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?"

48 of 570 comments (clear)

  1. Charity Navigator by XanC · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Charity Navigator by infaustus · · Score: 5, Informative

      In a similar vein: http://www.givewell.org/charities/topcharities GiveWell does a very thorough job of vetting charities and evaluating their impact.

      --
      Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
    2. Re:Charity Navigator by abigor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Surely you are trolling: http://www.google.org/

    3. Re:Charity Navigator by jdpars · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either way, some part of revenue from the search engine is going to charity. You aren't generating anything new by using Bing's donation feature, just clicking a button to do what Google apparently already does.

    4. Re:Charity Navigator by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're trolling, and if you're not then you should volunteer for the same program that you advocate. Do you seriously believe that everyone that has ever been on welfare is stupid and a hopeless drain on society? I was unemployed for 2 years in my late teens, in an era where youth unemployment was over 20%. Guess what, I'm now a productive member of society who pays taxes and has done for many years. Being on welfare is not necessarily a life choice and doesn't relate to an individuals productivity or intelligence.

    5. Re:Charity Navigator by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3

      Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with eugenics...

      There's one hell of a difference between offering something for free and it being compulsory. I find it highly unlikely that the mentioned charity is using its funding to forcibly sterilize anyone. Just like the salvation army does not force anyone to accept donated clothing, food or toys.

    6. Re:Charity Navigator by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.

      I don't know about Jews, because that's sort of a complex label. But you can absolutely tell ancestry from a genetic sample. "African descent" (what most people in the U.S. would call "black") is easy to discern from a DNA sample.

      Law enforcement agencies have been slower to adopt using this capability because it's considered a political landmine to say (for example) that they know that a murdering rapist is black with only DNA evidence to go by. But it can be done, and it has been done. Here's an example:

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm

      You can get eye color, hair color, and other traits too. The science is getting better.

      That said:

      Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it the same as something else that you disagree with.

      Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.

      An interesting primer on the subject:
      http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/15/race-doesnt-exist-or-does-it/

      I know podcasts can be a PITA because it's slower than reading, but it's worth a listen if you're at all interested in the subject.

    7. Re:Charity Navigator by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You obviously don't understand the very conservative (not the B$ pretend conservative but actually ruthless exploiters) basis for effective social welfare nets.

      First up they help to stabilise the economy ie downturns reduce demand, producing more unemployment further reducing demand, social welfare puts a direct brake on this cycle.

      Next social welfare substantially reduces crime, don't accept this easy just look at the crime rate difference between countries with effective social welfare nets and those without, in fact look no further than North America ie. Canada, US, Mexico.

      Of course an effective social welfare net also has a direct outcome on health, basically because it reduces stresses within that society, fears about being able to pay for health care, fears about unemployment, fears for the future of the next generation.

      As for requiring a licence to be a parent, sounds like a fine idea and in fact should be part of the compact for a more complete social welfare net. You could even go the harsh route, chemically neuter everyone at birth and then make them earn their fertility.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. None by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:None by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I give time to Silver Surfer groups

      You seek out life bearing worlds for Galactus to eat? You monster!

  3. Salvation Army by trout007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If only they did not have an anti-gay agenda, I would concur.

    2. Re:Salvation Army by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes time for donations to wind up as available cash to spend on disaster relief. Do you think when you make a credit card donation the money is instantly transferred to the charity? From what I've heard this can sometimes take months.

      I'm no charitable donations expert, but I'd guess that donations don't all come in at once, but slowly over a period of weeks. If a major disaster occurs, do you think a charity should just wait around for the money to come in, or start acting right away? Acting right away requires having money on hand.

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Salvation Army by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      If only they did not have an anti-gay agenda, I would concur.

      The Salvation Army is not anti-gay. Sure, they are not pro-gay, but that doesn't make the anti-gay.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Salvation Army by sjashe · · Score: 3

      They always get my money.. I'm on the way out to ring the bell now.

    5. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/12/the-salvation-army-ringing-anti-gay-bells-this-holiday-season/

  4. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by heypete · · Score: 3, Informative

    More like 3.9%.

  5. Wikipedia by Rynor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia might be a nice option too, the knowledge they provide to everyone free of charge makes it a good charity in my opinion.

  6. Gamers Give Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  7. Help a neighbor by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. Shelterbox is a decent one... by pryoplasm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...
  9. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. 10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:10 ways - all local by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pets are people too

      yeah, but they taste better.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Interesting

    +4 insightful?

    It must be the Christmas eggnog.

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

    *shakes head sadly*

  12. Donate Locally by dokebi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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*!
  13. Cross Out Red Cross by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Check out religious charities by jfmiller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  15. Charity: Water gives 100% by viniosity · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  16. Here's the link! by khallow · · Score: 5, Funny
    For those wanting to donate to the largest charity (case) in the world, here's the link.

    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.

  17. Your time is not valuable - your money is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?

    1. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      helping people on how to work with a computer might like learning them to fish.

      Except computers are significantly less nutritious. The basic necessities for quality of life (food, medicine, clothes, shelter) are still much more about money than time.

      Using your time to teach (or volunteer in so many other ways) is admirable, but you do also have to look at the opportunity cost. For someone who makes $100+ an hour (or equivalent) working a demanding job and then donating to a charity might be more effective overall than volunteering their time.

      Anyway, you make a good point, not disputing it (the OP saying "your time is not valuable" is just incorrect) - but in many cases you time *is* less valuable than your money...

    2. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by fuckface · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I give $10 they will spend that same money trying to solicit me for more. It's impossible to get them to stop. They can't spend my time.

    3. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by j-beda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They largely do it because it works, unfortunately.

      If you send then a note saying something like "take me off your list" or "do not send me anything more than one solicitation per year" it seems likely they would comply. Certainly the small local charities I have been involved in would be happy to not waste their fundraising resources on people unlikely to donate.

      I just recently heard on Freakonomics that an effective tool in fund raising was to include a checkbox on your money request saying "don't contact me again" - it addresses the issue that dargaud has encountered and supposedly also makes the donor feel more in control, more likely to donate, and actually few people actually check the box.

    4. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by unkiereamus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have 10 mod points, and I really wanted to use them on this post, but I think that you've said somethings that really need addressing.

      Before I go any further, I would like to admit right now that there are bad charities out there. One leaps to mind that we saw move in here about 2 years ago. It purported to be "thinking about the children", yet near as I can tell, the only charitable thing it ever did was spend about 5k to throw a christmas party for the kids (admittedly, they did that twice, bringing us to a total charitable contribution of 10k). Meanwhile, the head of this charity lived in a 750k USD house and drove a 90k USD car. Scams happen, I won't say that they don't.

      Next, a bit of background: I'm a paramedic, I have lived and worked for various NPOs in Honduras for the past three years. I tend to tell people that I volunteer down here, and while in the strictest sense, that's not true, in effect, it is. I make about 1/5 of what I could earn if I were working in the states (and if you know anything about EMS payscales, that's saying something.).

      So let's examine your four objections:

      1) Staff Salaries: As I said above, I make about 20% of what I could reasonably expect to make if I were working in the states. Theoretically, then, I should be able to work up there 20% of the time, then volunteer down here the other 80% of the time. Realistically, though, even supposing that I could find an employer willing to do that (Highly unlikely, in my field, though not, perhaps, impossible),, there's a big difference around here between the trust you get from the community from being someone who lives here full time and someone who comes in to spend some time volunteering, and no matter how skewed the numbers as far as how much time you spend where, you'll always be seen in that light. Around here, I'm known by those I work with as "El gringo grande" (I'm 6'8), but that's a term of endearment, rather than the more common "El gringo" that I see applied to many people who come here repeatedly. with the best of intentions.

      2) Travel: I've actually never been offered travel reimbursements, though I've had to turn down a couple of offers because I couldn't afford the travel costs. Now it's entirely possible that those charities found someone else to fill the role who could afford them, and could do it as well or better than I could, but frankly, and without a hint of egotism (no, really!), I'm very good at what I do, not only the actual meat and bones of responding to emergencies, but also in integrating myself into a community and educating without being patronizing. That last is a surprisingly hard task, I've met very few who can do it, and none who are better at it than me in my particular bailiwick...though I will say I've met two who are better at doing it in medicine in general.

      3) Perks: Again, I've never been offered any perks (aside form the medivac service I worked with offering my free coverage should I need their services), however unlike the above, it's never prevented me from taking a position, but then I'm healthy, young (28), and single. There are, I imagine, plenty of other people who couldn't take such a position without some assurance of health coverage, some sort of retirement or education for their kids.

      4) Finally, and in some ways the biggest point: "fees". First off, let's call a spade a spade, they're bribes. Having said that, though, bribes are important to actually getting shit done in most of the world. I've paid bribes, and I'll almost certainly pay more, but that's just the cost of doing business. Corruption has to be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think that it doesn't exist in whatever (presumably, though I could be wrong) developed nation you live in, it's just that around here it's right up front where you can keep an eye on it. And really, it's cheaper and easier, too. If I want to do something around here, I slip a couple hundred bucks to someone in the health ministry, and away

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
  18. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  19. An alternative by cheebie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  20. Join me in helping Hawa Akther Jui by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  21. Re:High administrative overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can confirm this, even on the "local" level charities. I have worked with several "charity" groups doing IT work (NO - I won't name them). Several times it was recovering their financial data files after being corrupted for various reasons. Every time, I about shit myself when I looked at the actual data (had to confirm the data was valid with accountants). The worst I saw was one group that used 5% of their donations for actual recipients, the rest went to "administrative" costs (salaries in the 6 figure range, pension, rent, etc.).

    I've since quit taking any work from charity organizations, and I refuse to donate any money to them.

  22. Don't send it by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  23. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It charged because the Army told it to. C'mon, a 5-digit Slashdotter should know about Snopes.

  24. Local by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  25. LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by dbrueck · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  26. Effectiveness by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  27. Child's Play by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Informative

    Child's Play seems to be a good one, they help kids with severe problems suffer less and recover faster.

  28. Hire... by Shark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  29. Rant: The Horror of Administrative Costs by griffjon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  30. Engineers without borders by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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