It is finally time to vote. As the class has said countless
times, it is going to be a difficult process and not everybody is going to
agree. I feel like we should take a step back and realize the power we have. We
have the power to give medicine to those that cannot afford it, to provide a
stimulating playground to young children, to allow for intellectually curious
students to see space through a telescope, to secure women faced with domestic
violence, to provide a baseball field for students looking to potentially play
in college, or to purchase more portable and better quality table and chairs
for those that want free meals.
As I have mentioned, each organization would provide some
value to the community if we choose to give our money to them. However, when
voting I would like everybody to keep in mind the potential arguments against
giving to each organization, since everyone will likely be focused on talking
up organizations as opposed to talking them down.
Family Enrichment Network: They are asking for a better
playground for their school when they already have a functioning playground. It
may not be the most elaborate, but the $10,000 worth of supplies they are
asking for is not necessary. They want a sensory station for outdoor use when
they already have some of these for the kids to use inside. They want a $1,165
art easel. That is correct. $1,165. They want 4 balance beams even though many
of their students are under the age of 7, which will likely lead to many
injuries. Also, when I went on the site visit to FEN they had many different
supplies that would stimulate all of the senses of students.
SOS Shelter: My main argument against giving money to this
organization is that what they are asking for is a little ridiculous. They want
many cameras and DVD monitors for security when they never even told us they
had any trouble with security in the first place. I do not think they mentioned
one time when one of their members got taken away or somebody tried to sneak or
break into the house. Also, the whole system is very expensive and they made it
seem like an all or nothing type of project.
Soup and Sandwich Program: Although we all loved its founder,
the Soup and Sandwich is not meeting or providing some sort of solution for a
need in the community. It provides one meal a week to a limited number of
people and the organization isn’t even asking for food. The organization wants
higher quality tables and chairs so the volunteers do not have to spend as much
time cleaning up, and from the reaction I got from those that went on the site
visit, it did not seem like it was back breaking work to move the tables and
chairs.
Boys and Girls Club: The Boys and Girls club is asking for a
baseball field. From my childhood days a baseball field was any open space. All
you need is 4 makeshift bases and space that they apparently already have. I
have turned my backyard and street into a functioning baseball field at times,
so I am pretty sure if they have an open field then they do not really need our money. The backstop I would understand, but they are
asking for the field first. Also this will be a project that will need repeated
funding, as maintaining all of the dirt at usable quality costs money.
Kopernik: Kopernik wants a telescope that is supposed to
inspire somebody to pursue a STEM career. However, the two people that actually
live in Broome County from our class have no desire to give to this
organization because they have been there and realize how futile it is in
comparison to something Broome County actually needs. As Melissa pointed out in
class, not that many people are even attending the events. To spend $1500 for a
few students to see stars does not make much sense.
Hope Dispensary: The Hope Dispensary needs money for operations
and medicine. The only argument against it is that I do not recall them ever
having to turn down patients that qualified for the medicine because they did
not have enough money. I may be wrong here, but I cannot think of any other
arguments against it.
I know for some of these I was stretching the truth a bit
and seemed heartless, but it is just something to keep in mind as we figure out
whom we give our money to. Does anybody have any more arguments against organizations
that I missed?
This is a great post Adam. I feel like the blog is going to turn into a means for everyone to plug their favorite organizations, so I love the fact that you're taking a harshly realistic approach to all of them. Honestly, I agree fully with most of your analyses, so I do not have much to add. In my opinion, a lot of the organization's requests seem a bit over the top and that they may not really help many people in the long run. Like most people at this point, I'm certainly leaning towards a certain organization, so I'd like to respond to your comments regarding the Boys and Girls Club. While I'm only putting in my analysis of this situation, I would love to see people take a stand for the other organizations. I've come to rule quite a few out based on exactly the reasons you listed, Adam, and I would love to see someone open my mind up a bit.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the baseball field, the club definitely plays baseball out there with makeshift bases for a fun after school activity, but they're looking to make this field up to certain standards so they can be a part of a league. I have a hard time believing that other teams would be willing to come play against them if their field was just four bases thrown on the ground. The Boys and Girls Club takes their athletic programming very seriously as it has been shown to have an impact upon academic success, so they want this to be a real team and commitment, and not just something the kids can play once in a while whenever they feel like it. With regard to the issue of repeated funding, I asked Jocelyn Terranova about field maintenance and she responded:
"Our contractor tells us that due to the land we have for the field (sits in a good area, doesn't flood, no weeds) and our plans for the field (dirt infield, grass outfield), no big special maintenance or expenses will be required after the installation of the field. We already do regular maintenance (mowing, landscaping) on all of the Club's property, and the baseball field maintenance will just be included with that."
Therefore, while your concern about repeated funding is valid, the Club has planned this project in a way that it will not be an issue. Another doubt that has been raised is regarding the purchasing of equipment, but Jocelyn has assured that she has been looking into grants for these materials and is confident that they will be able to raise the funds necessary.
Thus, while throwing down four bases may be fine for the time being, the Club wants the children to get invested in the baseball program and take it seriously. By making this into a real league, they will be teaching the children responsibility with regard to coming to practices and games, and allowing them to have access to the same legitimate sports programs as their economically stable peers. Sure, the Club could have just thrown up a couple of basketball hoops outside and called it a day, but instead they built a program that reaches 80 youth for 10 months out of the year. Because this investment is basically a one time expense that will last for years due to the minimal maintenance, and it will give many children opportunities they may not otherwise have had, I think it's important that corners aren't cut in the development of the program.
I encourage anyone to comment on this with any other problems they may see with the plan, as I am more than willing to keep this conversation open past my one 'required' blog comment! And seriously, advocates for other organizations, I really want to see your perspectives so I can fully understand where everyone is coming from in this debate!
Adam, I would like to clarify why SOS is asking for an updated security system now. Your statement about how SOS "never had any trouble with security in the first place" isn't quite true. No, THANKFULLY, they have never had an intruder break in or harm anyone, staff or women or children using the shelter. However, when the Endicott police was at it's full size of 35 officers, the officers did notice and pick up suspicious people wandering about the perimeter of the shelter, and they have had a large enough unit where they could respond immediately to calls from shelter staff about suspicious people who, it turned out later, were intending to do harm. If you are suggesting that we wait for someone to get harmed or even killed before we take action, I cannot agree.
ReplyDeleteSOS is looking to upgrade their security system now because they had previously relied on the Endicott police to patrol the area and respond to calls immediately. Their Manager of Advocacy is a retired Endicott police officer, and the board member we met with at the site visit is the Endicott Chief of Police, Michael Cox. He stated that the police tend to look out for SOS like a "little sister." However, their force has been cut to 28 people and they are only expecting more cuts in the future. SOS will not be able to expect the police to respond immediately, and may have to wait half an hour for Vestal police or the sheriff's department to respond if Endicott officers are already responding somewhere else. Instead of risking harm to their staff or clients, they are being proactive and are trying to make their shelter as safe as possible for those people targeted by abusers and, in some cases, murderers.
There were 11 people murdered at the American Civic Association when an intruder entered their building without warning last year. This organization is a very close partner with SOS, and of course this was a horrific and potentially avoidable tragedy. Why should SOS wait for a tragedy to happen like this within their own walls? I think we should commend them for being so proactive.
As far as the cost, I hope everyone got my email, but they have been able to negotiate and reduce the estimated cost of labor from $5,000 to $3,000. They are working hard to realize this project, so of course Rebecca wasn't going to say, oh don't worry if we can't afford the whole thing, we can just do half. They don't want to do this project half way. They have chosen strategic locations for all of the cameras they want that are high enough to avoid any intruder coming at them with a hammer. This project is no more expensive than any other. Boys and Girls Club needs three times this amount for a baseball field. Kopernik needs just under this for their full telescope project. I think SOS is a priority because these women and children, and the amazing people who choose to devote their lives as staff helping them, are in grave danger. That is why they need such high security. Not addressing this issue puts hundreds of lives at risk, including the innocent children at the shelter, who make up more than half of the residents. I really don't think it's appropriate to classify this urgent need as "ridiculous."
Dana, the shootings at the American Civic Association occurred in 2009 (my senior year in high school). Also, when you were at the SOS shelter did they talk about the incidents that have been close calls at the shelter? I know they did not discuss that during the presentation and I was wondering if your information came from the site visit.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the wrong year, my mistake. They did briefly talk about the close calls, not specifics, but the info that I mention in my post came directly from the executive director and Endicott's Chief of Police during the site visit.
DeleteIt's true that many people have chosen a "favorite" organization and stuck to it without really truly considering each organization. Thanks for taking a look at all of them Adam. However, I disagree that people won’t be talking down organizations, I think most people will be jumping on people who support organizations they disagree with and telling them why they shouldn’t support that organization. I think a bigger challenge is to talk support about an organization you don’t want to fund (although I’m sure it took a lot of guts for Adam to talk down about organizations you did want to fund). While working on the group presentation this week, I was grateful to work on a team which was able to see the good in other organizations when their top choice was eliminated through vote. I hope the same can happen again today in class.
ReplyDeleteI really like this approach to evaluating the organizations. A lot of the discussion we’ve heard so far has focused on the mission of the organization. People have a pet cause, and they are big proponents of the organization that most closely mirrors that cause. I think the efficacy of the organizations themselves as well as the efficacy of the specific project (where applicable) that we’d be funding is getting lost in the shuffle.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to use Kopernik as an example because it’s the starkest contrast, for me, but there are certainly others. In my presentation group, my opposition to giving to Kopernik got me painted as some sort of anti-STEM tyrant. I think getting kids, especially underrepresented groups like kids from low income families and girls, excited about STEM subjects is unbelievably important. I’m spending my summer working with an organization with exactly that goal. However, I’m starkly anti-Kopernik for our purposes. I won’t argue that the project we’d be funding isn’t important for the organization, it clearly is. However, I don’t think the organization is all that impactful in the community. I’ve lived in this area my whole life, and I really don’t know anyone who has gone to Kopernik outside of an organized field trip. The director couldn’t give us an average number of attendees for their Friday night programs, but the absolute paramount of their programs was an estimated 150 people. That’s just such a small proportion of the community they serve. If I felt Kopernik was a really impactful, effective organization with the same goal, I’d have been happy to give them the full $6,000+ that they would like. However, regardless of how much we may think Kopernik NEEDS us, I don’t think the community really NEEDS them, so I’m against giving Kopernik any funding.