Last Friday, April 17, 2009, Ilac Diaz was our guest speaker for our company's quarterly staff meeting. He shared about his experiences and lessons as a social entrepreneur and also talked about the projects he was and is currently involved in: electrified, self-calcifying reefs, dormitories for sailors and other migrant workers, bicycles used to power crude washing machines and spinners, earthen homes, cheap structures built from low-cost construction materials, peanut grinders and low-tech incubators using paraffin wax in tubes etc.
Before his speech, all I knew about him was that he was a former actor and a featured personality in the GoNegosyo book. But it also happened he's into a lot of things as well. In addition, much of what he was saying were ideas that I've been ruminating over since college (For once, why can’t I be the first to think of these things?).
A case in point is when he said something like this: "Good charitable institutions make themselves obsolete (This also reminds me of Nanny McPhee’s favorite line: “If you need me but don’t want me, then I have to stay. But when you want me but no longer need me, then I have to go.” I’m not sure if these are the exact lines though but, then again, I’m veering away.).” To put it another way, good charitable institutions make their beneficiaries independent.
I believe some Gawad Kalinga (GK) volunteers can relate to this, like my Mama and Papa, for example. They are GK volunteers in charge of ministries for the youth and, make no mistake, my parents are blessed with hearts for service. The only problem is that they are still human and therefore not immune to “giver’s fatigue”. I’ve seen them get frustrated at the complacency of the youth (like for instance, there is an event out of town and rather than doing their own fund raising, some are content on just asking for money, “sponsorship”, from their titos/titas. This is not all that bad except that this mere begging-for-money should also be matched by efforts of their own). I’ve seen them get frustrated at the mentality of some beneficiaries who, since they’re part of the GK community, expect that people will continue to help them and help them and help them some more.
With so much frustration, I wouldn’t be surprised if a volunteer stops giving, stops serving simply because “Kapuy na.” And why “Kapuy na?” It’s because “Wala may padulngan. Wala may nahitabo sa paghatag. Wala may nabag-o.”
“Giver’s fatigue” is a symptom and it points out to a deeper problem. Clearly, something is amiss here and a paradigm shift should be in order among some parties involved in GK if this social experiment/transformation is to remain sustainable.
That paradigm shift is what Mr. Diaz touched upon in his speech. To ensure that any charitable effort is not wasted, there should be a system, a plan, as to how the beneficiaries of the effort can maximize the assistance given and use it in the future to further their own welfare without the need for anymore external intervention (Whew. That was a mouthful. Got to edit that later on).
I remember a time in my childhood when I was so happy. You see, we had several subdivisions neighboring ours and for each neighborhood, there was a new basketball court being built “through the initiative of Boy Nograles (Hey Nograles, ever heard the word “subtlety”? I guess not. No wonder you’re in politics).” It was a great time. I loved playing basketball then because the courts were new, the boards were still intact and the concrete pavement was smooth yet gripped my slippers like Velcro.
But those times did not last. The last time I visited Davao City (which was last week), the courts were already dilapidated, forgotten.
The rings are missing because the boards are gone. Cracks are showing up on the concrete. Mud pools everywhere. It was a shame, really. But I guess this sad state of affairs was inevitable. Why? It is because I doubt if there was any kind of plan on how to maintain the courts. Sure, there must have been some transfer of ownership from the government to the homeowners but then again, there was no plan. There was no plan on how to ensure that the investment laid upon these courts (pun unintended) will be maximized.
I imagined once that I would be teaching my two younger sisters how to play basketball in one of those neighborhood courts. So much for imagining that scene.
So, my point here is that philanthropy has got to be sustainable. It’s not a one-shot deal. It’s not a vaccine where you inject a patient and he gets better for life. Clearly, there must be a worthwhile plan that empowers the community to stand on their own and chart their own destiny. As to what formula I can suggest to do just this, I don’t have any. But one thing I find in common in all the respectable and worthwhile charitable institutions I’ve seen is that these institutions treat their advocacy like a business. And by that, what I want to say is for every project they initiate, there are always parameters to follow, key performance indicators to adhere to, an ROI that needs to be achieved and more importantly, an evaluation phase where the proponents and the other parties can see if the project was worth the effort.
Clearly, I need to study more about this side of philanthropy (as opposed to the traditional way of giving, which is, well, simply to give and give again). But I do hope I can remember what I just wrote here when I grow up later in life.
Before his speech, all I knew about him was that he was a former actor and a featured personality in the GoNegosyo book. But it also happened he's into a lot of things as well. In addition, much of what he was saying were ideas that I've been ruminating over since college (For once, why can’t I be the first to think of these things?).
A case in point is when he said something like this: "Good charitable institutions make themselves obsolete (This also reminds me of Nanny McPhee’s favorite line: “If you need me but don’t want me, then I have to stay. But when you want me but no longer need me, then I have to go.” I’m not sure if these are the exact lines though but, then again, I’m veering away.).” To put it another way, good charitable institutions make their beneficiaries independent.
I believe some Gawad Kalinga (GK) volunteers can relate to this, like my Mama and Papa, for example. They are GK volunteers in charge of ministries for the youth and, make no mistake, my parents are blessed with hearts for service. The only problem is that they are still human and therefore not immune to “giver’s fatigue”. I’ve seen them get frustrated at the complacency of the youth (like for instance, there is an event out of town and rather than doing their own fund raising, some are content on just asking for money, “sponsorship”, from their titos/titas. This is not all that bad except that this mere begging-for-money should also be matched by efforts of their own). I’ve seen them get frustrated at the mentality of some beneficiaries who, since they’re part of the GK community, expect that people will continue to help them and help them and help them some more.
With so much frustration, I wouldn’t be surprised if a volunteer stops giving, stops serving simply because “Kapuy na.” And why “Kapuy na?” It’s because “Wala may padulngan. Wala may nahitabo sa paghatag. Wala may nabag-o.”
“Giver’s fatigue” is a symptom and it points out to a deeper problem. Clearly, something is amiss here and a paradigm shift should be in order among some parties involved in GK if this social experiment/transformation is to remain sustainable.
That paradigm shift is what Mr. Diaz touched upon in his speech. To ensure that any charitable effort is not wasted, there should be a system, a plan, as to how the beneficiaries of the effort can maximize the assistance given and use it in the future to further their own welfare without the need for anymore external intervention (Whew. That was a mouthful. Got to edit that later on).
I remember a time in my childhood when I was so happy. You see, we had several subdivisions neighboring ours and for each neighborhood, there was a new basketball court being built “through the initiative of Boy Nograles (Hey Nograles, ever heard the word “subtlety”? I guess not. No wonder you’re in politics).” It was a great time. I loved playing basketball then because the courts were new, the boards were still intact and the concrete pavement was smooth yet gripped my slippers like Velcro.
But those times did not last. The last time I visited Davao City (which was last week), the courts were already dilapidated, forgotten.
The rings are missing because the boards are gone. Cracks are showing up on the concrete. Mud pools everywhere. It was a shame, really. But I guess this sad state of affairs was inevitable. Why? It is because I doubt if there was any kind of plan on how to maintain the courts. Sure, there must have been some transfer of ownership from the government to the homeowners but then again, there was no plan. There was no plan on how to ensure that the investment laid upon these courts (pun unintended) will be maximized.
I imagined once that I would be teaching my two younger sisters how to play basketball in one of those neighborhood courts. So much for imagining that scene.
So, my point here is that philanthropy has got to be sustainable. It’s not a one-shot deal. It’s not a vaccine where you inject a patient and he gets better for life. Clearly, there must be a worthwhile plan that empowers the community to stand on their own and chart their own destiny. As to what formula I can suggest to do just this, I don’t have any. But one thing I find in common in all the respectable and worthwhile charitable institutions I’ve seen is that these institutions treat their advocacy like a business. And by that, what I want to say is for every project they initiate, there are always parameters to follow, key performance indicators to adhere to, an ROI that needs to be achieved and more importantly, an evaluation phase where the proponents and the other parties can see if the project was worth the effort.
Clearly, I need to study more about this side of philanthropy (as opposed to the traditional way of giving, which is, well, simply to give and give again). But I do hope I can remember what I just wrote here when I grow up later in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment