Ariel Gold from the Advanced Social Work Practice with Communities class made me think about actual social change versus the "gift" of charity. From the standpoint of a Public Administrator or a Funder, what does this mean in terms of effectiveness? And what does it mean in terms of funding?
If you think about it, many social nonprofits provide band-aids to social problems. From our reading, Berger, et al. from The Battle for the Soul of the Nonprofit Sector noted that the nonprofit sector has been focused on providing services. For example food banks help alleviate food poverty. But a special report on poverty in America from CNN/Money states that the wealthy are getting paid more while the poor are getting paid less - and getting hungry.
I went to the Website for the Food Bank For New York City. Their main page didn't discuss the systemic issues creating food poverty. They have an advocacy page and I looked to see if it would discuss the systemic causes of poverty or food poverty. But no, they asked people to support a platform that "addresses specific federal, state and city hunger-related policies and funding." More band-aids?
Don't misunderstand me, I believe that these kinds of organizations do good work, but when their advocacy efforts seem to promote band-aid solutions only, it is like they are asking people to support the nonprofit organization by prolonging the problem requiring their existence in the first place.
What does this mean in terms of funding? Are you more likely to give to a food bank that is working to educate society and create legislative change to eliminate root causes of poverty in addition to feeding those in need, or to an organization that is only trying to feed people? Which do you believe is more effective? I wonder if the Food Bank For New York City is really being accountable to those in poverty in new York City if they are not trying at least a little to help solve the root problems of poverty.
Andrea,
ReplyDeleteI like that you decided to discuss this further in a blog post. Band-aid solutions tend to be the easy route that many take. It's like that old saying, "how can you put a band-aid on a broken leg?" I do agree that some nonprofits do this. However, I think it is important to consider nonprofits that are actually trying to 'fix the leg' instead of providing a band-aid solution to social problems. It is dangerous to assume that all nonprofit organizations provide 'band-aid' solutions to social problems. Some people have this negative perception of nonprofits and/or charity that serve as a challenge to the very existence of a nonprofit. Due to this perception, this is why a multi-dimensional rating system of a nonprofit is necessary.
A multi-dimensional rating system of a nonprofit should provide a current and even a prospective funder information on how the nonprofit is efficiently attempting to solve a social problem. To answer one of your questions, if I were a funder and found out that my nonprofit of interest was stagnate and only provided 'band-aid' solutions than I would no longer serve as a funder. I would first speak with the board or who lead the nonprofit of my concern, but if I had not seen any difference than I would withdrawal my support. I would than seek another nonprofit that attempted to 'fix the leg'. Overall, one nonprofit band-aid operational practices should not overshadow the nonprofit that is working diligently to solve a problem.