Why give money to an organization instead of providing money directly to those in need?
My name is Haley and it was my honor to help establish Students for Students with my classmates. As Human Services and Social Justice (HSSJ) students, we have spent our time at GW learning about the best ways to provide service to those in need. Throughout this time, one mantra has come to the service again and again: just send the money. Specifically, this refers to the tendency of affluent westerners to fly across the world to provide service to those in need. However, is paying for long plane rides the best use of this money? Would simply sending the money to people in need do more to help than the direct service provided by these voluntourists? The answer to this question can be found in the mantra mentioned above: just send the money.
This mantra, however, got me thinking. Foundations exist to give money to nonprofits, so those nonprofits can help those in need. I was struck by the similarities of this model with the concept of voluntourism. Would it be more effective to simply give this money to the immigrant populations we are trying to help? However, I am reminded of another lesson I’ve learned in my time in the HSSJ program. This lesson can be illustrated by the story of Toms Shoes.
Toms Shoes is a shoe company that promised its customers to donate a pair of shoes to someone in need to match every pair of shoes purchased. Customers thought this was a great idea! Toms Shoes exploded with business, allowing customers to have stylish footwear while helping those in need. Toms did in fact donate shoes, but the company did not create a lasting change. In short, Toms Shoes created a dependency on foreign aid among underprivileged communities. These underserved people had no way to acquire shoes if not from the Toms Shoes donations. While generous, this aid actually created systemic problems throughout many communities.
While it may seem gratuitous to donate money to a nonprofit rather than to the people in need themselves, aid of this kind can create problems such as those seen in the Tom Shoes story. By donating to a nonprofit organization, we as a foundation can be assured that this money will be used in the most beneficial way. Through our application process, we will chose an organization that we know has done the appropriate research on the population. This will ensure the money goes to creating lasting change, and does not create other challenges for the community.
This reminded me of sustainable social entrepreneurship, and specifically my experience with the Warby Parker. For the past 6 months, I have worked as a retail advisor at the Georgetown Warby Parker store, just a short walk from GW’s campus! Warby Parker is a retailer of prescription glasses and sunglasses, with a promise to serve those in need. Through the company’s Buy A Pair Give A Pair program ensures customers that for every pair of glasses purchased, the company will donate a pair of prescription glasses to someone in need. On the surface, this sounds very similar to Toms Shoes. However, Warby Parker has learned from the Toms Shoes story, and has created a giving plan that does not create dependency in underserved communities. The Buy A Pair Give A Pair program uses half of all of Warby Parker’s yearly profit to train existing medical professionals in communities in need to give comprehensive eye exams, as well as pay designers from the community to design glasses based on the community’s fashion standards. The company then distributes prescription glasses to those in need completely free of charge. This example of social entrepreneurship is sustainable and will create lasting change in the communities it serves.
-- Haley
Responses from our class
I love the distinction you made between sustainable and non-sustainable giving models. It brought me back to our class discussion on whether foundations (and their missions) should exist in perpetuity. A major part of that discussion was how a perpetual foundation will be able to meet the needs of the times. One example (that you gave!!) was what if a foundation was begun just before the Great Depression with a mission to promote art, but end up in an era in which the greatest need was for basic necessities? What would be the moral choice for such a foundation? These questions tend to complicate this conversation-- as we can support sustainable work in many ways, but they keep us focused on the experiences we've had through our giving project.
-Helen
Your example of Toms Shoes is really powerful and surprising! It's sometimes hard to imagine that such a good intention can have disastrous consequences. As you said, it's important to grant funds to a nonprofit instead of handing it out because they have plans in place for how to use that money in the most efficient way. Also, I never heard of The Buy a Pair Give A Pair program. It sounds much more well thought out than the Toms Shoes program.
-Sajeda
I LOVE that you brought up Tom's Shoes as an example. There are a few things I want to note about this story, as well. For example, Tom never went to the communities to ask them what their biggest needs were. If he did, maybe they would have told him to "just send the money" or they would have told him of another opportunity to create meaningful change in their community. Because he didn't do this and instead decided that the community needed shoes, further damage was done. The people's feet were not used to wearing shoes and had created callouses to protect them from the ground and other dangers. Without Tom's shoes, or after the shoes had been worn out, the people would be barefoot again and this time, the dangers and rough ground would harm their feet, cause infection, and cause injury within communities. These injuries also led the community to being limited in their productivity and ways of livelihood. If I have learned anything from HSSJ, it is that we must ASK the community what they need....not just present them with a solution that we believe would work!
-Kyrah