Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Most Efficient, Worthwhile Charity?
New submitter yanom writes "I'm thinking about making a holiday donation to a charity, but I'm not sure where to give it. I've looked at organizations such as the Red Cross and Village Reach that promote disaster relief and health in the developing world. I want my money to have the biggest possible impact, so where should I send it?"
Charity Navigator
I just give all my Bing points to whatever charity Microsoft recommends on their Bing points microsoft charity page.
Save the Children works on many worthwhile causes and only has 8% administrative overhead, one of the lowest of any charitable organizations. I trust them.
I've been profoundly disappointed by all charities I gave to or came in contact with professionally.
Give your time to something close to you, not your money.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
How about something close to home, efficiency doesn't always go along with need.
I like The Fruit Tree Planting Foundation. It's good for the environment, it creates pretty parks, and it feeds people. http://www.ftpf.org/
I read recently that the American Red Cross is one of several charities that "carefully walk the line" of being a nonprofit organization, and that 49% of their take goes to "administrative costs". (their "administrative staff" are very well-paid) Can anyone confirm or deny this?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Www.LiteracyBridge.org - effective use of technology to make life better for real people. Worth your time (they're open source) and money.
Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
What I like about the Salvation Army is they operate under the principle that people will always donate and they spend the money as it is donated.
The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared. They take money from big events and hold some of it over for other operations. What bothers me about this is it seems like they don't trust people to donate when something happens.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
I donate to the local Boys and Girls Club directly in my community. They're mission is focused on serving kids in the community that are economically disadvantaged, so I find it to be a very worthy cause. Secondly, when I give directly, I do not incur a processing fee, which would happen if I gave through the United Way.
If you're just wanting to make a difference to someone, and not the tax write-off, find a family struggling to make ends meet and be their holiday benefactor, or give out sack lunches to the homeless, or volunteer at a soup kitchen. No better way to make sure your kindness does the most good than to do it yourself.
I dunno what it is called, but I always hear about them after natural disasters, and I'm pretty sure none of donations go to pay anybody's salaries.
Wikipedia might be a nice option too, the knowledge they provide to everyone free of charge makes it a good charity in my opinion.
Without one, all the starving, deformed, orphaned, homeless, jobless, sick and diseased people are just going to die anyway.
Was Yuri Gagarin one of the Golden Girls?
Unfortunately, a lot of charities have obscenely high administrative overheads, which means much of the money goes to lawyers fees, office rental in high rent districts, gala charity donation parties (granted, they pay for themselves) and other PR work. The Economist had a piece on this a while back. Even some of the UN agencies and a Lady Diana Charity Fund were some of the worse offenders.
Hey, whoever said "Charity begins in the home" was probably right . . . if you give close to home, you'll be able to see for yourself where it is going.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
http://www.childsplaycharity.org/
All donations go to children's hospitals around the world. You can even donate toys instead of money if you don't trust how your donation will be spent.
I did some research into this about a year ago - and decided to go with Plan International.
My criteria:
I give specifically to their water project. I think that while sponsoring a child is significant, I find that I'd rather put my money specifically into infrastructure. Water and Sanitary systems, in my mind, are more important than education within a community - and I figure many others put money into education.
.
100% efficiency. No administrative overhead. Complete certainty that your gift wasn't squandered.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
One of the best places to bring your money to if you want to help people: http://www.kiva.org/.
Microfinance where you can decide yourself which enterpreneur you loan money to. I can heartily recommend it :).
I used to give to the Salvation Army, but I've been avoiding them this year because I'm not sure how much of my money is going to help people vs proselytize to them, in fact I've decided to no longer donate to religious charities. Toys for Tots is my new favorite. Giving a teddy bear to a poor kid may not make the biggest impact in the world, but it's going to make that kid's Christmas a lot better.
How is the parent offtopic? It's about charity and helping them. Their reward site is here and if you don't want to use the reward points yourself, you can give them to charity.
You could try examining potential recipients at Charity Navigator. They evaluate charities based on their operational effectiveness and allow you to compare a potential recipient against others that serve similar needs.
I have used it many times and find it extremely helpful.
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
http://www.shelterboxusa.org/
Basically, after any kind of disaster, natural or otherwise, they deploy a team out with plastic tubs filled with just about anything a family would need to start getting back on their feet like a tent, some basic food and water purification type things, along with some tools to improve what they have available. They are also constantly tweaking the box as better items become available, or in some instances they tailor the contents to where the boxes are being sent.
Decent charity that I found out from a friend. I've started to donate to them yearly now, along with some other charities for more personal reasons.
Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
Give to a local church. Do your research and make sure they are a 100% charity. Then get personally involved to help them spend it well. Your time might be a better donation than the money.
Givewell evaluates charities and they recommend two charities, Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) and Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI). Another good charity is Marie Stopes International, a family planning provider.
Amref simply do things. They both help and train professionals on site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Medical_and_Research_Foundation
It begins at home. My home. Please send money to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay! Eternal happiness is just a dollar away.
rewriting history since 2109
No, give it to ME. I have zero overhead - I can guarantee that 100% of the net you give me will go to the intended recipient.
I even accept chocolate!
Seriously though, if you don't know what to give or where, go ask at:
1. your local police or fire station. They get to see human misery every day, and they know about those "pockets of need" ...
2. your local hospital or clinic. Same thing.
3. your local animal shelter. Pets are people too, and they're going to need a lot of help dealing with the annual post-christmas "pet dump".
4. your local schools. The teachers know that there's always some kid who need a winter coat, warm boots, or something.
5. your local library. It's probably under-funded, and you can make a "donation" by buying old books from them so they can buy new books.
6. your local church, synagogue or temple - even if you're an atheist, these organizations are still good points of contact for the needy
7. your local homeless shelter. Obvious reasons
8. your local media - tv, radio, print
9. your local city counselor, alderman, mayor, or whatever
10. your friends and neighbors.
What all these things have in common is that they're all local, they're all just an email or a phone call or a click away, and that they'll have an immediate impact - within days - and they all benefit your community. Charity begins at home.
I'd also stay clear of the United Way! I discovered that they had no clue as to where my AUTO-DEDUCTION was going! Add that to the their HIGH salaries, and there are two good reasons to go elsewhere!
The United Methodist Committee on Relief does disaster assistance - water, blankets, some meds. They're usually one of the first on the scene. The church donates all the administration, so every dollar you give buys a dollar of relief. Just drop a check off at the closest Methodist Church.
Generosity experiment.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
donorschoose.org - they support educational projects. I like them because you give to a specific project, can chose the type of project,location, etc, and they clearly lay out the need, what will be supplied, and their administrative fees up front. If you want to support education, they would be a good choice.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Try Latter-day Saint Charities http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/ Run completely by volunteers. They're the same people you usually see in yellow t-shirts helping to clean up after natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes but they do a lot more than that. And no, the funds don't go to buy tracts to hand out proselyting. They strictly go to those in need.
Living in the US, I think it's a gross injustice that people in my immediate area don't have enough food to eat. As such, I have decided most of my charity contributions will go to the local community food bank. It's super easy to see how the money is being used (volunteer and meet the people involved, go down and talk to the admins), it improves the lives of people who live near you, and you get a tax deduction.
National and international organizations are nice, especially for medical causes, but for me local food bank seemed best.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
I was centrally involved with relief for the Haiti earthquake and observed the Red Cross and many other such organizations in action. Or rather inaction. Their lack of logistical expertise and disaster planning is shocking.
But one outfit that did seem to have their act together was Doctors without Borders/Medecins sans Frontieres. They just hop on planes and start helping people, no BS. They also seem to have relatively low overhead, which is where the lion's share of every donated dollar goes at most charities. Maybe someone else on /. knows differently, but at least from the outside as a colleague they seemed effective and well deserving of support.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
While I'll confess I have a fondness for "lending" through KIVA (http://www.kiva.org), you may find that your charity dollars go a lot further with local organizations, some of which are struggling. I live in Baltimore and have several favorites: The Ark, a pre-school that provides special services and a comfortable environment for kids living in homeless shelters; House of Ruth, our local women's shelter; Our Daily Bread, a formidable soup kitchen and feeding operation run by the Catholics. I've also found some fascinating new efforts. One that impresses me greatly is providing clean, properly fitted suits, shirts, shoes, socks, and ties to unemployed men, along with a grooming kit. (Jobless women have long had several "career clothing" options.) The donated suits are suitably altered for their recipients just as they would be if purchased at a clothing store. Charities like The Ark and the clothing operation strike me as effective, creative ways to fill community needs. Charities like House of Ruth and Our Daily Bread have support infrastructures in place that ensure they won't be spending inordinate amounts on fundraising or highly paid executives. Keep your eyes and ears open and you will find similar organizations meeting needs in your own area, and you'll be able to find one that fits your interests, religion or philosophy (or not), and pocketbook. You will also see the dollars you give stretched much further.
"Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
I know that God is not popular on Slashdot, but even from a rational humanist perspective these charities are very effective. The administrative costs are usually born by regular tithing so any funds given to the charity can be spent 100% on the core mission of the charity. Especially, in the area of disaster relief, these charities also have strong connections with the local congregations who can quickly put resources to use where it is most needed. This in contrast to groups like the Red Cross usually have to spend time "getting in" to places.
I know there will be some objections voiced that the money will be used to evangelize victims rather then aid them. I cannot speak for other sectors of the religious sphere, but charities associated with Mainline Protestant Christian churches operate in perpetual fear of this accusation and copiously avoid any activity that might be mistaken for proselytizing.
I will end by plugging the charity of my own Episcopal Church: Episcopal Relief and Development.
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
Have you considered Kiva.org? Technically they give the money back but from what I've seen the money goes directly to people who can use it and you can actually track *exactly* who your money is helping.
The work that charities do is all the hard, unglamorous work that needs to get done that isn't being done by anyone else. It is inherently inefficient. This is not even counting the "administrative overhead" worries that people like to complain about.
You want to avoid administration? Give to something local, run by volunteers, that isn't a registered charity and therefore doesn't need to hire a bookkeeper, accountant, and auditor just to manage their books. Don't bother with whether something is "efficient" or not, look at what they do and see if that's something you think needs to get done.
Donating money to a local food bank, for example, is a lot more efficient than giving canned foods purchased at market rates. (and many of those are charitable)
And if you really want to contribute something effective, donate your time and skills. That's far more valuable than a couple hundred dollars once a year, and is often left out of calculations of charities' "efficiency".
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
I give to Charity: Water. They've got a great proposition where 100% of your donations go directly to the field to fund water projects. They're also a tech saavy group of folks and try to prove that by providing GPS signals and photos of the project you funded. Administrative costs are covered separately by a group of benefactors (who understand they are solely paying for administrative costs).
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue ServiceExit the FMS Web site at (800) 829-1040.
I’m sure there is a lot of people in your circle of friends and acquaintances, that you know have a lot of potential but no leverage.
Support them. Because they know you personally, they will want to make it worth it, and not throw it out the window.
If you have enough money: Hire them! But allow them nearly complete freedom. With the only rule being, that they come up with something valuable in any way.
You will be surprised how much people can do in regard to their dreams, if they just have free time and a bit of money.
Best. "Charity". Ever.
http://www.childsplaycharity.org/
The guys from penny arcade set this up, you pick a hopsital and you know thats exactly where you money is going.
I'd advise you and others to contribute all you can to the "Let's Buy Ken a Ferrari" fund.
Rather than wonder where your money went, you'll enjoy the sweet, sweet sound of a V12 will be echoing throughout the concrete canyon as I blast down Main Street. You'll be able to shout "This is my gift to you all!" and feel the admiring glances of those who wish they had contributed as well.
What could possibly do more to help mankind than to share the sounds of a V12 Ferrari?
Place nail here >+
Why not microfinancing, such as http://kiva.org/ ?
Giving your time may make you feel better - but when $10 can feed a family for 4 for a day or two, with soups, breads etc., your time is inherently useless. Go use your time to earn money and then pass it on. Barter was fundamentally inefficient - and hence money came to be. Why go backwards ?
It really depends on your definition of "charity", and your intent - it can be defined as anything that's non-profit and tax deductible, which has a rather large scope.
Lots of things are non-profit and seen as charity donations - art museum and symphony, sports teams (kids soccer and baseball), research towards medicine (aids, MS), EFF and lawyer advocate associations, and so on.
All of these enrich our lives and make the world a better place. Donating directly instead of through a charity organization makes better sense because more of the money goes directly to the organization.
Your local Rotary club, for instance, is manned by locals who donate their time and would better know your community needs.
If your intent is to reduce the suffering of people directly, might I suggest Plan USA.
Plan USA chooses a needy child somewhere in the world and uses your donations to help them grow up. Their administrative overhead is relatively low, and you get periodic feedback showing how your monies are used. They also sponsor village improvements, such as sanitation, clean water, &c.
In addition, your donation is year round instead of just during the holidays. IIRC sponsoring a child is on the order of $325 a year.
If I may suggest an alternative, give micro loans through kiva.org instead. You can just keep recycling the money into new loans as you get paid back. The good gets multiplied many times over and communities get built up.
The Copenhagen Consensus is group of economists that grapple with this question. Where do you allocate money to have the greatest impact on human suffering?
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
Apparently micro-nutrients are dollar for dollar your best bet. At least as of a few years ago.. they had a new meeting in 2011.
DRI's been at the top of the list (compiled by Forbes) 9 out of the last 10 years. They do work in the US and around the world.
You might actually be able to pitch this to the city council as a "city beautification" project. Tell them you are going to drive it through downtown every day and stop for morning coffee at a different shop each day. I used to live in the suburbs and there was a forest green lambo parked out front of our local starbucks 3 days a week, people were always very happy to see it out and about.
moox. for a new generation.
I want to help Hawa Akther Jui, a Bangladeshi woman whose husband disfigured her right hand when she dared to pursue higher education against his wishes. She's determined to continue learning by training her left hand to write, and I admire her persistence. Anyone who wants to join me is more than welcome, details in my linked blog post.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I'm an atheist, but, I'm still a big fan of the Salvation Army. I tend to stuff $20.00 bills in their buckets around the holidays. I know many, many people who have been helped by them in their time of need. And I mean, REAL help! With no strings attached. Things like paying for someone to stay in a motel for a few nights in the middle of winter when they didn't have any place to stay.
Go to your local soup kitchen and ask what they need. Then buy it and give them the goods.
Also don't just do it because it is Christmas. Ask what they need all year around and give food or whatever they need monthly or even on a weekly basis.
Time is also something that they can use. Take time to talk to lonely elderly people. The downside is that you won't get rid of your money and get back more then you give away.
Do not buy yourself a good conscience. Earn it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I take that quote to heart, sure you can donate to a charity that will feed 100 people in the developing world for a week with your donation. Or you can donate to a charity that will use your donation educate 3 or 4 kids in the developing world which will have an impact over those kids entire life and in relation make their community stronger and more likely to feed itself in the future.
Thats the problem with most charities today in my opinion, they only look at the immediate need instead of looking at the best way they can affect that community even if it means 10, 20, even 30 years down the line.
Sadly I've never been in the position to be able to hand out money so can't point you in the right direction but I know they are our there.
The Electronic Frontiers Foundation has always pleased me. It doesn't give the sense of helping the underprivileged, admittedly, but they are working to improve the future for everyone. If we don't pull out of our rapid dive into censorship and authoritarianism, we will significantly hobble future generations from all economic castes.
There's a bit of mental gymnastics there, to be sure, but to me it is valid. JM2C
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Did you ever consider that maybe some people are M$ fans without being shills? I don't necessarily like M$, but I still accept the realistic fact that some people do.
Don't you have any independent seals of quality in the US?
In Europe seals of quality exist, which guarantee that 100% of the donation is transferred to the relief projects. This way you could be sure, that no money is wasted.
Another possibility is to directly donate food or clothes.
It never gets better utilized than local. A local church or community center or health service. Direct to the service you like best, even.
You don't need a middle-man.
Pretty much as efficient as you can get: 100% of the proceeds go to help those in need. The LDS Church doesn't even deduct the cost of administering the donations, so literally *everything* you donate ends up helping the needy.
http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/ldsp/about/
If you donate online, just enter the amount in the "humanitarian services" field - that goes to disaster relief and other efforts. If you call them you can have it applied more specifically. For example there is a program they are doing to supply wheelchairs to those in need, to help dig water wells to villages in Africa, etc. and you can ask that your money go specifically to one of those programs if you want.
I see a lot of comments bashing the overhead costs of different charity organisations. Granted, some of it might be unnecessary, but not all of it. The logistics needed for a relief operation in a catastrophe site is a huge and difficult challenge, and only a sufficiently large and professional organisation can handle it. You need materials, food, shelter, trucks, people with different skill sets, lawyers and diplomats to ensure the cooperation of the local government, and so on. It can be quite chaotic, and of course it's going to be inefficient form time to time - but it helps. Without the people who are handling the economics and the logistics, there would be no food or shelter for the workers in the field to hand out.
If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc.
So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile. If it was me I'd give to groups that did things I knew about even if they weren't the most worthy groups in the world, which would include geeky groups like the EFF, or maybe local organizations.
I also agree with others that volunteering your time is a bad idea. Use your time to earn money and donate the money. We have division of labor for a reason. People like volunteering because it's more personal, but "more personal" and "helps people more" aren't necessarily the same thing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - You are a stupid fucking idiot and a Microsoft shill. I'm surprised you still have enough karma in your sockpuppet accounts to upmod your comments.
What would that even have to do with the issue at hand? I was just purely stating facts - when you search on Bing you get rewards which you can then use for charity. Fanboyism needs an opinion, that is just an easily verifiable fact.
...you may want to rethink your motives. There are opportunities to help people all around you. Giving money is good when given wisely, but it's not the only way to help people. How about getting connected with your community and getting an idea of who can't afford a Christmas dinner and making it happen? Or grab a few friends and repair a widow's broken down home? If you want to do good in a way that's meaningful, it's more than just writing a check and sending it to some anonymous charity. Find a need and fill it.
The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. I would donate to them. Or wikipedia. Change the world, don't just react to it.
Charity Watch (aka American Institute of Philanthropy) has been doing this for years and does a damn good job of it. You can subscribe to their ratings guide and always have it on hand if you're interested.
---Alex
There are plenty of very well respected and efficient charities that do amazing work across the globe. I donate to Oxfam, but choosing your charity is an important part of the process. If you believe that giving food contributes to long term economic problems, find a charity that helps communities start local businesses, or start farms, or dig wells.
For the most part, finding local volunteers is not a problem in the United States. We have plenty of leisure time, and many Americans spend it helping others. What people across the world need is a buffer to protect themselves against natural disasters, because they have been living on the edge of subsistence for a long time.
An hour of your pay can go a long way in the hands of an established charity. If you have limited time to donate, there's no way you can outperform a trained volunteer.
Child's Play seems to be a good one, they help kids with severe problems suffer less and recover faster.
Twinstiq, game news
I'm thinking about making a holiday donation to a charity, but I'm not sure where to give it. I've looked at organizations such as the Red Cross and Village Reach that promote disaster relief and health in the developing world. I want my money to have the biggest possible impact, so where should I send it?
Without knowing what, to you, qualifies something as a "big impact", or differentiates the magnitude of "big impact A" from that of "big impact B", you are going to get nothing but people pimping their favorite charity, or other people denigrating particular charites, as responses to your question.
For all we know, what you are actually asking for is which one will allow you to deduct it from your taxes with the lowest taxable administrative hold-out, giving you the biggest impact on your tax deduction.
-- Terry
Time is better, but money is important too.
Courtney's House is good--small local shelter in DC for trafficking victims. Or Talk to Polaris Project, either to donate to them or to ask where the closest place to you is that offers safe shelter for trafficking victims--there aren't many in the country, compared with tens of thousands of victims.
In the alternative, look for someplace that is underfunded and does good work. Unpopular but important causes, for example--legal aid, or someplace that does legal or psych aid for criminal defendants. Or find an agency that does legal aid for asylum seekers--unpopular, but incredibly important, because when it's wrongly denied, we're sending someone home to a country where they're at high risk for political persecution.
Do not give to the red cross. They have lots of money and I have heard that their fundraising practices are unethical. I've heard this from people who have worked there and from others--that they basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing. This is hearsay, but I have heard it from more than one individual, and there are so many good and less well-known charities that need support that it makes no sense to give to them.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Give work to someone who needs it. It's probably the most efficient use of your money that I can think of.
Mind the frickin' laser...
GiveWell.org
No yesterday, no tomorrow, and no today.
I've come to the conclusion that the best long term charity is Amnesty International. Sure, feeding the hungry saves more people in the short run, but I believe that democracy and freedom of speech is the only way to stop hunger and famine to return to the same areas again and again.
If you want your money to go really, really far, I have to recommend the videogame museum we started here in downtown Oakland. We raised $20,000 on Kickstarter and 100% of that money has gone to rent, Internet, and insurance. We've not spent a dime on anything except those expenses. Everything else in the museum is donated, save for the meager tables and shelves we have, which we purchased via funds donated by people visiting the museum (About $400).
Any funds donated to the MADE will be used to continue to keep the doors open. Why is that important? Because we are offering free programming classes for local inner city kids. We currently only have 2 teachers, but we're looking for more. Those teachers spend 1 hour teaching the kids MIT Scratch, then a second hour teaching Python.
Of course, we also have exhibits, events, talks, and adult classes, but all of those are just icing on the cake for our "everything playable" videogame museum. The real change the world part of our organization are our classes. We've only been open since November, but with some more monetary donations and volunteers, we'll be able to expand our classes in 2012, and maybe even offer after school programs instead of just weekend classes.
Oh, and we're 100% volunteer run.
http://www.themade.org/
Don't Crease the Weasel!
The LDS Church has a very active worldwide charity organization that has provided over $1 billion in humanitarian aid (cash, goods, services) in the past 25 years. The LDS Church itself covers all administrative costs, so 100% of any donation goes to actual use. Here are some of the projects currently being funded. ..bruce..
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
Trouble with this is if a charity replaces outside contractors with volunteers, their overheads go up. Volunteers aren't totally free. Likewise, if you hire a negotiator to drive costs down, overheads go up even though the negotiator may well more than pay for themselves.
We need to find a metric to measure the success of a charity.
There is no compelling proof that any charity giving to people in the developing world did anything really worthwhile.
In most case it is very similar to the 19th century "charities" where bored rich wife of industrialist would give money to "deserving" people that where robbed of the just reward of their work by the donor's husband.
In most cases these charities are "photo op" opportunities for people who need some positive press, and help make sure that the problems that generated the need for the charity are not solved ever.
Now there are some project that are helping people survive "right now" while hopefully something is done for the underling problem, but the only ones I know would not take money from somebody they do not know.
So if you want to donate, first donate enough time to make sure the people running the show are actually doing something useful (the issue is not so much the ration admin cost/vs project cost, but will it really work, for example one project I'm familiar with help poor people to go to school, "hooray", but since it does not help the schools to get more teachers, the result is that less people graduate.... oups...(but the photoops are cute, and it soo help to push "policies",like the ones that helped boost the teenage pregnancies in the US...)
If you do not have the time, give to the local homeless person, s/he will help the booze industry and be happyier (for a short time, but that's better than being sad this time...)
Just think that with a 100$ "donnation" you can give 5$ to two homeless people about once a month, and just the fact that somebody seems to care enough to do this severall time, is probably worth a lot of "karma points" !
http://www.sos-childrensvillages.org/
Instead of charity, ever think of micro loans for people in third world countries.
http://www.kiva.org/
I have sponsored a child through http://www.mayanfamilies.org/ for several years. They are a tiny organization of just a few people, making a real difference. See their reviews at http://greatnonprofits.org/reviews/profile2/mayan-families
I've worked as a "professional volunteer" for the past ten years with several of the big, international NGOs.
"Administrative cost" in percentages is a terrible measure and organizations with high admin costs are just the ones that haven't been around long enough to set their accounting to move as much as possible into their field project budgets.
Even for extremely well set-up organizations with good, well meaning people, maximizing administrative efficiency isn't necessarily the thing that the person who donated money to you would have wanted you to do if he or she were standing there. Responding to humanitarian emergencies, such as natural disasters, outbreaks or conflicts is an enormously expensive task. If you donated money to my organization and I failed by not being quick enough, then you'd be pretty upset. You and other like minded people are donating a little bit each to put me in a position where I can be effective. Sometimes, efficiency is the trade-off.
Find a cause you like with what you believe to be trustworthy people, then donate.
http://opensourceecology.org/
They are working on an open source set of machines to bootstrap modern civilization for anyone who wants it. The founder lives in a cordwood hut, so I don't think there is much in the way of overhead. I've contributed to the wiki, and am starting a local Do-it-yourself association/hackerspace ( http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Community_DIY_Gadsden ) to bootstrap the tool set in my area (between Atlanta & Birmingham). I like that people can participate, not just write a check and forget about it till next year, and empowering post-scarcity economics in the physical world is a worthy goal.
Efficiency is generally measured by administrative costs vs program costs, and can be found on Charity Navigator. But I would say pick a cause that really matters to you, then take the time to do your research into what the best solutions are out there, and then pick the charity that focuses on those solutions.
For me, I am passionate about poverty relief. Specifically, clean water and feeding starving human beings. I like Thirst Relief International for clean water. And for feeding starving people, I did some research and found one of the biggest problems was that for many years programs used a dry-milk based food that required mixing with water, which going back to the need for clean water, is hard to come by in these parts of the world.
Turns out there was a breakthrough in France, that eliminated the need for this. The new treatment called Plumpy Nut, is a peanut butter based RUTF (Ready to Use Therapeutic Food) for children who are suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition, that literally saves kids who are on the brink of death. There is a powerful video that rocked my world reported by Anderson Cooper for 60 minutes.
Story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml
Video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4201082n
In addition to other poverty relief charities like Feeding America, my local food bank, and Heifer International, I give now to charities that specifically distribute peanut-butter based RUTFs. These include:
UNICEF (Niger)
You can buy the PB RUTFs specifically:
https://secure.unicefusa.org/site/Ecommerce/1369610601?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=2320&store_id=4221
Project Peanut Butter (Malawi, Sierra Leone)
http://www.projectpeanutbutter.org/
Meds and Food for Kids (Haiti)
http://www.mfkhaiti.org/
Where I live these are the people who stand on street corners or in front of stores (the ones that will let them) doing nothing but standing there with a donation pot - no hassles, no pressure, just there if you feel like giving.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
I can't believe no one has mentioned Doctors Without Borders (MSF)!
They do incredible work and consistently have one of the lowest administrative costs out of major charities, are secular and are not politically aligned.
This does not exactly answer the question, but I just wanted to remind about Folding@home as another way of helping humanity if you don't want to directly donate money.
Several of my colleagues work/have worked for Doctors without Borders and through them I have met some of their non-medical personnel as well (esp. the logisticians). They strike me as one of the most deserving charities who provide relief without agenda (they are secular). I occasionally donate to other charities as well, but MSF are my No. 1 and I admire their work.
It's fascinating what autocorrect can come up with. An employee of THE PARENT COMPANY. Sheesh.
Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
Open Door Mission in Rochester, NY.
Salvation Army
and yes, I had to look up the ASCII code for the cents symbol, but it does not display.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Go down to your local food kitchen and donate time. Give the money to local programs that help abused women. A lot of newspapers run articles this time of year about local programs that help needy people. You can often ask that your money go to particular people in the articles. Organizations like the Masons and Order of the Eastern Star often have programs where they donate money to local groups in terms of scholarships, the aforementioned food kitchens and first responders, etc.
The point is, think globally, act locally. Plus if you're worried about how much of the charity is going to the cause, it's much easier to follow-up on locally created charities to see if the money is being used properly.
(If you do want to do something at a more national level, there's Toys for Tots. Also, a lot of local police stations have similar programs for local needy kids).
Bark less. Wag more.
[The Red Cross] basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing.
You're right, because when a disaster strikes, the Red Cross is there from day one (or often even before day one, if it's predictable), and so those assets were funded *months* or even *years* in advance. Otherwise it would take six months to get the aid there, and everyone would already be dead.
When you see a disaster on TV and make a donation, that actually ends up paying for the *next* disaster. That's not a bad thing. Especially since the next disaster might be where you are.
The Red Cross saves lives every damn day. Not just the big disasters that make the news, but when someone's house burns down, or needs blood for a live-saving operation (Red Cross runs a lot of blood drives), or any number of other things.
Sorry if this doesn't fit with your world view, but disaster relief isn't like buying books on Amazon. It's a wee bit more complicated.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
While it's human nature to try to optimize an outcome (doubly true for the Slashdot crowd) charitable giving isn't something that can be effectively optimized due to its intangible nature. One cannot prove that feeding the homeless is any more noble than rescuing abused animals or supporting artists to improve the local culture. They are all incomparable and they are all noble (YMMV depending on your values.) Numerical comparisons are problematic as well. One could isolate only those charities with low overhead (and thereby maximizing the impact of the donation), but there are many noble charities that may not have the most efficient operations (either they lack skilled management, or the nature of their operations are simply costly.) To solve the problem of optimizing your giving, I propose this: - Assume that all charities are incomparable and thus, more or less equal (unless, of course, they are scam charities. Try to weed those out.) - Give more to fewer. By reducing the number of recipients for your donations your increased amount is probably more meaningful for each receipent. Also, you'll have less paperwork for doing your tax deductions (not to mention that small donations (usually those $50) get you no tax receipts.) - Choose charities that are meaningful to you. Whichever ones you choose will be the right ones. - Don't fret about the ones that weren't chosen.
One more for Doctors without Borders / MSF. I ditched ARC in favor of Doctors without Borders about a decade ago after one of the many publicized cases of mismanagement at the ARC. Hey, try this: I just googled '"american red cross" mismanagement' and '"doctors without borders" mismanagement". The results for the ARC are about problems at the ARC. The results for MSF are how their services are needed due to others' mismanagement. If you like the kind of work that Doctors without Borders does, then they are deserving of your support.
The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared.
And this is bad why?
Disaster relief is complicated, and thus expensive. You need supplies, equipment, and people with training. Between getting people to donate, getting funds to where they need to be, getting goods procured, getting people trained, and then moving it all to where it needs to be, the lead time is non-trivial. This isn't a hard drive; you can't just order it from NewEgg and have it there next day.
I don't get this objection to disaster relief organizations being prepared for disasters.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
If you are interested in something a little bit different from "the usual," I would have a look at the International diaspora Engagement Alliance. It is an interesting project, with the potential to have real economic impact in developing nations. There are multiple ways to be involved. Philanthropy is only one of them.
I like to fund medical research, most frequently cancer. I do so for two reasons. First, I like to think that I'm making things better forever. Research doesn't get used up, so whatever I donate we're now that farther ahead in science than we would be otherwise. Second, selfishly, I think someday I just might need to benefit directly from what that research produces.
There is frequently a lot of hue and cry here about the evil drug companies overcharging for medicines they have patents on. Don't want them to have those patents? Fund medical research yourself with a charity who puts the results into the public domain. I know it's not perfect since someone is free to use those results commercially as well, but it's an improvement.
Seconded.
The National Orphan Foundation (www.orphan.org) has a named scholarship program. If you donate to the program, 100% of your donation goes directly to the students. You can dictate the requirements for the recipients of the scholarship (four year school, public/private school, major, religion, whatever). Every student in the program aged out of the foster system, meaning that they did not have a family at the time of their eighteenth birthday and therefore don't have a support network.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I've spent the better part of my career as a nonprofit tech warrior, from serving in the Peace Corps to a variety of domestic and internationally focused NGOs and non-profits, small and large, contract, full-time and pro-bono.
I hate the constant drive that non-profits feel towards minimizing anything that could be counted as "overhead." It's misleading, and eventually kills efficiency. Not having someone to answer phones, not having a budget to roll out a website, penny-pinching on every single thing that's not directly program-related does a variety of things. It burns staff out at an alarming rate, as they spend their often-unreported and uncompensated overtime to balance the lack of budget to hire additional staff or contractors. Second, it causes cost-cutting in ways that often lead to waste or additional in the long run. It suppresses wages and pushes good staff out of the sector entirely. Finally, it causes a donor-driven view of accounting, where every dollar must be accountable to some chunk of some program, instead of being broadly useful to the health of the organization and its mission.
This hurts the organizations, obviously - but as a donor, that's less important - you (like those working at the organization) care about the cause. And year-end campaigns are a huge benefit to organizations - providing them with unrestricted funds that they can use for the health of the organization, instead of funds driven by grant projects.
So give - as others have noted, find a local cause you're familiar with. Use CharityNavigator to weed out suspicious/dubious causes, but please - do not be turned off by high overheads. They're healthy. They mean the organization has a longer-term view on its role in making change.
Even better - find a social enterprise - an organization that has a double or triple bottom line, creating a profit or self-sustaining funding situation by selling products or services which also help them lift up a community through employment, skills training, and so on.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Rational responders
If you don't like ignorance and/or hypocrisy.
no, I don't have a sig
If you even remotely support LGBT rights, please don't donate to these people.
Yes, they actively campaign against gay marriage. Are you saying that negates the worthiness of their charity work? Do you think they spit on gay disaster victims instead of giving them food, or what?
Grow up, and realize that not all worthwhile organizations and benevolent acts must be 100% in line with your beliefs to be worthwhile or benevolent.
If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc. So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile.
Actually, I think it would be great to massively over-fund the best organizations, and then move on down the line of 'worthiness'.
When I've read about charities it's striking that more than half of charitable organizations never cross $10,000 in donations and/or never get enough money to truly achieve any of their aims. Even successful charities spend so much time stressing out about money; begging for donations, underfunding their projects, struggling to keep their recipients from getting worse as opposed to making their lives entirely better.
I'd love to see the best charities funded straight into full operating endowments, even at the cost of eliminating several other charities for each one that becomes fully funded. We'd get a lot more work done in the long run, with the best doing far more work in a more effective way, and weak or ineffecient charities dying off entirely (and thus ceasing to draw donations away from the best viable charities).
Some others to consider - http://www.convoyofhope.org/ uses its donations to help feed children and help in disasters. Their website reports administration expenses of 5% and fund raising expenses of 6% of donations in 2010. 89% of donations go toward food, with corporate food donations matching at a 7 to 1 ratio at last report. Every dollar donated provides seven dollars of food.
If you want something more personal, http://www.missionofmercy.org/ provides sponsorship of individual children around the world. This organization has a Christian focus, but also provides education, nutrition and health monitoring services for sponsored kids (40,000 kids in 16 countries). Their goal is an 80% donation rate - last stats were 84%.
Support your local shelters for abused children or spouses.
Donate through local churches. For most main-line denominational churches, the local staff salary is supported by the local members and attendees. Any money that comes in that is ear-marked for a particular purpose that the church supports will go 100% to that purpose. Just call to see what is available as an avenue through each church.
Our local church provides a food bank, for example, and provides toys, school supplies, and other gifts for local school children or families that are in need. If you don't know of anyone yourself who is in need, you can be sure that local churches have been contacted routinely by those who need help. Some churches in town collect items and take them directly to elementary schools for the office to distribute to kids that don't have winter coats, shoes, or the like. Your donations to the church for local relief programs can make a direct difference in your community with virtually no overhead at any good sized church. Most also have guest speakers over the course of the year who are active in doing relief work as missionaries. They are spreading the gospel, but many are also helping to provide clean water by digging wells and providing pumps, helping with medical training, and many other things while doing their first calling.
In addition, all major denominations have relief and outreach organizations associated with them. You can send earmarked money directly to these organizations and know that a high percentage of the donation - 100% in some cases - will be used to reach those in need, whether in the United States or around the world. http://ag.org/ - Assemblies of God - for example lists Center for the Blind, Compassion Link, Convoy of Hope, Global HIV/AIDS, and Healthcare ministries. Regardless of your opinions on mixing religion and relief, if you aren't willing to do any relief yourself, you should consider donating to those who are at least trying to make a difference, even if not in the way you would do it, if you ever did.
.. you might consider Northwest Harvest. Not a lot of strings attached, but good at getting food to folks who really need it.
Check your premises.
Start a campaign here: www.mycharitywater.org Or just make a flat donation: www.charitywater.org 100% of the money you donate goes to the field. They get their operations money from other sources. Lack of potable water is probably the most significant problem humanity faces. Solving this issue could bring millions of people out of poverty.
Doctors without borders does a lot of work all over the world to deliver medicines and necessities to people in need. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
http://www.wfp.org/ - WFP is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger. WFP is funded entirely through voluntary donations.
Try this suggestion: Why not invest a bit of your time along with some of your money?
In every city in the western world, there's homeless people. Go find one. But don't just give him (or her) money.
Start talking to him. Tell him you want to take him out for a meal, you'll pay. Find out more about his story, where he's from, and how he ended up on the street.
I'm not saying become friends with the guy, but by merely investing a small amount of time, you'll get some insight as to what some of these people on the street really do face, you'll come away from it with a better sense of fulfilment knowing that your money has been spent well, with a greater understanding and increased concern for an issue like this that is right on our doorstep, and a realization that homeless people are really not that much different from you and I.
Just a thought.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), an organization known for both efficiency and heroism. They provide medical care where it is badly needed, including war zones.
Surprise, surprise, but one of the world's fastest growing "cults" provides a lay-ministry and completely transparent (as far as tax laws) organization that spends 100% of donations on charitable process. I suppose you could claim that someone is making money somewhere, but the IRS can't find anyone making money off donations ... so I doubt it is happening. The IRS ... you know, the guys who took down Al Capone. Now that's an impressive credential.
If you even remotely support LGBT rights, please don't donate to these people.
Yes, they actively campaign against gay marriage. Are you saying that negates the worthiness of their charity work? Do you think they spit on gay disaster victims instead of giving them food, or what? Grow up, and realize that not all worthwhile organizations and benevolent acts must be 100% in line with your beliefs to be worthwhile or benevolent.
... what if I'm anti-gay marriage and accept help from an LGBT charity? Does that mean the LGBT charity isn't doing their job?
Engineers without borders might be interesting:
http://www.ewb-usa.org/
I like the fact that they have established a way of dealing with their charity faliures , which makes them a respectable charity in my book. ... And adds some credibility to the profession of engineering, imho.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It would make a vet's day to be able to point some money towards some school/clinic/micro-loan/etc. helping locals somewhere really ugly. A colonel returning from Haiti turned our whole parish on to an orphanage/school there, where money could be sent directly to the director. Be aware that money does not work the same way in these kids of places. My sister has been a nurse in the D.R.Congo for 40 years, and things are absurdly expensive relative to income, mail and luggage are pilfered, and aid disbursement is complicated by 3rd world economics. I had to build her crazy spreadsheets simply for cash flow dealing with multiple agency disbursement requirements, high inflation, multiple-currencies with dynamic exchange rates, etc. I tell donors to send her friends/coworkers money, then they buy supplies here, and smuggle them in when they visit/return. I don't know what their overhead is, but Médecins Sans Frontières gets it DONE.
Walk into your nearest church (or school or whatnot). Ask if there is a struggling family. Whip out your checkbook (assuming you have one - I think I still do but the last check I wrote was months ago but I digress) and tell them you want to pay for the kids of that family to get medical or dental visits.
That is impact.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I've come to the conclusion that the best long term charity is Amnesty International. Sure, feeding the hungry saves more people in the short run, but I believe that democracy and freedom of speech is the only way to stop hunger and famine to return to the same areas again and again.
No way. http://asiancorrespondent.com/49045/amnesty-international-and-the-us1-37million-pay-off/
I can't let this question go by without talking about the social enterprise I've founded called Worldreader (www.worldreader.org.) We use e-readers to get local and international books to children in Africa. What we find-- and we measure this obsessively-- is that the kids read far more (I've met girls who have 90 books in a year!) and better (as measured by standardized tests vs. control schools) as a result. In a way, it's not surprising: what I learned as an Amazon guy is that when you make things easier and less expensive, people do more of it. See also: cell phones in the developing world.
As for the efficiency question, I can only say that we're super-focused on keeping costs low, but maybe not in the way you think. We get donations from everyone from international publishers (Random House, Penguin, etc.), hardware partners (mEdge donates the cases that protect the e-readers), software partners (Dropbox gives us free licenses), and even local African publishers who let us use their books for nearly no cost. Heck, the hotel where we stay in Accra, Ghana, even gives us lots of nights for free. But at the same time, I do pay many of our employees a salary-- after all, this is their full-time job, and they've got to make money somehow. I volunteer all of my time, but not everyone is in a position to do so. And beyond that, we take trips (flying coach!) to countries like Ghana and Kenya to train the teachers, work with the students, and generally make sure things are going well. Are these costs worth it? You bet: there're the only way we can have the impact we have.
Speaking of impact, if you have 90 seconds and think reading is important, take a look at some of the kids in our program in Africa as they talk about what they're getting out of reading, and how they want to become a doctor or soccer player as a result: http://youtu.be/uhAuD65WYnk (We have lots more video at youtube.com/worldreaders if you enjoy seeing kids and teachers reading and improving their lives.) Or visit Worldreader.org to find out more.
OK, I know this is an ad, but that's part of what running a social enterprise means: believing in your cause enough to tell other about it... and doing it in a way that doesn't cost money! Thanks, Slashdot!
Try to stay local. In my area the Catholic Church is about the best at feeding the homeless and similar acts of charity. Ask a couple of homeless people in your area where they get the most help and support that charity. If you have more time than money then doctor visit rides for those in need is a great way to help people.
I like to give to the WBAT Kids Campaign
http://www.wbal.com/kids/
100% of your donation goes directly to needy kids in one form or another. The radio station assumed all of the administrative costs.
Can't get any better than that!
This Charity's effort impact is beyond huge.
I recommend Asha for Education: http://www.ashanet.org/ They have 0% overhead on donations (overhead comes from volunteer donations). This means that you know your donations will not be going to pay some administrator's salary. They directly support schools and other education projects in India. I think education is the best way to make a lasting change. "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime"
Apparently it's all the rage to go into K-Mart and pay off someone's layaway. (See multiple news stories.)
It sounds like the layaway department people are willing to find you someone who meets your profile.
Toys for young children and an account that is behind on payments is reportedly a popular profile.
The trick is apparently to pay it down so only a little is left due - if you pay it off, someone has to take the stuff.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Surprised no one mentioned heifer You can buy an animal for a family, or help buy an animal, so they can sell what it makes for self-sufficiency. Ie you can buy some poor family a chicken, and they are taught how to take care of the animal so they can sell it's eggs. Buy a cow and sell it's milk, etc. www.heifer.org
If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.
The thing is, donating does help the victims. It just isn't as simple as going into Wal-Mart and buying a Band-Aid. If people didn't donate during the X-1 disaster, then there would be no resources for X. If people don't donate during the X disaster, there will be no resources for X+1. The Red Cross responds to disasters around the clock -- it's a continuous, non-stop, all-the-time operation. You can't just earmark funds for *one* thing, and trying to do so makes no sense -- by the time the money gets there, it will be too late.
It appears some people just can't wrap their heads around this fact. It's the Tragedy of the Commons, all over again.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
These guys are extremely efficient. They came to a town near me when I was in medical school, and believe me, they make a huge difference on a tiny budget. http://www.ramusa.org/
I suggest reading this book before making any donations:
The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity (Michael Maren)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684828006/ref=oh_o00_s01_i00_details
From the amazon review: "Before you mail another check to Save the Children or join the Peace Corps, read this book. Michael Maren shows that the international aid industry is a big business more concerned with winning its next big government contract than helping needy people."
Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment â" Buddha
So you are suggesting to donate to Anonymous?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I suggest you fund a noble project to crowd fund. This way you can also monitor what is happening with your money. And if you really invest in something you might even have a small influence of where this project is heading. Companies are often way more transparent then charity is.
Personally I put some money in the www.wakawakalight.com project, which is designing cheap solar powered lights for the third world. You can either buy equity at www.symbid.com or donate at www.kickstarter.com
If this is all you can come up with against such a huge organization I think my money is very well spent.
People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/
People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/
Yes, Amnesty is clearly ignoring everything that goes on in Thailand: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/thailand
And yes, that was sarcasm.
23 November 2011, 27 September 2011, 31 July 2011, 17 February 2011 - my gawd they're being a proper pain in the backside over there aren't they? (Yes, sarcasm)
My bank account. Really. I can give you the IBAN number in a private message.
By investing in something (that's not a fraud) you're doing charity aswell. Nothing has increased our living standards as much as increase in productivity that only investment in better production can bring. Basic Adam Smith. Maybe investing in developing countries is marginally more "charitable". Basic charity, while it can provide temporary relief with high marginal benefit, usually does not have this effect (externalities are not simple but ahem).
Another thing you can do is just not use the money, which will increase the purchasing power of other people equally. There was an article on slate about this.
Investing or saving works, probably much better than charity, but of course it isn't as high social status as charity and you won't get the warm feeling of helping someone. But if you want to go with charity, give money the recipients weren't expecting (advice I got from one economist). Helping the poorest of the poor might be better than helping the poorest of Western country. Helping children and people who are in bad position of no fault of their own is probably better too. But other commenters have better opinions on different charities so I'll leave it at that.
"I want my money to have the biggest possible impact" On what? What do you value? Your decision on what organization to support should be based on your own values. Others can offer ideas, but in the end only you can make the decision that is "right" for you.
My christmas donation goes to the Salvation Army.
1. Their staff are pretty dedicated, working for small salaries, hence low overhead.
2. They take care of a real need.
3. It's local.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
If you are in an area that has a volunteer rescue squad or fire department, I recommend them for your donations. I've been affiliated with one for 25 years, and our overhead is almost non-existent. We have no paid employees, we contract out bookkeeping/tax/auditing work, and do everything else ourselves. I estimate that 98% of our income gets spent on equipment, supplies, utilities, and other direct operating expenses. And as far as I can tell, the other organizations around here are just as lean.
Try Modest Needs (http://www.modestneeds.org/). They provide small, one-time grants to keep individuals and families from sliding from self-sufficiency into homelessness. Applications are carefully vetted, and donors get to decide what applications they fund. Typical grants are for medical needs, basic transportation, catching up on house payments, or the like. The administrative staff and overhead is very small.
There are a couple like this that I've heard of. Their commitment is to get as much traction as possible out of every dollar by minimizing administrative costs, etc. This one claims upward of 96% going to feed the hungry around the world: http://www.foodforthepoor.org/
That's not the same as a diet that consists ONLY of rice, milk, canola oil, and the occasional carrot. NO other veggies. No fish or other meat. (And the carrot was only added after I pointed out that there were serious vitamin A problems).
So, want to try again? Because Japan doesn't cut it.
I don't believe the OP meant his "eat rice" comment to be as superlative as you're making it out to be. By "Eat a carrot", I read that as "supplement with veggies" rather than "eat an occasional carrot". Regardless of what the intention was, it doesn't change the fact that the Japanese diet is an affordable diet -- by what claim do you believe they don't meet the yardstick? Mostly rice with veggies and a smattering of fish (when you can afford it) is a perfectly healthy diet. It may not be the healthiest diet, but it's certainly leagues better than mac-n-cheese and fast food, for pretty close to the same cost. Hell, if you factor in all the healthcare bills you'd be saving for not having obesity issues, I'd say it's far cheaper in the long run.
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. And yes, if you read the comments, they meant it literally. No veggies whatsoever, until I pointed out the vitamin A problem - then it's "oh 100 grams of carrots once in a while". And no meat. Fresh produce is expensive in the winter months, and this whole thing is about poor people having to make hard choices, not about how long someone can live on a subsistence diet before they end up in the emergency ward.
Also, there are plenty of obese people in Asia - what do you think sumo wrestlers eat - people?
My point, as always, has been that poor people have to make hard choices, and that eating a proper balanced diet becomes "optional" when they're looking at a "food, rent, utilities, meds, warm clothing - pick 2". For anyone to say "so let them eat a diet of rice, milk, and canola oil - it has everything they need and it's cheaper" misses the point. It is not healthy. Read where I asked "where's the veggies? Where's the fish or poultry?" See the response - the poster claims none of that is needed, with the exception of the occasional carrot.
Ridiculous? Extremely.
Thanks, I was a bit surprised that anyone else read this subthread. I think Barbara's rather, well, narrow perspective on how a discussion should be conducted made us lose sight of the big picture, and you lead us back to it. We seem to agree that there is no economic reason for people to have unhealthy diets, contrary to Barbara's original claims.
And yes, my intention was to supplement the diet with some cheap veggies to close any micronutrient gaps. But it was also the case that I got a bit caught up in the idea of how to construct a minimal healthy diet as a sort of linear programming problem. I did the math and now I know the idea holds water.
Read where I asked "where's the veggies? Where's the fish or poultry?" See the response - the poster claims none of that is needed, with the exception of the occasional carrot.
Now you lie, blatantly. I answered "sure, buy some carrots as well". I didn't say that nothing else is needed. The diet was intended as a base that would need little extra to close micro-nutrient gaps. I've told you so repeatedly, but you refuse to listen.
My point, as always, has been that poor people have to make hard choices, and that eating a proper balanced diet becomes "optional" when they're looking at a "food, rent, utilities, meds, warm clothing - pick 2".
They obviously pick food as one of two, since else they'd die. Now if they pick M&C and french fries, as you suggested, instead of a rice based diet with some additions, then they don't do that for economic reasons. Why, then? One issue is how our evolutionary history set us up with regard to preferences of sweet and fat foods. Another issue is culture.
Liar.
So childish. We both know I'm right, and that's good enough for me. I won't do a back-and-forth of "you lie, no you".
You still haven't shown a single reference to prove it. As they say, [citation needed]. I provided a bunch, you provided ... hand-waving. So, you continue to lie. What is it to me? Nothing. Just a way to fill in some time while I wait for my coffee.
I guess I was a bit too polite and subtle when I pointed out your references were irrelevant. My bad.
Like the saying goes - don't go away mad - just go away. Or not - I don't care. I'll just throw the truth back in your lying face every once in a while when I need a break.
It's a bit funny/sad to see how violently you react when exposed as a liar. And even sadder to see you talk about MY pride. You should see yourself.
My pride is intact - after all, I'm not the one who foolishly claimed that people only needed to eat rice, milk, and canola oil - no veggies, no meat, nothing else.
That really proved my point. I hope your dysfunctionality doesn't show very often IRL.
And your attempts to try to make it about me, instead of about how you have NO proof to your claims, and have continually tried to avoid providing any, kind of proves my point. You're STILL a liar.
Again, you prove my point. Do you know how many times you have said I lie or called me liar? I counted to 17, but I probably missed some. You should seek help, both for you obsessive behaviour and for your sadistic streak (not that I hurt much, but anyway). And you should read up on nutrition.
But keep it up - you just look stupider with every post you make.
You have stereotypically repeated your misrepresentation of my stance more than a dozen times. With your other post, you're up to at least 22 claims of me being a "liar" in total, and you're adding up to a (not so) respectable number of variations on "stupid" too. I'm beginning to feel bad, actually. Whether your disorder is obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, borderline or something else I can't say, but nothing good can come from me agitating it. I'm out of here.
You said as much before, and kept on posting (without providing proper citations to reputable organizations, unlike the links I provided to government standards and the World Health Organization) ... you lied then too.