Charities - C or D, s&d

My parents instilled in me a deep suspicion of charities - probably based in part in disdain for Charity as a concept designed to alleviate middle/upper class guilt, but also largely because of practical worries - how much of the money actually goes to those in need and not gigantic administrative structures, how do the organisations negotiate power in war zone situations, etc. My dad wasn't entirely categorical about this, though - I remember him bigging up Doctors Without Borders specifically.

I've also encountered the argument that, if you care about a cause, you should put the work in - which I'm not too sure about, really. The fact that me donating to something is less work than volunteering for it doesn't necessairly mean that the latter is going to have a bigger impact; there's something Protestant Work Ethic-y about it.

(Should activist groups be discussed as a different thing? Don't think of them as charities of course but it feels like the donating interaction is pretty much the same).

Anyway, what do you guys donate to? How much work do you do before choosing an organisation - and how much follow-up? What's yr general position on charities?

not to make things all trump all the time but here is some food for thought

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/charities-ditch-mar-a-lago-charlottesville

I work for a pretty household name-y charity, so at that level, I think they're pretty good. I'm not sure they always (or even often) do a great job of explaining what they do, though.

Nothing wrong with volunteering or donating or both or neither. I would just say, always do volunteer work that is either (a) braindead easy boring stuff that no one else wants to do or (b) something related to your IRL expertise. So, like, don't go well-building or offering psychological support if you don't know anything about wells or counselling.

But do, say, offer yourself as an envelope licker, or do data entry or something

Also:

* Donations that arise from guilt alleviation, if you choose the right charity, still genuinely actually save lives (or animals or parks or whatever)

* Obviously there are bad charities - Kids Company etc - but many charities genuinely need those gigantic administrative structures. Imagine being UNHCR, responsible for the world's refugees. You need a lot of admin to get the job done properly.

LOST-N-FOUND YOUTH
Lost-n-Found Youth is an Atlanta-based nonprofit organization whose mission is to take homeless lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths up to age 25 off the street and transition them into more permanent housing.

https://lnfy.org/

this charity rules and they operate several really cool thrift stores where the proceeds go to ending LGBTQ homelessness

You've missed out the part about them being used by governments to provide services that the state should be providing and used to undermine state provision in general.

I've worked, and volunteered, for several, I am pretty implacably against the entire concept of charity, but accept that a lot of them do very good work that wouldn't get done otherwise. I don't want to work for one again though.

I don't think it's always as clear cut as government vs. charity as many charities (if they're doing their jobs properly) should be aiming for sustainability, and enabling rather than replacing government services. But, yeah, it's a downside for sure.

but many charities genuinely need those gigantic administrative structures. Imagine being UNHCR, responsible for the world's refugees. You need a lot of admin to get the job done properly.

This is absolutley true, but the larger the organisation the more difficult it is to understand where all the money goes to and this results in insecurity about possible missuse.

Went on a date once with a girl who worked for a p big charity, and $ went to stuff like getting her boss a first class flight to NYC and getting a table at the Brit awards. Both more defensible than they might seem at first glance - they were at the Brits to recruit rich celebs for their cause, and ditto her boss went to NYC to meet with some potential real heavyweight donors (doesn't entirely explain opting for first class). These are the kinds of shades of grey that make me knee-jerk suspicious, I guess.

A ticket to the Brits to shmooze donors, that's understandable, if that's what it was - there's also the chance the boss may have been there to accompany one of the charity's celebs. (The celeb wouldn't be expected to pay for the charity's ticket.) It still sounds iffy though.

First class tickets are a total no-no, without exceptions.

This is absolutley true, but the larger the organisation the more difficult it is to understand where all the money goes to and this results in insecurity about possible missuse.

Yeah, charities are awful at explaining how they spend money - they especially don't like to talk about the entrepreneurial side of how they use donations. Charities spend stupid sounding amounts of money on, say, TV slots or Google ad space or street fundraisers - but an effective charity will always make a significant profit on those spends. That's generally why I trust bigger charities over smaller ones - they're more effective and experienced at asset management.

Misuse is rare, though (in my experience). Charities are more likely to waste $$$ on creating pointless campaign videos for Facebook than on office christmas parties or first class flights or CEO taxis and whatnot.

donate to local causes. invest in your community. there are homeless shelter everywhere, soup kitchens, etc. most charity work is funded by churches as charity is a big part of most faiths. or there are local farms. one thing keeping people down is food deserts and the scarcity & high cost of healthy food.

you can donate stuff to thrift stores. many poor families shop there to buy clothes, household necessities, bedding, furniture, etc. out of necessity. it is good to frequent these places, to give your money to them for supporting a less well-off community. this is a personal investment you can make to the poor while still indulging in your bourgeois consumer urges and buying a NIN CD.

recycle, not just trash, but everything. the oppressive structure has a fuel source and every day we contribute. oil is in everything oppressive society produces. you can refuse to contribute. take public transportation instead of driving. the time lost to not having your own 5x6 metal box is more than made up for the exercise you get and random people you meet that are neighbors of your community existing outside your social media bubbles. driving places your body in unnatural positions and isolation for extended periods of time, being physically cut off from others, placed in a Mad Max parking lot of wildly varying and potentially fatal emotions, this is unhealthy. most of us do this for 3-4 hours a day. most US households own 2 or more cars, one for each parent, isolating the family further. im not saying this is the sole cause of our troubles but on some psychological level it has to affect us.

society has come a LONG way in the past 100 years and technology has changed us in ways we are only beginning to comprehend. all kind of chemical poisons released into the air nuking Japan and for decades later exploding 900+ "test" atomic bombs in the Western US. ever-accelerating advances in communication and media technology. all kind of social technology, the internet, civil rights/suffrage legislation - things that have gone unsaid (or unheard) for thousands of years are now instantly globally transmitted.

i think the internet has connected people and evolved the global charity community to an encouraging degree. we have the power to organize massive charity movements that could really do us a world of good. personally i would avoid donating to a larger group unless you are certain or know someone who volunteers or otherwise. there are lots of people to help, people those larger groups overlook. this is something we can address daily, through every day actions. look at what is near where you are, volunteer, you will meet people, you will create ideas. forget about tv, media, etc. find local groups that do real good and help them.

You've missed out the part about them being used by governments to provide services that the state should be providing and used to undermine state provision in general.

― Wewlay Bewlay (Tom D.), Friday, August 18, 2017 6:29 AM (seven hours ago)

The differences between the UK and America w/r/t this are really interesting! I'm actually curious to hear more about the UK issues.

donate to local causes

^This.

It is far easier to understand what a local organization does and smaller local organizations very rarely have highly-paid administrators or top-heavy overhead. By far our biggest slice of charitable dollars goes to the local food bank. They're very efficient, are transparent, and feed people who haven't got enough food, so the good they do is pretty obvious.

That sounds suspiciously like "charity begins at home". I've nothing against donating to local causes but don't see why it should be on principle. I have a pretty good idea what the top charities at givewell.org do and they are guaranteed to be high impact & low overhead.

Charities are more likely to waste $$$ on creating pointless campaign videos for Facebook than on office christmas parties or first class flights or CEO taxis and whatnot.

welcome to my world :(

The thing with charities taking on the "responsibilities" of government -- in many cases they do a much better job than the government does ... I've seen so many examples of government attempting to provide various services in a ridiculously out-of-touch and incompetent way. And most of the time, the government would spend way more money than a charity on doing the same task.

The differences between the UK and America w/r/t this are really interesting! I'm actually curious to hear more about the UK issues.

Tangential but this brings home to me how much the UK is Europe's USA, in that my partner (who's French) often remarks on the huge focus UK media puts on private charity events/organisations and how to her that's completley alien because in France the govt is in charge of most of these things.

I'd wager that to some extent the culture around that also accounts for the stronger competence of charities in dealing with issues rather than the govt? Which is to say, a country in which it is understood that it is the govt's task to handle these things is a country where ppl drawn to that kinda work are more likely to work for the government, which leads to a less out-of-touch govt, etc.

I live in the home city of one household name charity so I've heard a few stories about overpaid admins and misspent funds and such but on balance I think they do a good job. likewise in general my view is, charity good, but it seems you do have to be careful picking them

not really sure how you do that tbh, sometimes the little local guys are the ones with less overhead getting the money where it needs to go but sometimes they're just even harder to check up on, plus for international causes the big guys are probably the ones with the infrastructure to get stuff done

at some point last year I felt randomly charitable and thought I'd pick someone I didn't know who was supporting a good-sounding cause on one of the money-raising sites, maybe someone just below their target with not long to go, etc... now the charity keep sending me glossy information packs! and printing + postage probably add up to more than I donated! seems kind of wasteful, but I know you have to keep putting your name out there, building awareness, drumming up repeat support, making all the bumpf look nice and shiny, especially since this is a "<disease> research" charity so you've got to look kind of modern and sciencey and look-at-our-progress I guess

also last year I hit upon some twitter outrage about how <x relief> charity weren't providing help where needed, and I felt for the people who suffered, but my grandfather had recently died of <x> and that charity were v helpful to my Gran, providing support in the last year of his life, so... it's hard to know what to believe when most of what one can see is anecdotes. speaking of which, sorry for rambly and purely anecdotal post

If 'doing a better job' was what it was about I might have more sympathy with various UK goverments' hiving off of public services to the charity sector.

Yup. The real reason why our local food bank is a critical public service is that the government safety net in the USA is profoundly underfunded and was never designed to be genuinely effective or reliable for those in need.

When failed politicians of dubious morality can land £160k jobs in some of these charities, like it is some kind of consolation prize for not winning elections. I don't trust any of these fucking organisations.

Amber Rudd actually referred to Russell Trust Food Banks as a part of our social security safety net, recently. These politicians do get confused about the real nature of charity. it is easy to see why.

lol! Foodbank/University edit! i always get them two mixed up.