How to Conduct an Ethics Bowl

Just about every aspect of the youth grantmaker's job requires making tough decisions. Each proposal seems to have its own unique complexities and challenges, and sometimes it seems like each Advisory Commitee Member (YACer) has a different view of how to grant your money. The difficulty doesn't stop there, either. As a Youth Grantmaking Commitee (YAC) you have to decide what your role in the community is going to be: what kind of programs you fund, how proactive you are in writing proposals--even what kind of kids make up the YAC itself. To sharpen your decision-making abilities, we've put together and posted six sample Ethics Bowl cases that deal with things YACs face in real life. We recommend that you get together with your YAC and run an Ethics Bowl using these cases, but even if you don’t, take a few minutes to look them over. They're guaranteed to get you thinking.

The Ethics Bowl is designed to make you a better thinker, a better speaker, and a person who approaches tough issues with a solid ethical foundation.

The Ethics Bowl is built on the belief that to be an ethical thinker, you've got to be open to a diverse range of views. This means appreciating the concerns of others, and making a real attempt to understand their views--even when they're unclear or emotional in the way they express themselves. The rules, format, and procedures of the Ethics Bowl are all designed to help participants engage in a candid, intense exchange of viewpoints. Although issues may be controversial and difficult to resolve, participants should have a discussion that is both civil and intelligent. Combined with an open mind, this will guarantee sound, ethically minded thinking towards every decision you might encounter as a grantmaker.

II. What does "ethics" mean, anyway?

Well, let's ask the dictionary.

ethics

A set of principles of right conduct.
ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: YAC ethics.

So there you have it. Your ethics, in a nutshell, are the standards which help you make the right decisions. YAC ethics help YACs make the right decisions in every aspect of grantmaking.

III. Is the Ethics Bowl like a debate? - Yes and No

Similarities: In the Ethics Bowl, just as in debate, you have to explain and defend a position under examination. This means thinking on your feet, since the other team and the judges are both carefully evaluating what you say. In this way, the Ethics Bowl develops your abilities to speak in public and think critically.

Differences: Ethics Bowl is a lot more fun! Seriously, though, the main difference between Ethics Bowl and debate lies in the nature of the competition. In debate, the two opposing teams have to disagree. In the Ethics Bowl, the competition lies solely in how clearly and wisely a team can state its position. It doesn't matter which side they take--the two teams can agree entirely! To support this approach to competition, the Ethics Bowl has subtle differences in structure and order (see "Ethics Bowl Rules").

IV. How to Organize an Ethics Bowl

For an Ethics Bowl competition, you'll need two teams, a moderator and a panel of judges. If you're doing this with your YAC, you can split into three groups of 4-6 people each. One group will be the presenting team, one will be the responding team and the other will be the panel of judges. The Advisor can serve as moderator. Depending on the size of the YAC, you could form six groups, but have at least three youth in each role-presenting, responding, judge. Give each group 20 minutes to form a group position on the case. Then it’s time to start and participants should be in a square with teams facing each other and the judges and moderator facing each other.

Things You Will Need

In order to have a successful Ethics Bowl competition, you will need the following things:

-Copies of the Rules for Each Participant

-Copies of the Judges Score Sheets

-A Moderators Score Chart

We've posted all these forms here. In addition, you'll need:

-Calculators for the Judges

-A Timer for the Moderator

V. Ethics Bowl Rules

Running Time: 1 Hour

PROCEDURES

The Moderator indicates which case is to be used, and then reads Team 1 the question at the end of the case (e.g. "What do you do?").

Team 1 then has one (1) minute to confer, after which one or two spokesperson(s) for the team may use up to eight (8) minutes to respond to the Moderator’s question.

The opposing team receives one (1) minute to confer, and then five (5) minutes to comment on Team 1’s answer. This commentary can include the posing of questions to Team 1, which will be answered in Step 4.

Team 1 receives one (1) minute to confer and five (5) minutes to respond to Team 2’s analysis with a defense of their position. If Team 2 asked questions, Team 1 may answer them at this time.

The judges then ask questions of Team 1. Before asking questions the judges may confer to briefly discuss areas that they want to cover during the question period. Each judge should ask only one question, with a brief follow-up question if necessary. Judges' Q & A time should not exceed eight (8) minutes. Different team members may respond to the questions, but only one team member should speak at a time.

The judges evaluate Team 1 and Team 2, writing scores on their score sheets.

At the close of the round the Moderator asks the judges to announce the scores for each team. The judges can use up to five (5) minutes to explain the scores and their reasons for giving them.

The moderator tallies each score after the round and announces the winning team at the end of the three rounds in the Ethics Bowl.

Teams then rotate roles and steps 1-7 are run with a different case. Either Team 1 or Team 2 should judge this time, and the judges from the first round can be either the presenting or the responding team. If the each team would like to have a chance in each role, rotate again after round two and run a third round.

SCORING CRITERIA

Judges should evaluate the responses of teams based on the following criteria of intelligibility, depth, focus and judgment. To help you out, we've included some sample answers concerning a fictitious (and REALLY BASIC) Ethics Bowl case that pits "Proposal One" versus "Proposal Two".

Intelligibility- Does the team's position (and defense) make logical sense? Is it easy to understand, given their explanations?

Example of an intelligible answer: "The case says all of the YAC has five hundred dollars to spend. If Proposal One asks for seven hundred dollars and Proposal Two asks for four hundred, the YAC can't possibly give Proposal One what it asks. Therefore, they should fund Proposal Two." (logical, easy to understand where they're coming from)

Example of an unintelligible answer: "These are good proposals, both one and two. The YAC has five hundred dollars, and Proposal Two has four hundred. We think that they should use their money to fund Proposal One, since they have a larger project." (vague and confused)

Depth- Are the team's answers and reasons well thought through?

Example of a good answer with depth: "Both Proposal One and Proposal two seem worthy of the YAC's funding. Unfortunately, the YAC does not have enough money to fully fund both projects. Since it would be unfortunate to turn either one away empty-handed, we think that the YAC should give Proposal One partial funding of three hundred dollars, and Proposal Two partial funding of two hundred dollars…" (comes up with an innovative solution, avoids the obvious)

Example of a poor answer with no depth: "Wow, these are both super! We say give the money to Proposal One because they probably asked for it first." (no attempt to understand or consider what is important)

Focus- did the team stay relevant and on track, or did they bring up points that are not important to the case?

Example of a focused answer: "Proposal One deals very directly with youth issues, which should be the main concern of a YAC. We think that in light of this, Proposal One ought to get the YAC's funding." (draws out relevant points from the case)

Example of an unfocused answer: "The case says that the president of Proposal One's organization is named Simon. One time our YAC had to deal with a guy named Simon who was really mean and dishonest. Therefore, we think that Proposal Two should get full funding and Proposal One should not get anything." (brings up facts that are irrelevant and distracting)

Judgment- did the team consider both sides of the case before they decided on a position?

Example of an answer with balanced judgment: "Both of the proposals in question seem like they have a lot going for them. On the one hand, proposal One deals with youth issues. This is a very important consideration, since YACs should focus on helping youth. On the other hand, Proposal Two involves more direct funding of the YAC's community. This is also a crucial thing to consider, since the YAC is there to help out local causes. Taking these things into account, we think…" (locates and considers the relative merits of each option)

Example of an answer with unbalanced judgment: "Well, Proposal One seems terrific. It seems like a positive cause supported by great people. Plus, it involves youth issues, and these are really important. We say go with Proposal One." (only looks at the benefits of one side, decides too soon)

SCORING

The judges should score each team like this:

Scoring the presenting team (Team 1): Consider how well Team 1 did in each of the four categories above. For each category, rate their performance on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being "excellent" and 1 being "poor". Total the four scores for a subtotal, and present the score as out of a possible 20.

Scoring the responding team (Team 2): Consider how well Team 2 did in each of the four categories above. Instead of taking separate totals and adding them, though, give a single overall 1-5 score for general quality of performance. This score will naturally be out of a possible 5.

Ethics Bowl Judges Score Sheet

Name:____________________________________________________

(You must fill this in so that if any scoring questions arise, we will be able to come back and confirm these results with you.)

Scoring Area	Team:____________	Team:_____________
Intelligibility (0-5 pts)
Depth (0-5 pts)
Focus (0-5 pts)
Judgment (0-5 pts)
Response (0-5 pts)
TOTAL SCORES

Moderator’s Score Chart

Please clearly fill out the score tally below when judges announce their scores.

Confirm and initial the team score sheets after each round is completed.

	ROUND ONE	ROUND TWO	ROUND THREE
TEAM NAME: Please Fill in ->
1^st Judge
2^nd Judge
3^rd Judge
4^th Judge
5^th Judge
6^th Judge
Total

VI. The Six Cases

Choosing New Members

Case 1

James Anderson, a senior, and the current chair of the Fruita County Community Foundation YAC, will be graduating in a few months. At its final meeting of the year, the YAC is deciding on new members to fill the slots that will open up once the seniors graduate. James seems to be paying much more attention this year, given that one of those positions is "his." He really wants to make sure that the best candidates possible are the ones who become members, but is also sympathetic towards those people who could really benefit from the experience of serving as a youth grantmaker.

The process has gone well thus far and the YAC is down to making a decision on its final new member. There are two candidates who excite James the most: Christopher and Todd. Christopher is his class president, captain of the track team, involved both in student government and debate, and has already applied for early admission to college. He is also a good friend of James, having grown up as his next-door neighbor. There is no question whatsoever in James' mind that Christopher would bring a lot of experience and skill to the committee.

In talking with Todd, it has become clear to James that he sincerely views YAC membership as an immensely important community service, and is very eager to serve. However, Todd has not been involved in many school activities, and has little, if any, formal leadership training or experience. Despite this, James believes that membership on the YAC could play a big role in bringing out qualities of leadership that he believes Todd has the potential to develop. In this regard, James remembers that Todd was somewhat shy as a freshman. But during this past year James remembers that Todd, who is an excellent student, was eagerly and generously helping other students with concepts they didn't fully understand. James has noticed that Todd will often strike up conversations with people who are alone, and sits in a different place for lunch almost every day, always sitting down where there are only one or two people.

In your opinion, whom should James vote for, and why?

The Perfect Fit?

Case 2

You and your fellow YAC members have recently completed your bi-annual needs assessment for your community, and used those results to decide on what should be included in your RFP (Request for Proposals) to community organizations. The top areas of concern to youth this year is: literacy, cultural enrichment, needs of disabled youth, and program assistance to the underserved areas in the county. Last week the Committee received a proposal that, on first reading, seemed to be a perfect fit!

It comes from the Community Center for Youth Enrichment in South Warwick, a low-income area in the extreme southeastern corner of the county, with an almost entirely minority population, South Warwick is about ten miles from the Regional Public Library, located in a predominantly white, upper income, part of the county. Children from South Warwick seldom, if ever, set foot in it. The Community Center has started a program, implemented by an exceptionally able, dedicated, and hard-working staff of volunteers, focusing on many diverse aspects of literacy. These include: academic tutoring, story telling hours, reading and discussion clubs (with books provided by the Center), and creative writing clubs for all different age levels.

The Community Center has submitted a proposal for a grant that would enable it to bring in two new staff members: a sign language teacher and a sign language interpreter. This would make it possible for hearing impaired children in South Warwick (there are ten of them) to participate in the above-mentioned programs. The Center's proposal also calls for having the interpreter instruct the Center's staff in sign language, as well as conduct classes in sign language for non-hearing impaired children who come to the Center.

The proposal from the Community Center for Youth Enrichment seems directly on target to you and your fellow YAC members in terms of the funding priorities you identified in your needs assessment. There is a matter that makes you uneasy, however. Several weeks ago you made a site visit to the Center. Much of the activity you observed concerned a wide array of different subjects. Nonetheless, it became clear to you that the Center, although not formally affiliated with a church, does have a strong religious orientation. You saw many books on different religious subjects in the Center's reading room. Notices for discussion groups indicated religious topics, and on a bulletin board you saw a student essay entitled "The Plane Truth," containing passages like this:

When you get to the final gate, the Lord will be handing out boarding passes and he will examine your ticket. If in your lifetime you didn't request a seat on his friendly skies by trusting him and only him to be your pilot then you won't be on his list of reserved seats (and the Lord will know you not). You'll be met by your chosen pilot and flown straight to hell in an express jet.

What is the stance that you and your YAC should take toward the proposal from Community Center for Youth Enrichment? Why?

Rival Schools

Case 3

Your YAC, part of the Abram County Community Foundation, is made up of kids from three different high schools in your area: Abram High School, which you attend, Abram Christian High School, and Harrison High School. Your YAC has twenty-two members and this year, as you sit down to decide grants, you have one hundred fifty thousand dollars with which to work. The grants seem promising and progress is excellent until you reach back-to-back proposals from the Abram and Harrison school districts.

Abram's proposal concerns music education for Abram School District students aged Kindergarten through eighth grade. Although Abram elementary and middle schools currently have music education programs, there are only four teachers for the four thousand enrolled students in these grades. The instruments for the band and orchestra are old and in bad repair, and the schools need new music books and sheet music as well. In light of this, Abram School District has decided to overhaul their music program. In addition to hiring four new music staff, they will be purchasing new instruments for both band and orchestra and constructing additions to the music facilities of both Abram middle schools. They are asking your YAC to provide fifteen thousand dollars to fund the purchase of keyboards and music books as part of a new initiative to provide piano lessons for elementary and middle school students.

The Harrison Schools also have a proposal on the table, for a very different type of project. Harrison School District, located in a newly developed part of town, is relatively wealthy. Because of this, Harrison High School has been able to afford a brand new school building on a wooded one-hundred-acre lot. The back windows of the high school look out onto a forest, but as of yet this area is undeveloped. Harrison High School is asking your YAC for twenty thousand dollars for the construction of a boardwalk through the woods behind their school. Included in the proposal packet are plans for the boardwalk, complete with pavilions and benches along the way.

Both proposals seem valid, and your YAC has enough money to fund Abram and Harrison alike. However, it is clear that your position as an Abram High School student would be an issue if you voted on these proposals. The same seems to be true for the other Abram High School Students on your YAC as well as the Harrison High School students, but so far nobody else has expressed concerns regarding conflicts of interest. As a YACer, you want to be sure that fair and impartial grant decisions are made.

What do you do?

A Sure Bet?

Case 4

Grant time has rolled around, and you and your YAC have six thousand dollars to grant. As you look over the grant requests, however, it becomes evident that the applicants are quite different from one another.

The first applicant is the KidPoint Youth Center, a proven and well-established organization. KidPoint, founded in your town fifteen years ago, has since established ten branches in surrounding communities. KidPoint's chief mission is to provide kids a safe and fun after-school atmosphere for the cultivation of mind, body, and self-image. It provides an arts and crafts room as well as ping-pong and foosball tables, an indoor basketball court, and help with homework from high school volunteers. First aimed at youth ages eight through eighteen, KidPoint has expanded in recent years to include summer school education programs, a free daycare center for teen mothers, and counseling on issues such as sex, depression, suicide, and pregnancy. Its groundbreaking and effective programming has earned it the praise of numerous community leaders, and many local philanthropists (including your YAC) give money to KidPoint. Its ten branches regularly list donation revenues in the millions of dollars annually. KidPoint fits the YAC giving criteria ideally: local, youth-oriented, and innovative. This year's grant request is for six thousand dollars and is to serve the purpose of making your town's entire KidPoint facility handicap-accessible. The proposal is professionally drawn up and supplemented by a study documenting the need for accessibility and by complete designs for all intended modifications to the building. As you read through the proposal, you notice that several local organizations have already contributed sizeable amounts to the cause. KidPoint is, as it were, a sure bet: even without the supplemental information, you are confident that any money you give to KidPoint will be well spent on the advancement of youth in your community.

The second organization is unknown to you and your fellow YACers alike, and, in fact, has never made a grant proposal before. Its name is Casa Seguro, and its mission is to provide day care services for low-income working families in your community. Its request is also for six thousand dollars, for the purchase of toys for the kids and the construction of a playground on the center's property. The proposal is short but earnest, and is supplemented only by some photographs of kids at the center (about twelve families use Casa Seguro) and a personal letter from the head of the day care center detailing the children's need for the toys requested. The families who use the services of Casa Seguro often have no choice but to leave their children at Casa Seguro for eight to ten hours of the workday, and, according to the proposal, Casa Seguro currently cannot provide the kids with much to entertain them. Casa Seguro has no corporate or nonprofit sources of funding, and their proposal indicates that your YAC is the only area philanthropic organization with which they are familiar. No other organizations have given money to Casa Seguro thus far.

You and your fellow YACers are faced with a tough decision. KidPoint is large and has a proven record, while Casa Seguro is small and relatively unknown.

Do you go with the sure bet, or take a risk and fund a much needier new program?

Carrying the Organization

Case 5

As you and your fellow YACers look over your grant decisions, you note that this year's proposals reflect the economic slowdown affecting your area. As a result of funding shortages, both state support and individual donations from area businesses have declined markedly in the last several months. There are more proposals this cycle, the requests are for larger amounts of money, and organizations that have not previously asked for funds are now coming forward with requests.

One organization in particular stands out in terms of need. The Maple Street Club is a popular and successful after-school program serving the students of five elementary and two middle schools. Maple Street has suffered dramatic funding cuts as a result of the recent recession, however. Your YAC has given to Maple Street in the past, and is prepared to do so again. This year they are receiving far fewer state funds, however, and the nature of their grant request reflects the increased size of their need.

Where Maple Street has previously asked your YAC to fund only supplies and the cost of field trips, this year's proposal includes a request for five thousand dollars for the facilitator. Michelle Adams, Maple Street's acting director, is no longer being paid by the school district, and so your YAC is being asked to pay her salary for the next year. Maple Street's proposal also includes requests for the cost of renting their building, as well as utilities and the costs of the supplies used in the after-school activities. In fact, it seems like Maple Street Club is asking your YAC to fund nearly every part of their program. The total amount requested is eleven thousand dollars, which is well within your means.

The problem arises, however, in your YAC's policies regarding what may and may not be funded. You do not pay an organization's operating fees or directors' salaries, and generally avoid paying taxes, utility bills, and the costs of general upkeep. These are not hard and fast laws, and minor exceptions have been made in the past, but the purpose of the policy is to keep the YAC's money going to innovative, youth-centered sources.

Maple Street, of course, is asking for your YAC to not only pay an administrator's salary, but also to pay for the cost of renting and maintaining a building. In essence, they are asking your YAC to "carry" them through a fiscally difficult period. Though the need is significant, granting their funding requests would mean making unprecedented exceptions to YAC policy.

What do you do?

Proactive or Policy?

Case 6

You are the chair of a YAC that has recently completed an extensive needs assessment of youth issues in your community. One of the key things the assessment has discovered is how concerned kids in your area are about suicide. Almost ninety percent of teens polled knew someone who had committed or attempted suicide, and over sixty percent of area high school students had thought about suicide in the last year.

When you investigate further, you find that your community has little to offer youth in the area of suicide prevention. Not only is there no local suicide hotline, but teen suicide is twelfth on your community center's list of concerns and they do not even publicize 1-800-SUICIDE, the national hotline. There are no anti-suicide programs active in area schools, and information on suicide prevention is difficult to come by. Your YAC concludes that a teen contemplating suicide would have difficulty knowing where in your area to go for help, and the friend of a suicidal teen would have difficulty knowing what to do.

You put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the community, publicizing the findings of your needs assessment and saying that your YAC would fully fund any suicide-prevention programs. After a month, though, no one has come forward suggesting anything. The deadline for proposals is fast approaching, and soon it will be too late. Andrea and Alan, two members of your YAC, suggest that the YAC members themselves put together a proposal. After all, the argument goes, you not only have the resources and the know-how for implementing programs, but you also have lots of ideas as to what can be done. Andrea has contacts with an anti-suicide speaker who, for several thousand dollars, can be brought in to do presentations at area schools. Alan has already designed a plan for the implementation of a suicide-counseling system for teens that would operate via the local community center. Several other YACers come up with suggestions for the production and distribution of information packets on suicide. As the ideas come together, there is enthusiasm for the formal creation of a proposal. The final decision to move forward with the idea, though, is left to you.

As the chair, you have a tough judgment to make. You would like to see a suicide-prevention program active in your area, and you know that your YAC has the ability to make significant progress in starting one. On the other hand, you know that the mission of your YAC is to fund existing programs, not create new ones. If you put YAC money into this proposal, you may have to deny funding to an outside organization that has been waiting for a grant.

Does the situation necessitate stepping outside your traditional role as a YAC to make a proposal, or should you stick to policy and trust that the issue will be taken care of by other means?

VII. Youth Grantmakers Ethics Bowl

The oscillating fan in the corner riffles a stack of papers on the judge's desk as the two factions eye each other across the silent room. Eleven thousand dollars is on the line, and closing arguments on both sides have just been made. The fate of a popular youth program, and the salary of its longtime director, hangs in the balance. As the judge finishes scribbling her notes and the result is announced, one side of the room bursts into smiles and high-fives. But this is no civil court, nor is there anything ordinary about the debate. Nobody seems to notice that eleven thousand dollars is more than the combined income of everyone in the room. And more strikingly, no one seems to care that the two sides are in complete agreement on the issue in question. Welcome to the Youth Grantmakers' Ethics Bowl, the philanthropically-minded team game where deep thought is far more important than deep pockets.

In recent months, shady business practices have dominated headlines around the world, and the pipeline of "misappropriated" funds has swelled from the billions to the trillions of dollars because morals seem to be an afterthought for the business world. Youth planners for the Michigan Community Foundations' Youth Project (MCFYP) Tenth Annual Summer Youth Leadership Conference decided to tackle ethics in a format modeling the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl.

When one considers Bowl competitions, the sit-down variety at least, one usually thinks of the College Bowl. A university staple since the fifties, the fast-paced quiz show epitomizes competitive academia. In the last ten years, though, Illinois Institute of Technology philosophy professor Bob Ladenson has organized a new kind of competition, with a focus on ethical discussion. The Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl, which in 2002 saw Wright State University winning out in "friendly but intense" competition over a field of nearly forty other teams, incorporates aspects of business, social, political, and classroom ethics in a laid-back form of debate which values insight more than one-upmanship or rapid-fire discourse.

This year's MCFYP conference was host to over one hundred fifty youth grantmakers and adult advisors from all over Michigan and seven other states. Thirty states and eight countries boast participation in the rapidly expanding field of youth philanthropy, and of the more than three hundred youth grantmaking programs in the US, eighty-six are found in Michigan. In an effort to highlight this year's conference themes of diversity and ethics, youth coordinators wrote six cases like the one offered here. Each dealt with a different aspect of the youth grantmaking experience, from the selection of new members to questions of how and when to fund various organizations. Most importantly, each case included a number of ethical gray areas, so that a solution would not be immediately visible.

In a typical Ethics Bowl, one team provides a five-minute analysis of a case which they have received prior to competition. They then hear another team's analysis of their position before fielding questions from a panel of peer judges. In a unique twist, teams are judged on the clarity and depth of their position rather than proximity to one "correct" answer. "The focus was on enhancing youth grantmakers' ability to articulate their decision-making process, rather than on winning or losing an argument,” says Cris Kooyer, an advisor of five YACs (Youth Advisory Committees) in the Grand Rapids area. "The process was non-threatening". Keith Mason, a youth grantmaker from Allegan, MI, agrees. "I felt that the Ethics Bowl provided a peaceful way to express differences of opinion" he says, " I would love to see the Ethics Bowl run in individual YACs".

Many others echoed Mason's sentiments on the importance of Ethics Bowl-style discussion, leading the adult advisors present to consider implementing the competition with their YACs in the coming year. "I was thrilled with the Ethics Bowl." says Kooyer, "It provided youth grantmakers with a meaningful and practical means to delve into tremendously significant issues related to philanthropy. The specific cases the youth deliberated were highly challenging and could potentially have impact for grant makers of all ages."

That impact became immediately evident when the teams began debating the cases, since the first thing the discussion brought to light was the radical diversity of different community backgrounds. "The Ethics Bowl helped me find out what types of things are important to other groups", says Jaclyn Middaugh, a YAC member from Charlotte, MI, "everyone has different priorities". One case, which dealt with the question of funding for a faith-based organization, saw youth grantmakers from different communities arguing opposite sides of the issue. Many participants who initially saw the case as simple or one-sided were brought to face a very different, and very real, view of the issue. "While trying to come up with one specific position on each of the cases, I realized that everything depends on individual opinion," Middaugh says, "you just have to come up with the best thing that will help the most people". If only certain CEO's would take her advice.

The dialogue between communities provided participants with a refreshing view of what lies outside their own spheres of experience. More importantly, the breadth of thought required for Ethics Bowl competition served to highlight the complexity of youth grantmaking itself. "The Ethics Bowl helped me realize that you have to look at everything about a proposal before making a decision," says Mason. Mike Goorhouse of Holland agrees. "My first year on YAC, I judged grants strictly by the rules, with no exceptions." he says. "Now, through the Ethics Bowl, I have learned to consider need, quality, and creativity as well. The Ethics Bowl was a great overall experience where I learned about myself, my grantmaking, and my YAC all while having fun in competition." And competition, as everyone knows, lies at the heart of any good Bowl game.

--Dan Herrick

For more information on youth grantmaking or for guidelines on conducting a youth grantmaker Ethics Bowl, visit our website at www.mcfyp.org.

Resource Links

- Publications

- MCFYP History

- Ethics Bowl

- Video Clips

- Yackety YAC

- Outside resources

Youthgrantmakers.org is a communication of the Michigan Community Foundation Youth Project (MCFYP) of the Council of Michigan Foundations, with funding from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.