Reflection for 10/29/2015
As one of the assignments for the Becoming Globally Engaged class, students are expected to respond to reflection prompts on a weekly basis. Here is the prompt and my response for the week of October 29, 2015. This reflection was a bit different than the others, as it was used to have a debate in class and essentially decide which organization would receive a $100 and $20 donation from the Global Engagement organization.
Review the following four organizations. Which do you feel should receive a $100 donation? Why? You are expected to do some additional research into all 4 groups; their pages are hyperlinked below, and you’re also welcome to bring in additional research.
Cornerstone International, an Oklahoma-based development consulting firm that focuses on encouraging and promoting efficient, productive development efforts around the world.
Susan G. Komen, an organization whose mission is “to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering others, ensuring quality care for all and investing in science to find the cures.”
Give Directly, a charity that sends money directly to the world’s extreme poor to spend however they need it – with no strings attached.
Against Malaria Foundation, which provides long-lasting insecticde-treated bed nets to help protect vulnerable populations from malaria.
When deciding which organization ought to receive a donation, it ultimately came down to the Give Directly organization and the Against Malaria Foundation. The Cornerstone International, although intriguing and based in Oklahoma, works to help people begin and form new organizations abroad. I personally believe that instead of working to create new organizations that may potentially fail or be ineffective, people ought to donate to organizations that already have been shown to be effective and are doing good. As for the Susan G. Komen organization, I feel as though there are too many controversies and arguments surrounding the organization. Furthermore, a company that huge is already going to have millions of donors every year, and I feel as though a less represented company ought to receive the donation.
That is why my decision came down to the Give Directly organization. This organization gives donated money directly to the people in need, allowing them to allocate the funds to whatever they need most, whether it is food, clothing, water, or shelter needs. Following this course of action, the charity accommodates for the ever changing needs that one in poverty might face instead of providing aid and services for a cause the family may not even be troubled by. W
While some sources such as Giving What We Can might claim that Give Directly is not as effective as they say, I still would argue that this almost knit picking could be said about any charity. I also believe that enabling people on the receiving end of donations to put the money where they need it most is the best course of action and takes the risk away from a foreign organization assuming what the needs of the people are. Poverty should not mean that one only gets the help that charity organizations decide they deserve.