The Hestia Fund

The Hestia Fund's approach to distributing its wealth embodied the meaning of philanthropic giving, and epitomized what our class agreed to be strategic philanthropy. The way to judge the effectiveness of an organization such as this one is to identity the organization's goal, and determine to what extent it was achieved. The team decided that its fund would focus on educating women about strategic giving, and funding children's after school programs to benefit both the children and parents of low-income families well before they gave out any money. Their concentration in Boston, Massachusetts reminded me of Garcia's philanthropy since both efforts were focused and concentrated in a location they were passionate about. This passion contributed to the members working hard voluntarily, since it did not feel forced like for the Kaplan Family who inherited the fund. Targeting after-school programs to reach their goal of improving quality of life was strategic because it is an area in which the amount of money that was available to them could make a measurable impact, and it is undeniable that providing children with a safe environment to learn and have fun after school both benefits the lives of the children, and eases a huge burden from the parents.

I was impressed with the collaboration and teamwork that existed, which contributed significantly to the Fund's success. The democratic environment that the fund revolved around worked well because they were able to reach consensuses without constant stalemates. I believe that having everyone contribute ideas and wanting the group to reach a full consensus stimulates more complex and strategic thinking by initiating friendly debate, which is better than having a number of less developed ideas to vote on. Furthermore, Priem was smart to limit each person's contribution to $5,000 because it is really important for each member to feel equally important. The importance of team work and equality is clear by referencing the troubles the Kaplan Fund was having when members got discouraged when they felt insignificant from not being able to contribute.

The Fund had a few checks from start to end to actually make sure each distribution was effective. Their education through research, guest speakers, and site visits allowed them to be more effectual because they were able to make more responsible and knowledgeable decisions about which programs to select. This hand on learning was reminiscent of Jane Adam's methods, which our class concluded would be necessary for people of such affluent backgrounds. The choice to invest more money in fewer programs allowed the donations to be investments that would have lasting change, not transient value. Also, by having advisors help programs with their proposals, they set the situation up so they didn't need to give the chosen programs any further instruction on what to do with the money, saving them time later on. Furthermore,