It is imperative that you thoroughly understand what Solpulse does, and why we do it. Pay close attention to this section; all members must complete and pass a digital test regarding information from this portion of the handbook. This is to ensure that, should any Solpulse member be put in a position where they need to show what our organization does, they are able to easily demonstrate how Solpulse uniquely tackles problems in both the donation and educational systems of the world. Note: ultimately, we are not merely aiming to increase global educational equity via non-profit donations. The mechanics behind our systems are deeply rooted in the desire to create an ideological shift in the way the average person views donating, and more holistically, giving.

But let me first begin by explaining the status quo (with a familiar example). Do you remember having canned-food drives in elementary school? I’m not sure about your exact experience, but my elementary school always turned the canned-food drive into a schoolwide competition: the grade level who brought in the most cans at the end of the week would receive some kind of prize (it was probably something like a popsicle party or extra recess). This was obviously an encouraging effort by the administration to increase participation and thus impact of the entire drive (under the average person’s logic, more cans = more impact). As far as elementary school kids are concerned, their comprehension of impact rarely extended beyond that (making these canned-food drives perfectly-fitting opportunities for the kids to help out those in need). 

But you are not an elementary school kid. So instead, I’ll expose what’s fundamentally wrong with the logic “more cans = more impact” (you might be able to guess it yourself; it really is quite obvious if you think for a few seconds). While I acknowledge the undeniable help donated food can be for people in a particular time of need, the infamous canned-food drive also severely lacks lasting impact. And at the moment, you might not fully realize the extremely critical necessity of lasting impact in the world today. I firmly believe that if something cannot last, then over time the evidence that it ever had any effect asymptotically approaches zero (this will be further explained later on in the manifesto). A person, like you and I, are incredibly complex and need an entire village (as a metaphor for a lot, but also literally) to have the liberty to live a quality life. This includes a balanced diet, a caring family, and very importantly, enriching educational opportunities amongst a plethora of other things (I truly encourage you to take a minute to actually think about and realize just how much goes into putting you in the very privileged position to be reading this right now). The main point is, being highly complex humans, we subsequently require highly complex support to live as we do (I’m largely talking about the class of people who are well-off, like myself and probably you too). But one thing I want you to also take note of, is that all of these things making up our highly complex support only work so well because they share one thing in common: for the most part, they are constant (or in other words, they last). We (the general person who is well-off) always have access to a balanced diet, a caring family, enriching educational opportunities, and so incredibly much more. This constance is what allows us to be comfortably who we are now. 

Now let’s go back to the canned-food drive example. A single can of beans can feed 1 to 3 people as a main dish, or 3 to 4 people as a side. A single can of beans can only feed the aforementioned amounts of people a total of 1 time. Considering what I told you about complex humans needing complex support, do you really think 1 or even 100 cans of beans can make a very meaningful difference in a person’s life? Especially the part about complex support needing to be constant (those canned-food drives at my elementary school only collected for a week; what happens to the impoverished people after that)? 

And ultimately, after the supply from the drive ends, those very impoverished people find themselves in the very circumstances they were in prior to having been given the can of beans, and the systemic cycle continues (remember: if something cannot last, then over time the evidence that it ever had any effect asymptotically approaches zero). This brings me to my slightly controversial question I had before starting Solpulse: what is the point of the canned food drive if it cannot ultimately (I’m using this word as a synonym for lastingly) leave people better off? The temporary and almost marginal (remember: highly complex humans need highly complex support) difference that the canned food drive makes is an improperly designed solution to the problem they are meant to address. Just imagine if all the money and resources spent on the annual canned food drive was redirected into a more properly designed solution, one where people are ultimately left better off (the matter at hand is not our money/resource availability; it’s how we thoughtfully utilize  it to maximize the impact of giving). 

Similarly, other initiatives that are prefaced with things like “funding underprivileged families meals for an entire year” or “donating 500 pairs of shoes to kids in need” may seem very impactful at face-value, but ultimately don’t fall much farther than the logic we already know, “more cans = more impact”, which we already debunked, is definitely not all that it’s cracked out to be. I think the biggest fallacy behind initiatives that follow this loose logic is that the numbers are used to make the givers feel impactful rather than actually being it. I mean, just take for example, an initiative that has helped 500 kids versus Solpulse who’s so far (as of when I’m writing this) helped 4 kids; you’d probably assume at face-value the former is more impactful, but if you really looked into it, you’d realize that usually 500 pairs of shoes does not surpass the level of impact that 4 high school graduations that came with 3 meals a day, new school uniforms, school supplies, transportation costs, coverage of part of the teachers’ salaries, etc. alongside a relationship between givers and receivers has. The biggest takeaway here should be that giving, and I mean the most meaningful kind of giving, is largely defined by its qualitative aspects rather than quantitative. Keep this in mind if you later choose to analyze other giving initiatives in the world on your own.

Speaking of which, let’s analyze another pervasive kind of global donation system. I’m sure you’ve heard of some of these big foundations: American Red Cross, United Way, World Wildlife Fund, etc. While these charities do not hide what service they do, they are far more oriented on population-level impact rather than showing how the dollar of individual donors had an effect. When you donate to any of these foundations, you know that somehow/someway your money is being used for broadly “preventing and relieving suffering” (American Red Cross mission), “improv[ing] lives” (United Ways mission), or “protecting nature and its resources” (World Wildlife Fund mission), but rarely which precise cause or aspect of a cause its being put towards (that is if, your money is truly going to where we think it's going). 

This unfortunately brings me to digress to a few statistics: charities should “spend at least 65% of its total expenses on program activities” (BBB Standards for Charity Accountability). This allows charities to put as much as 35% of donations received towards the ominous category of “other” (e.g. administrative costs and overhead expenses) while still being recognized as accountable. On a legal level, charities can have an even lower percentage of funds allocated to actual program activities. A study conducted in 2001 discovered that across 111,000 charities, 21% (How Tough are Better Business Bureau/Wise Giving Alliance Financial Standards? 4) did not meet the BBB standards: a significant percentage of charities failed to use at least 65% of funds towards program activities. 

I’m definitely not saying that all the charities I listed (and others like them) are ones to be exploitative of donation funds, but I am saying we have limited visibility on the impact of individual donations and their specific, long-term outcomes (this point still stands even if the charity operates responsibly). Now I will say, this particular area where big foundations lack is an area where the canned-food drive adjacent initiatives shine: at least we knew our outgrown pair of shoes was directly going to an actual kid in need. 

By now, you probably get the point I’m making about the status quo. And with that, I hope you better understand Solpulse’s approach to giving. I originally designed Solpulse’s donation system analogical to the quantum photoelectric effect (it’s honestly simple, I learned it in my first chemistry course), giving it its name: quantum donation. Below I have created a couple of diagrams to help you understand quantum donation.

I’m excited to tell you you’ve reached the end of my manifesto (but certainly not the end of this handbook)! I’d like to leave you with a personal onboarding message from me. If you’ve been accepted into Solpulse, it is because I honestly believe that your addition is integral to achieving our mission. Everyday I am astonished by how we grow, and it is 100% thanks to members of all kinds like you. By joining, you are becoming a part of a brilliant team where we are all united by our shared passion for Solpulse’s mission. I’m beyond ecstatic to work alongside you!