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'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/
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.
Confirm. My uncle retired from the ARC with a *very* good pension. I'd never give a dime to ARC.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
More like 3.9%.
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.
Wikipedia might be a nice option too, the knowledge they provide to everyone free of charge makes it a good charity in my opinion.
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 :).
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...
Excuse me, but what does one person retiring with "a very good pension" say about how high the administrative costs are vs program costs? Charity Navigator says ARC has a 3.9% administrative cost. The parent post claims 49% administrative cost (which is insanely high). If you believe Charity Navigator, he's only off by an order of magnitude.
AccountKiller
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!
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.
+4 insightful?
It must be the Christmas eggnog.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
*shakes head sadly*
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.
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
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.
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 ?
A quote from the comments section on Charity Navigator:
I have worked for the ARC for over 11 years now as both a volunteer and a paid staff member. The organization is very top heavy with mostly overpaid executives at the National Headquarters in Washington DC. Generally the volunteers and staff "in the field" are the ones who go to great lengths to serve clients. Many positions in the field have been eliminated in recent years as the executives in the "ivory tower" protect their own salaries and positions. Our Service Members and their families are now served mostly by call centers empoyees who are inexperienced instead of caring employees working alongside our military throughout the world.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
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 $325 a year.
If I may suggest an alternative, give micro loans through kiva.org instead. You can just keep recycling the money into new loans as you get paid back. The good gets multiplied many times over and communities get built up.
DRI's been at the top of the list (compiled by Forbes) 9 out of the last 10 years. They do work in the US and around the world.
I want to help Hawa Akther Jui, a Bangladeshi woman whose husband disfigured her right hand when she dared to pursue higher education against his wishes. She's determined to continue learning by training her left hand to write, and I admire her persistence. Anyone who wants to join me is more than welcome, details in my linked blog post.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Go to your local soup kitchen and ask what they need. Then buy it and give them the goods.
Also don't just do it because it is Christmas. Ask what they need all year around and give food or whatever they need monthly or even on a weekly basis.
Time is also something that they can use. Take time to talk to lonely elderly people. The downside is that you won't get rid of your money and get back more then you give away.
Do not buy yourself a good conscience. Earn it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It charged because the Army told it to. C'mon, a 5-digit Slashdotter should know about Snopes.
Did you ever consider that maybe some people are M$ fans without being shills? I don't necessarily like M$, but I still accept the realistic fact that some people do.
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.
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.
It should be obvious to someone who posts here. Think about it.
I did think about it. My conclusion is that anecdotal evidence of one person who doesn't even mention numbers ("very good pension") is completely irrelevant when trying to get a handle on administrative costs vs program costs.
During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized
Yes, and as someone else pointed out, ARC was asked to do this by the U.S. Army:
So what's your evidence again?
AccountKiller
Child's Play seems to be a good one, they help kids with severe problems suffer less and recover faster.
Twinstiq, game news
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...
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.
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.
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
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