s/o giving- recognition

[stealthmom]

What you do guys think about recognition of charitable givers?

I had a very bad experience with a local Rotary club last month.  One of their ongoing projects is giving books to poor students. We were chosen this year (we were chosen a few years ago as well) and I was asked to be the coordinator of this giveaway. It was VERY difficult to agree on a time of day during which Rotarians could distribute the books themselves. As a result I learned that if we could not figure something out they were prepared to not donate to us at all. They would rather the kids not get the books than get them without being there to witness it. I bit my tongue (barely) and figured it out but it really pissed me off. It still does really.  Why is a book plate in the front of the book along with thank you notes from the kids not enough?

But at the same time I get that orgs want others to know the good deeds they're doing.  They can generate more donations that way and in turn do more good.  And maybe it's a way to be accountable to their donors?  Like, here, photographic proof of where your money goes!

Working at a Title I school we get our fair share of charity and there is usually some kind of dog and pony show attached but I never really thought about it until my experience with the Rotary club last month.

I'm not sure what my point is.  Maybe I want someone to explain to me why recognition is required or if anyone has any thoughts?  It's 2 am and I'm exhausted.  But I've been thinking a lot about this lately and it's been bugging me. 

[mollybrown]

Nov 22, 2014 7:07:59 GMT -5 stealthmom said:

I'm not sure what my point is.  Maybe I want someone to explain to me why recognition is required or if anyone has any thoughts?  It's 2 am and I'm exhausted.  But I've been thinking a lot about this lately and it's been bugging me. 

There is a philosophical question about whether or not altruism exists.  Do humans actually do anything charitable if they get nothing in return?  Even if it's just the warm glow of imagining little Sophie from the Angel Tree opening her presents and having a wonderful Christmas she wouldn't have otherwise had because of you.  I tend to believe that most people aren't 100% altruistic, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing if they're willing to do good things because they get to pat themselves on the back when they're done.  My guess is that the appeal of the Rotary Club is that they actually get to see the happy faces up close and get the accolades in person unlike many other donors.  There are probably dozens of other needy schools that also want the books, and they probably seem them as interchangeable.  Their desire to have their moment trumps your individual school's needs, because the books will go to kids who need them either way.

I worked for an organization that did an Angel Tree, and actually heard the CEO complaining about the lack of gratitude some of the families had about the gift.  Imagining that big moment where the recipient is so thankful for the charity I think is HUGE for a lot of people, and it can be a let down when the moment doesn't go as hoped.

[Deleted]

This is an issue I really have a problem with. Giving should be done for the sake of the recipient. It should be done in a private and humble manner.

It is responsible to do your research and know where your donation is going and know that it's going to be given/received responsibly. It's self serving and..... what's the word I'm looking for, emotional masturbation... to insist that you have to be there to get the credit and/or feel superior for giving.

I understand that as a receiving organization it's best to offer recognition to stroke egos and encourage future giving, but as the giver, you should give with humility, thankfulness and love.

[secretlyevil]

Your specific example makes me angry too. It's one thing to make reasonable accommodations for an organization making a donation, it's another when the organization is like "than we won't do it."

[ttt]

These people suck if getting thank you notes isn't enough and if they'd rather just not give books at all if they don't get their exact way.

But in general, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking pleasure from giving or with giving because it makes you feel good. And part of the pleasure of giving is feeling like your gift is giving the other person happiness as well, so I can understand feeling let down if you don't get to see any of that or if the other person doesn't appear to actually have gotten any happiness from your gift.

The danger with giving because it makes *you* feel good is forgetting about whether your gift is really what the other person wants and your gift becomes more about you than them.

[miniroller]

Just to add about the self-gratification that naturally comes with the giving process:
I don't at all see it as something I need to witness (& agree w/ pp's that's selfish & Ridiculous!). However, I also agree w/ pp's that I do feel nice/ great upon the act of giving/ donating, as I think most people do. I think the 'warm fuzzies' you feel in your heart make you much more apt to give more regularly! There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with feeling nice when you give, & if that gratification makes you give more regularly, as, admittedly, it does to me- then GREAT!

[pamela]

When I read your title I thought it was going the other way - excessive recognition of donors by orgs to encourage more giving. Either way, I don't get it. I know that our company, for example, wants/needs photo ops when they give to further their outreach advertising. But to not give at all if you don't get it due to scheduling? That's not right.

[lys]

One representative from the group is more than enough recognition, Heck, you do not even need one person present - only the delivery of the items!
Giving is not about the recognition.

[ringstrue]

That's not really recognition. That's more like fame - wanting to be the one to pass out the books themselves. They want the glory. It's not about giving or charity at all it's about looks socially, politically, posturing, competition, etc.

[RoxMonster]

I'm human, and I admit it feels good to make someone else happy by giving--either time or monetary items. There are many times I give gifts or donations and would love to see the look on the recipients' faces when they get those items. I think it's OK and natural to have that feeling as a donor.

However, I think it becomes troublesome what that is the ONLY reason you are giving, which seems to be the case with your example. I totally get wanting to be there when the books are handed out for not just personal feelings of happiness, but to garner more interest and help with their Rotary Club. But when that just won't work, to say they just won't give at all then? Yeah, that goes beyond just wanting to see people's happiness when the gifts are delivered IMO. That seems like one of the only reasons they (as a group) are doing it is for the recognition. I think an acknowledgement that they were the donors and thank yous from the recipients should be more than enough.

[LoveTrains]

As a philanthropy professional, I do think philanthropy is as much about the donor as it is about the recipient. Donors give because it makes them feel good and it accomplishes a goal of theirs.

I don't judge what is "true charity". If someone wants to make a gift to my organization, I smile, say thank you, and find out if there are strings that go along with it. We will turn down gifts if they don't advance the mission of my organization or have strings attached. But ideally my job is to find a way to make it work for both the donor and my organization so that we both walk away feeling joyful about philanthropy and the impact that the gift has made.

[UMaineTeach]

I can see why they would want to be there. Lots of civic and fraternal orgs are dealing with a decline in membership, disengaged membership, and loss of relevancy. They need to show the community that they are doing good, to maintain donations and to drum up membership, or lose what has been a community staple for a 100 years.

I don't see not giving at all if you can't be there. That's dumb.

I also don't really see not being able to show up anytime, but the Rotary has mostly current business people right? Fewer retirees than the Odd Fellows, Elks, or Lions, so they can't come to 10 on Tuesday.

[LoveTrains]

Nov 22, 2014 20:30:46 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I can see why they would want to be there. Lots of civic and fraternal orgs are dealing with a decline in membership, disengaged membership, and loss of relevancy. They need to show the community that they are doing good, to maintain donations and to drum up membership, or lose what has been a community staple for a 100 years. .

This is true with my DAR chapter. We give awards and scholarships but we have dwindling membership and this dwindling funds.

[MrsAxilla]

Because how often do I get the opportunity to quote Maimonides?

Honorable Ways to Give Charity

Maimonides, often called by his acronym RaMBaM (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon), was a 12th century Jewish scholar and physician. Rambam wrote a code of Jewish law, the Mishnah Torah, based on the Rabbinic oral tradition.

Rambam organized the different levels of tzedakah (charity) into a list from the least to the most honorable.

8. When donations are given grudgingly.

7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4. When the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor does not know the identity of the recipient.

3. When the donor is aware of the recipient's identity, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2. When the donor and recipient are unknown to each other.

1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others. Maimonides, often called by his acronym RaMBaM (Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon), was a 12th century Jewish scholar and physician. Rambam wrote a code of Jewish law, the Mishnah Torah, based on the Rabbinic oral tradition.

Rambam organized the different levels of tzedakah (charity) into a list from the least to the most honorable.

8. When donations are given grudgingly.

7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4. When the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor does not know the identity of the recipient.

3. When the donor is aware of the recipient's identity, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2. When the donor and recipient are unknown to each other.

1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

[stealthmom]

Nov 22, 2014 20:30:46 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I can see why they would want to be there. Lots of civic and fraternal orgs are dealing with a decline in membership, disengaged membership, and loss of relevancy. They need to show the community that they are doing good, to maintain donations and to drum up membership, or lose what has been a community staple for a 100 years.

I don't see not giving at all if you can't be there. That's dumb.

I also don't really see not being able to show up anytime, but the Rotary has mostly current business people right? Fewer retirees than the Odd Fellows, Elks, or Lions, so they can't come to 10 on Tuesday.

yes. All of the difficulty was on their part. We couldn't start too early bc people were coming from kind of far and they didn't want to be in rush hour. Fine. So I suggest coming at 9. We have two periods, then a 15 min. Recess, then another period. (She wanted to dist. Books to one grade level per period which made sense- so we needed three periods.) Problem. Huge problem. "These are working people" and they just can't be "sitting around for 15 min." Hooookay. That's when I said we were at an impasse bc the only time of day we have three uninterrupted class periods is first thing in the morning. Grrrr.