At the heart of the issue is the "philanthro-capitalists' desire for data and control" taking precedent over considerations of need. As the author states:
Investing in new vaccines against malaria is great, but there's no vaccine against poverty, inequality, violence or corruption, areas in which there are no "short-term returns on investment", only a long, hard slog through politics and social change. Does that mean only the easiest causes will be funded?This is something I've felt and feared myself for some time, as the agencies I work with strive "to reach their numbers" and potentially loose sight of the individuals those numbers represent.
The other short note I wanted to post was to share a comment Monica posted on a previous blog here, "Money Follows Involvement." In that post, I restated my conviction that volunteers have already shown their dedication and interest in your cause, and that not asking them for donations was leaving money on the table.
Monica wrote (in part):
I have been volunteering with one specific organization for over a year and they have yet to ask me to donate... If this organization has not asked me, I bet that they haven't asked other volunteers either - effectively missing a large pool of constituents. ... Hank Rosso suggests that the most likely potential donors have three characteristics – linkage, ability, and interest. Since the volunteer is involved it is clear that linkage to the organization and interest in mission are already in place. The remaining characteristic is ability. Often an organization will know if their volunteer has the ability to give, if the organization doesn’t know, the only way to find out is to ask. ...I usually think of the "linkage, ability, and interest" equation as the "Triple A Qualifications: Ability, Affinity, & Access." Whichever terms you use to remember this by, it's excellent advice. And thank you, Monica, for sharing your story.