Live data from Hacker News

The Dropbox Foundation

dropbox.com

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#111

It is huge that they give unrestricted grants. I've been involved in the nonprofit world a lot in the last few years, and the most surprising thing I've learned is how depressingly common restricted grants are. Restricted grants are when you give money to a nonprofit to do what you want, rather than what they want. Usually this is some highly visible thing that the donor can then claim credit for. These projects are…

> The less powerful nonprofits have no choice but to take such money. Why can't they just say no if it's a not useful to them? How do the donors force them to take the money? I can't donate money to you and tell you to spend it on something - you'd just tell me to get lost.

[deleted]

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The less powerful nonprofits have no choice but to take such money. Why can't they just say no if it's a not useful to them? How do the donors force them to take the money? I can't donate money to you and tell you to spend it on something - you'd just tell me to get lost.

But it's tough when much of the available grants of size are restricted. Sure, you could just shut down the nonprofit due to lack of funds. But sitting in the nonprofit's shoes, when that grant is what you need to stay alive, and is related to your mission, but doesn't reflect your priorities within that mission, you're still going to take it unless you want to lay everyone off and move on. And many nonprofits are in…

Right so the grant is helpful and welcome, that’s why they accept it.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#113

It is huge that they give unrestricted grants. I've been involved in the nonprofit world a lot in the last few years, and the most surprising thing I've learned is how depressingly common restricted grants are. Restricted grants are when you give money to a nonprofit to do what you want, rather than what they want. Usually this is some highly visible thing that the donor can then claim credit for. These projects are…

> The less powerful nonprofits have no choice but to take such money. Why can't they just say no if it's a not useful to them? How do the donors force them to take the money? I can't donate money to you and tell you to spend it on something - you'd just tell me to get lost.

This comes up regularly when a big natural catastrophe (a tsunami or such) happens somewhere in the world, the TV stations ask for donations with a "codeword" like "Tsunami relief South-Asia" andf donations pour in.

And then the Red Cross or whoever cannot use all that money sensibly. Maybe the catastrophe turned out to be a bit smaller than expected. Maybe there is need for more tents and food and water, but for some reason there is limited transport capacity available. Maybe there is an armed conflict breaking out or going on and they don't dare to go fully in.

And then... there are lots of other worthy causes. Other natural catastrophes. General anti-hunger initiatives.

But they are forced to leave the money laying around because they are not allowed to use it for another crisis. Even if most of the donors would probably shrug and say "well, too bad, but sure, go ahead and help where you can".

For this reason: always refrain from designating a specific use. If you don't trust the organization to do good, give to someone else.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#114
post #78
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the things you mentioned can also be handled by the private sector. Not a good idea, however. Also very typical American, not considering healthcare an essential service, lol.

Sorry but this is completely ridiculous and disingenuously undermines the OP's very good point. First, even if some Americans don't support universal healthcare, that doesn't mean that all Americans don't support it. Even if they do, there are arguments to be made both for and against universal healthcare. I happen to fall on the pro-universal healthcare side, but it's certainly not without drawbacks. Second, the OP…

That'd be great if Dropbox donates all the taxes they dodged into good causes. But you and I both know that's complete nonsense.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#115
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It removes the particularly heinous problem of government officials spending the public's money on things the public doesn't actually want them to spend it on. That's actually a good thing in my book. Sometimes the right thing is not the easy or popular one. "Let's cut education spending and increase everybody's salaries instead" would probably be very popular but it might not prove very beneficial in the long term.…

> The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose. Taken out of context, it would be hard to know whether this is a criticism of the public sector or private. > If you dislike the way the government spends money then you elect a different one. If you don't manage to do that then maybe "the public" doesn't disagree so strongly with the way the money is spent. Taken at face…

The problem is people always want change NOW, and aren't willing to wait and to work. Throughout the course of American history when the public felt strongly enough about something they worked, and campaigned, and protested, AND VOTED until things changed. But it doesn't happen immediately and it never has. We have the power now to make the public's opinion known to politicians faster and more accurately which should hopefully shorten the feedback loop.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's tough when much of the available grants of size are restricted. Sure, you could just shut down the nonprofit due to lack of funds. But sitting in the nonprofit's shoes, when that grant is what you need to stay alive, and is related to your mission, but doesn't reflect your priorities within that mission, you're still going to take it unless you want to lay everyone off and move on. And many nonprofits are in…

Right so the grant is helpful and welcome, that’s why they accept it.

What/who are you arguing against?

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#117

It is huge that they give unrestricted grants. I've been involved in the nonprofit world a lot in the last few years, and the most surprising thing I've learned is how depressingly common restricted grants are. Restricted grants are when you give money to a nonprofit to do what you want, rather than what they want. Usually this is some highly visible thing that the donor can then claim credit for. These projects are…

As a counterpoint, I'm involved with a private foundation that donates a total in the mid-six figures to various organizations each year (foundations like ours and probably Dropbox's have to donate 5% of their assets annually), and most of our donations are restricted in one way or another.

The way things usually go is we get interested in an organization and ask them if they need funding for any specific projects or initiatives this year, they send us a list of options, and we choose from the list. Usually we'll get an email later on about how the project went. If we don't care for any of the options but we still like the organization, we might make an unrestricted (albeit probably smaller) donation instead.

We do it this way for a lot of reasons, but one is that nonprofits can be as flawed as any corporation and in many cases they have all kinds of stuff they'd love to spend money on if they could that isn't directly related to their mission, or rather is related enough that they can book it as "program expenses" for the purposes of maintaining a five-star Charity Navigator rating when a reasonable person might look at it and see some amount of wastefulness. (That probably sounds more cynical than I actually feel about it, but it's a real issue.) Examples would be things like fancy office spaces and parties, questionable executive travel or compensation, optimizing for metrics that make the CEO sound good but aren't as impactful to the core mission as what they could be doing, etc.

Anecdotally, I'd say this is more commonly an issue with mid-sized organizations: huge charities usually have a big nest egg (like an endowment) to cover regular operating expenses, while very small charities are more likely to be entirely staffed by volunteers and thus have negligible overhead.

Anyway, we basically just want to know where our money's going. I can't speak to how gigantic foundations operate, but I'm sure there are a whole lot of individual donors and smaller foundations who do things the way we do (with no desire to claim credit).

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#119
post #89

It is huge that they give unrestricted grants. I've been involved in the nonprofit world a lot in the last few years, and the most surprising thing I've learned is how depressingly common restricted grants are. Restricted grants are when you give money to a nonprofit to do what you want, rather than what they want. Usually this is some highly visible thing that the donor can then claim credit for. These projects are…

This is exactly what's happening with Khan Academy. Not only they get restricted grants from Google but Eric Schmidt (among others) is on their board directly influencing the direction of the organization

In a bad way?

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always a risk when you give money that it will be used in a way you don't approve of or that is generally unsavory. Restrictions are one way to try to control that, but they're not foolproof. I think ultimately if you're willing to give money to an organization (and your goal is not just to get a building built and named after you), you should feel comfortable enough with its management that you're willing to…

> There's always a risk when you give money that it will be used in a way you don't approve of... I’ve seen people on the left get upset when they find out that the ACLU defends the rights of people on the right in addition to those on the left.

In the wake of Charlottesville I recall some ACLU workers resigning.
Post reply on HN