective nonprofit to donate to with regard to research. Their website asserts that they spend $130 million each year to find the cure. However, according to Charity Navigator, the American Cancer Society earned almost a billion dollars in revenue in 2011. Therefore, only 14% of their revenue is going towards finding the cure. This number is particularly alarming when one considers that a good portion of the remaining money is not going towards programs to help those with cancer. A report from a news channel in Atlanta states that files show, "donors [were] on the hook for the charity's ballooning employee pension plan. At last count, their obligation was more than $600 million, four times what the ACS spent on cancer research last year." Although we have discussed in class that we should not necessarily rule a nonprofit out due to high overhead costs, because it could just imply better leadership, I believe that it is disconcerting when only one aspect of these costs earns more funding than a primary mission of the nonprofit.
I certainly do not intend to put down the American Cancer Society's other work as unimportant, because prevention and support are definitely great things, but as this conversation is concerned primarily with the cure, it might be time for donors to take a different approach. Rather than donating to an organization that may be well known, but has funds spread thin between many programs and vast overhead expenses, people should consider skipping the middleman and donating their money straight to research.
Therefore, I agree that working towards curing horrible diseases such as cancer is extremely important, but I believe it is crucial that donors make informed decisions. It is true that it may be hard to track the exact progress that is made in research, particularly for those of us that get lost in medical jargon, but if groundbreaking progress is to be made, donors need to assure that their funds are really going towards finding the cure.
Finally, if any of you would like to check out the article that I cited above, it can be found at http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/american-cancer-society-where-does-your-money-go/nFX4j/
Ryan,
ReplyDeletePersonal anecdotes definitely catch my attention more than just raw facts. You have first-hand experience with both Type I diabetes and lung cancer, two illnesses that impact millions of Americans. First of all, thank you for sharing your story with all of us.
One of the main topics that we debate often in class is how people spend their money, and how they donate it, and if their donations are effective or meaningful. I don't understand how anyone can define someone else's philanthropy (I tweeted a video about this concept earlier tonight, actually: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ5t8xD7qGU). If your family finds meaning in donating to these organizations, then yes, donate to those organizations. If people who are personally directly affected by these illnesses don't donate to these organizations, who else will?
I understand that there are huge differences between helping a homeless person that you meet on the street, versus donating to foundations who dedicate a significant portion of their funds to research. Whereas when you give a homeless person a meal, you see the immediate impact, and when you donate to a research foundation, all I can visualize is a bunch of nerdy guys in lab coats in a lab in a far away land. But, that's just me. Easily, it is difficult to connect to the latter. We need to see in order to beleive that we are making a difference.
Humans are far more concerned with short-term, immediate gratification than pursuing long-term goals. The world would lost without people who believe in taking on the long-term, often more challenging, goals. We wouldn't have made such technological advances, dictators wouldn't have been overthrown,the list is endless. I know that it's difficult to visualize those nerdy guys in lab coats, working towards an unimaginable goal, like curing lung cancer one day. That's what's beautiful about humans though. We do things that nobody ever expects us capable of. That's why there aren't just men in labs anymore. There are women, and immigrants, people from all different backgrounds. That's because those barriers were broken by people who believed in the long-term and in the limitless capabilities of the human race.
I definitely agree with Lauren, however, that people must be careful when looking for organizations to donate to they have to be resourceful and check that the organization is legitimate and effective. Your family has definitely chosen to support legitimate organizations. On the American Cancer Society's homepage, they offer a variety of services and information. What really astounded me though, was that according to their homepage, there has been a decline in US cancer related deaths to a whopping 20%. There's something to be proud of. That's 1.2 million lives saved since 1991, and 400 lives saved PER DAY. And many of those lives were saved because of your family and families like yours.
I completely agree with Eliza in the sense that research isn't so clear cut. You can't exactly quantify the value of the money spent, because it may take years of research before a quantifiable result, such as a vaccine or treatment, may be developed. Even then I am not sure how quantifiable the difference being made is. This being said, I believe that as a society we focus way too much on the numbers and statistics, rather than the possibility of change. Of course statistics are important in making decisions, but it must be realized that statistics can be skewed in a way that portrays something that isn't exactly true. They are also not always available for us to use in the decision making process.
ReplyDeleteI also completely agree with Laura that we should, however, look at how much of our donation goes towards research. That is one quantifiable statistic that can give you a better idea of where your money is going. As most of you know, I am doing St. Baldrick's this year, but with good cause. Before I agreed, the first thing that I did was try and find numbers on how much of their donations went to what. I was extremely pleased to find that 82% of all donations go towards Pediatric Cancer research, while only 2% goes towards administrative costs, such as salaries. This is an organization that is putting millions of dollars into research, and although you cannot immediately see the difference being made, the discoveries made by researchers funded by this organization are definitely worth the investment.
Below is the link to the St. Baldrick's Foundation website that gives a basic outline of all of their finances. Transparency between the organization and its donors is key.
http://www.stbaldricks.org/financials
Hi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a few very good points here. JDRF and the American Cancer Society are two very large organizations. They each have a very macroscopic philosophy in mind. While it may be true that we may not see very tangible results from our donated money, I have voiced my opinion before that I believe donating to causes you are passionate about should be commended. However, each person may have their own reservations when choosing which organization to support. I also have cancer in my family, and when choosing an organization to give back to, I felt very similar to you. I would have liked to see my donated resources go to something very visible. I chose to volunteer my time in helping a fundraiser for a camp that gives children with cancer an opportunity to attend camp each summer. This was important cause for me because I felt that seeing a change in someone’s life was more worthwhile than a monetary donation. Similarly, I have found ways to combine this preference with monetary solutions to large-scale problems. Relay for Life has proven the most community active opportunity for such an endeavor. The organization allows people to come together and make a greater difference for efforts to defeat cancer. I like how you incorporate personal experience into the discussion and we should talk more about your questions in class because I believe they are very relevant to the choices we are about to make.