Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 2:15:48 GMT -5
Measuring and computing generosity is an exercise that seduces many people, be they researchers, analysts, studies, members of organizations or government agencies, and it can have uses that are as useful as they are fatuous. But in every social group it is convenient to have statistics and data that show trends and behaviors regarding generosity, especially for decision-making. At an international level, the methodology of Gallup and the Charities Aid Foundation stands out, which have a generosity ranking with three categories: 1) the willingness of people to help others they do not know, 2) collaborate regularly by making donations and, 3) Support your community with voluntary actions. This information is updated year after year and although there are profound difficulties in standardizing the information obtained and compared, it does allow us to discover trends. Mexico is no stranger to this need, which is why it has, through the National Institute of Geography, Statistics and Informatics (INEGI), the Satellite Account of Non-Profit Institutions for this purpose. It is not a finished product and, as usually happens in these tools, the opening criteria and their adjustments are permanently enriching it. In the exercise of measurement, it is customary to privilege quantitative indicators, downplaying the importance of qualitative indicators to what is dishonored or reviled. However, there is a risk of inadequately measuring the results of funded projects, both for reasons such as lack of expertise in the methodology or even magnifying the figures and standing out as “the most…” Thus, when measuring generosity, one can consider at least: Definition of analysis or comparison categories Number of direct and indirect beneficiaries (per family, group or entity) Unit of measurement, frequency and repetition Cost/benefit ratio in the short, medium and long term How are the data captured and presented: who is the source? Who collects it? Are the numbers accumulated during a year or over several years? Number of services and people who receive them Turning to history and reviewing the interpretation of data we have the following: In 2008, Mundo Executive magazine considered, according to the information obtained from the organizations in the year of its study (May 2008), that “50 most important foundations in Mexico” benefited more than 45 million people.
The amount that the INEGI reported as the New Zealand WhatsApp Number country's population for that year, 45 million were served by 50 foundations, that was equivalent to 40.4% of the population, that is, of every 10 people, 4 received a benefit! from some foundation! Years later, the “First report on philanthropy prepared by Forbes Mexico magazine reveals that during 2013, just over 86 million people benefited from the 38 foundations that appear on the list…” (January 2015), which meant that there was “more efficiency and effectiveness of philanthropy because fewer foundations did more. Yes, of 118,397,000 inhabitants (population of that year), 86 million compatriots were served by 38 foundations on the Forbes list, that was equivalent to 72.6% of the population, that is, of every 10 people, 7 received a benefit from some Foundation! As you can see, these are clearly implausible data. In 2014, during the delivery of donations to 19 private assistance institutions, the National Monte de Piedad indicated that through the Financing Program for Social Assistance and Integration (PROFAIS) it has delivered resources for 100 million pesos benefiting 500 institutions. but in 11 years, a fact that becomes certain. As can be seen in the previous examples, there are serious methodological inconsistencies that allow us to question the creation of as the number of beneficiaries or services provided to beneficiaries reported? How many indirect beneficiaries are calculated for each direct one? Do the financiers operate or finance projects? How many services provided by an organization does a single person receive per year? How do you collect beneficiary information? Against what fact, data or trend is the comparison made? Is there a baseline? What is your actual coverage versus the estimated one? The protagonism against the facts There are various purposes motivated by standing out as the organization “that most…”: to be placed in a ranking occupying the first position to gain prestige; say that they are the ones that invest the most resources, or that they are the ones that mobilize the most volunteers for social causes. For some companies and their foundations, standing out as “the one that most…” may be motivated by gaining reputation and having a favorable impact on the corporate image, reporting results magnifying the investment, or appearing highly efficient.
Forbes magazine points out in its third philanthropy report that the “Carlos Slim Foundation is the most philanthropic organization in Mexico”… The third Philanthropic Companies report, a special work of Forbes Mexico, highlights the Carlos Slim Foundation as the organization that “ "He works harder just to help." But it should be noted that this assertion corresponds to a limited universe of organizations selected by the magazine that does not include all the donor foundations in the country. When the horizons of the analysis are expanded and based on other variants and parameters of the proposed categories, the results may be different. Just for example, two giants of philanthropy were missing in Mexico: the Alfredo Harp Helú Foundation and the Gonzalo Río Arronte Foundation. To determine if an organization is “the most…” these questions must be answered: The Carlos Slim Foundation: Does it have the largest endowment fund? o Is it the organization that donates the largest volume of economic resources to social causes? Is it the one that supports the most civil society organizations? Is this organization the “most…” by number of direct and indirect beneficiaries served? Is it the “that has the most…” impact on the community? Is it the “that supports the most” projects? Is it the “that has the most” coverage? Is it the “that has the most” social groups with particular conditions? attend? There is no desire for sterile criticism, of course the Carlos Slim Foundation has its well-earned merits and its contribution is extremely relevant. The problem lies in the qualifications and labels that are placed for some of the purposes described above. On the other hand, “the more.has its mirror: “the less…” with which it also seeks to highlight qualities of positioning and not necessarily effectiveness. Whatever the criterion to measure generosity, we must not forget a simple methodology that escapes comparison with others. The generosity that is born from one's own possibilities, that is, from what each individual or organization gives in relation to what they have, which gives another relevance and depth to the act of giving, that is an interesting way that must be observed. From the Board of Directors The President of the Board of Directors congratulated the Kaluz Foundation for the “I swim for my heart” initiative that seeks to raise funds by calling for a swimming marathon in different pools of the IMSS and other organizations where it is estimated that 40 thousand swimmers will participate. The funds raised will be used to support children with heart problems.
The amount that the INEGI reported as the New Zealand WhatsApp Number country's population for that year, 45 million were served by 50 foundations, that was equivalent to 40.4% of the population, that is, of every 10 people, 4 received a benefit! from some foundation! Years later, the “First report on philanthropy prepared by Forbes Mexico magazine reveals that during 2013, just over 86 million people benefited from the 38 foundations that appear on the list…” (January 2015), which meant that there was “more efficiency and effectiveness of philanthropy because fewer foundations did more. Yes, of 118,397,000 inhabitants (population of that year), 86 million compatriots were served by 38 foundations on the Forbes list, that was equivalent to 72.6% of the population, that is, of every 10 people, 7 received a benefit from some Foundation! As you can see, these are clearly implausible data. In 2014, during the delivery of donations to 19 private assistance institutions, the National Monte de Piedad indicated that through the Financing Program for Social Assistance and Integration (PROFAIS) it has delivered resources for 100 million pesos benefiting 500 institutions. but in 11 years, a fact that becomes certain. As can be seen in the previous examples, there are serious methodological inconsistencies that allow us to question the creation of as the number of beneficiaries or services provided to beneficiaries reported? How many indirect beneficiaries are calculated for each direct one? Do the financiers operate or finance projects? How many services provided by an organization does a single person receive per year? How do you collect beneficiary information? Against what fact, data or trend is the comparison made? Is there a baseline? What is your actual coverage versus the estimated one? The protagonism against the facts There are various purposes motivated by standing out as the organization “that most…”: to be placed in a ranking occupying the first position to gain prestige; say that they are the ones that invest the most resources, or that they are the ones that mobilize the most volunteers for social causes. For some companies and their foundations, standing out as “the one that most…” may be motivated by gaining reputation and having a favorable impact on the corporate image, reporting results magnifying the investment, or appearing highly efficient.
Forbes magazine points out in its third philanthropy report that the “Carlos Slim Foundation is the most philanthropic organization in Mexico”… The third Philanthropic Companies report, a special work of Forbes Mexico, highlights the Carlos Slim Foundation as the organization that “ "He works harder just to help." But it should be noted that this assertion corresponds to a limited universe of organizations selected by the magazine that does not include all the donor foundations in the country. When the horizons of the analysis are expanded and based on other variants and parameters of the proposed categories, the results may be different. Just for example, two giants of philanthropy were missing in Mexico: the Alfredo Harp Helú Foundation and the Gonzalo Río Arronte Foundation. To determine if an organization is “the most…” these questions must be answered: The Carlos Slim Foundation: Does it have the largest endowment fund? o Is it the organization that donates the largest volume of economic resources to social causes? Is it the one that supports the most civil society organizations? Is this organization the “most…” by number of direct and indirect beneficiaries served? Is it the “that has the most…” impact on the community? Is it the “that supports the most” projects? Is it the “that has the most” coverage? Is it the “that has the most” social groups with particular conditions? attend? There is no desire for sterile criticism, of course the Carlos Slim Foundation has its well-earned merits and its contribution is extremely relevant. The problem lies in the qualifications and labels that are placed for some of the purposes described above. On the other hand, “the more.has its mirror: “the less…” with which it also seeks to highlight qualities of positioning and not necessarily effectiveness. Whatever the criterion to measure generosity, we must not forget a simple methodology that escapes comparison with others. The generosity that is born from one's own possibilities, that is, from what each individual or organization gives in relation to what they have, which gives another relevance and depth to the act of giving, that is an interesting way that must be observed. From the Board of Directors The President of the Board of Directors congratulated the Kaluz Foundation for the “I swim for my heart” initiative that seeks to raise funds by calling for a swimming marathon in different pools of the IMSS and other organizations where it is estimated that 40 thousand swimmers will participate. The funds raised will be used to support children with heart problems.