Snipped out a few things and hopping in... Full agreement with Dan and
Bonnie, and going from Michael's post...
Michael Maranda wrote:
So, to shape our field, we need to educate ourselves and educate the
philanthropic community as to what is best for the field qua field and
movement, and seek a new form of philanthropy.
The other day I attended the Chicago "Asian Giving Circle" event "The Art of
Asian Giving" at the Art Institute of Chicago. While not concerned about
getting into details here, one important aspect was a diverse donor base and
each donor at the $250 annual level having a vote in how the fund would
benefit the community.
One problem. The people with $250 are people with $250 to spend, which
means that people below that amount don't get that vote. The diversity
counts, but still... I know people working in NGOs who have never put a
foot in the neighborhoods that they are supposed to be helping. $250 is
one week's pay, before taxes, of someone that makes $6.25 an hour. Bear
with me, this goes both ways.
On the flip side, I've met people like Peter Abrahamsen who is doing
work on getting internet access to the people at the center of Lake
Nicaragua. He left Nicaragua a few months ago so he could earn more
money so he could continue his work in Nicaragua. Peter, last I heard,
was on this list and I apologize if I make him uncomfortable but I'm
trying to make a point here. He's doing this completely on his own, at
least the last I spoke to him.
I wish I had a solution. I don't. But I think part of the solution is
communicating what I see, and listening/reading what other people see.
The people with money controlling the flow of money is what we consider
to be the natural order of things. In capitalism, it is - and I'm not
going to ding capitalism because I practice it as well. But the point
here is that the value of people who freely volunteer their time and
their energy for nothing more than a plane ticket have no say, and
continue to have no say, because funding agencies choose where money
goes to. It's fair to say that philanthropists do this as well, and
while we can say what good has been done by philanthropy, I also think
it's fair to say that philanthropy has been inadequate to the task.
While I'm talking about this... well, I lean more toward Peter's side of
the fence, something which has made me both friends and enemies. But
there should be a middle ground. There should be a way for people who
put in sweat equity to have more of a voice.
I'm at a hospital in Guyana now, finishing up one stage of some
volunteer work. This hospital gets donations all the time, and is
grateful for them. They don't look gift horses in the mouth. But I can't
help but notice the new wing, which was donated, but was donated with
the understanding that no local people or materials could be used. In a
few years, that wing becomes a liability for the hospital in costs. Why?
Because the people with the money, who selflessly give it, selfishly
decide where it goes a lot of the time. I'm sorry, I don't mean to
offend, but that's what I see.
On the flip side, not every person or organization who walks in can be
trusted with money even in small amounts. Consider that at this same
hospital, there were quotations for $1 million Guyanese dollars ($50,000
US, but it caught your attention) to network the same hospital. On one
Saturday, with a cost of lunch ($3,000 Guyanese; $15 US) for the 1 lady
and 3 gentlemen involved, plus the cost of the cable, connectors and
switches, the hospital got the start of a functioning network. Why?
Because they finally unleased their IT department. By looking at quotes
for $50K US, they thought it had to be difficult and perhaps beyond the
level of their department. They couldn't believe it was that simple. And
most of the time, many of these problems can be fixed with small doses
of appropriate funding.
So much more could be done that way. But, you see, the level of
bureaucracy to obtain funding increases the cost of the funding so
significantly that it becomes expensive. Bloated.
I realize "educating the philanthropic community" can sounds a bit
presumptuous, however, that's what we we're doing when we make the case
individually as organizations through proposals or other solicitations.
I also think we need to stop depending on the philanthropic community so
much.
I'm suggesting we do so with some coordination for our field.
-Michael Maranda
Maybe we need to get people to shift the focus from money to the focus
of solving problems. When I hear a government spent so many b/million
dollars, I don't care, but generally other people do. What I look for
are results. Solutions. In disasters such as the tsunami, and Katrina,
and even man made disasters such as September 11th, the assets of
communities sprang forth so fast that people amazed themselves. Why?
Because passion tore down a few walls of bureaucracy. Nevermind, they
get built right back afterwards, it seems.
Though we can walk past a person in our own neighborhoods who just needs
a few bucks, we will empty our wallets for someone on another part of
the planet. Why? We're desensitized to what we see every day. We accept
it as normal. And maybe we trust large organizations to use the money
better in another part of the world than the person we see every day.
Trust. Isn't that what this boils down to? It's not really about
funding. It's about trust, on many different levels. People with $250
votes basically trust themselves to vote the way they think that they
should vote. People without $250 vote with their sweat. And in areas
like this community, they mix. So like Michael says, coordination - but
I also advocate more mixing as well.
--
Taran Rampersad
Presently in: Georgetown, Guyana
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net
http://www.digitaldivide.net/profile/Taran
"Criticize by creating." - Michelangelo
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in
the body of the message.
