One of our top metics involves examining how charities evaluate their progress. To what extent are they reaching their goals? Are they iterating as a response to their evaluations? Omakase works with nonprofits that make their program and organization evaluations public.
If the core issue is one of trust, I don't at all understand why people would trust you more than the charities they're already suspicious of. What am I missing? What assurances can you provide that the charities themselves don't?
If the other core issue is vetting & curation, isn't that what United Way (and many other meta-charities) have been doing for decades? How is your approach better?
We're working to provide a simpler, faster experience, focusing on connecting tech folks to small, innovative charities that meet our rigorous standards (you can read about them on our website). We want to make the experience feel small and more precise. We'd love to hear more suggestions on how to do this better.
From my own experience, many don't give because they don't want to. Oh, they will use the excuses presented here or make them up as they go. Never met more selfish people than I have in this industry, remember working my way through school at a grocery store and those people were more willing to contribute.
How I found my charity? A radio show many years ago highlighted Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. I give nearly two percent of my gross salary to these people through automatic credit card payments.
> From my own experience, many don't give because they don't want to.
Good point; despite many being flush with money some can be notoriously stingy. Of course, it's the stuff of proverbs that the most well-off give less freely than those with less.
> From my own experience, many don't give because they don't want to. Oh, they will use the excuses presented here or make them up as they go.
I thought the same thing when I read this post. I'm sure there are folks who don't donate because they're genuinely concerned about fraud or lack of efficiency, but my perception is that most of the people who have the means to donate but don't simply aren't interested.
Finding a great organization that is well-known and reputable is not difficult, and there's no reason that a person's generosity needs to be spread thinly across multiple organizations. Pick an organization that you like, set up an automated monthly donation via credit card (as you hinted, most organizations make this easy) and be happy. It's that simple.
Having to filter the scams from the genuine charities may be the excuse, but I have doubts. Any metropolitan area has a number of local charities you can check out for yourself. Animal shelters would love to have potential donors swing by for a visit, as would local homeless shelters (serve some dinner while you're there). Keep it local if you wonder about the credibility of the "Penguins with Cleft Palates Foundation".
Yes, swinging by your local Boys and Girls Club takes a bit more effort, but I don't think that extra effort accounts for all of the 75%. So what does? Speaking for myself, I think a lot of times we just don't think about it. Or I see a worthy charity I like and I'll, umm, do that later (and later never comes).
Regardless, omakasecharity.org is bookmarked, and a reminder added to my phone that will go off when I'm home so I'll click the site's "buy" button.
I would argue that, nowadays, many young people expect the government to take care of necessary social work, making charity less relevant. Here's my theory, which admittedly has no data to back it up:
Older people, who skew Republican, believe in small government, and believe in private charity. (They're also more religious, and remember that a lot of charity is really donating to your church.)
Whereas younger people (especially techies), who skew Democrat, tend to believe more in active government, and believe that democratic participation will ultimately lead to effective social use of their tax dollars.
And it's not an unreasonable position, necessarily. If you support higher taxes and more political activism, there are many good arguments as to how government policy is a vastly better conduit for doing social good, than private charity.
That's an interesting idea, and not without truth.
I'm strong left in the UK, and would gladly contribute more taxes to go towards social policy for helping with healthcare, welfare and similar. I still contribute to charity now and then, but more random acts than regular contributions.
Interestingly in the UK with the double dip recession we've seen a great many people fall into severe poverty where they cannot feed, heat or home themselves. With this we've seen an explosion of Foodbanks, places you can donate foodstuffs to which are then redistributed to those too poor to be able to afford to feed themselves.
Some on the Right have said that the growth of foodbanks are evidence that everything is working as it should be, with the needy being provided for by private donations. People like myself on the left say instead that this is evidence of failure of policy by the government, which is not helping people in desperate need of even the most basic things.
The idea of taxes, which I'm pretty sure you're aware, is that you pay a percentage of earnings. It's also not something that you can choose to do if you feel like it.
So let me rephrase it so that you understand:
I'd rather live in a society where everyone pays more in taxes than a society where people in need has to rely on charity.
> I'd rather live in a society where everyone pays more in taxes than a society where people in need has to rely on charity.
Oh, I see: you'd rather send armed men to kill people who don't support the charitable programmes the majority of the populace wish them to. Very enlightened of you.
I'd rather live in a society where enough folks are enlightened enough to choose to support those in need, and only use violence in order to ensure support of who are not otherwise supported.
"Techies" believe they know better how to allocate their money than do charity workers. Why give now when they could wisely invest and give 3x as much at a later time?
Then maybe at that later time their internal generosity dries after years of toiling and smaller than expected payback.
======
How do we balance this? What if an organization employs non-technical people that pay 3x as much as necessary for tech services because they don't understand what's necessary.
At first, I was concerned that folks would rather wait to give until they'd "made it beg" or were old. Survey results showed "waiting" as the least impt reason for people not giving to charity. Really reinforced the idea that people just need to have a more straightforward way to connect right now with causes they will love.
Looks cool. I don't give to charity because I'm still establishing myself, and I don't think I'd give to charity in the future because it's such a cop out.
I'd much rather kick someone with an idea a bunch of money, or put it towards something that benefits my community. But when it's this easy, who really cares about 50 bucks here and there?
Lots of people in the third world live on as little as $1 a day, so $50 is a huge help to them. And if you really want to keep it local, there are always local food banks and the like that you could donate directly to. It is good to volunteer too, for them and even more so for you.
It's actually easier than that. Techies are more likely to be atheists or not attend church. That's where most of the "charitable" giving in the US goes. A replacement for that would be fantastic, but there just isn't anything pounding into techies week after week that they should put 10% of their income towards charities.
Lutheran World Relief will gladly take donations over the web (even from atheists :-P ). They have a four star rating from Charity Navigator, which is a pretty good rating. All of their financial statements are available online.
The US Government uses a program called Combined Federal Campaign for this. CFC is an organization that funnels money to charities and acts as a one-stop shop for the contributors taking the choice largely out of their hands if they want to. CFC takes a cut of the money as part of the service. Apparently they do pretty well because they are still in business and "CFC contributions" are a core metric for many federal workforces (which is terribly misplaced in my opinion). So there is precedent for this type of service.
Why don't I use it? Because it takes a cut out of my contribution and doesn't give me any indication that my money is being used towards good purposes. They have percentages of administrative overhead for each charity listed, but we all know that those are gamed.
In Sum, you aren't solving the problem of making contributors feel as though they are a critical factor in making a change unless they see EXACTLY where their money is going - just like any business person. So charitable giving is always going to be low for people who want a high level of control and don't have enough money to just blindly throw at a cause and/or do it for the tax benefit.
Statistical analyses revealed personal spending had no link with a person's happiness, while spending on others and charity was significantly related to a boost in happiness.
"Regardless of how much income each person made," Dunn said, "those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not."
n another experiment, the researchers gave college students a $5 or $20 bill, asking them to spend the money by that evening. Half the participants were instructed to spend the money on themselves, and the remaining students to spend on others.
Participants who spent the windfall on others — which included toys for siblings and meals eaten with friends — reported feeling happier at the end of the day than those who spent the money on themselves.
10% for administrative costs is huge - how much costs per user can you possibly incur? surely at most about a couple of percent per user?
Furthermore, you state "I worry the donation isn't going to charity as advertised." is the number one reason. For me this reason is really "I worry the donation isn't really going towards the supposed aims of the charity". Therefore I'm only really going to be interested if you show me some measure of the "efficiency" of each charity, ie how much money goes on supporting their cause directly, and how much gets spent on administration, marketing, sending coins in the mail etc?
I've often often thought about the feasibility of a charity where 100% of funds are spent directly on the cause, and administration costs are covered by interest incurred between the time donations are collected and the time suppliers are paid (and whether you could run a lottery on the same principle).
This is a great idea, but I don't know if I'm comfortable with outsourcing empathy. I donate when I (or someone I trust and like) come across a cause worth supporting. I have very few recurring donations.
I only give to the EFF and specific cases[0] where I know 100% of my donation is going directly to the person I intend it to go to. I have no desire to have even a penny of the money I give go to support the people whose job is charity.
I want to see someone wipe out the for-profit charity fundraising industry [1]. These are jobs that should not exist. IMHO these companies are committing fraud. When I get pestered on a street to give to charity by someone who is in fact working for one of these for-profit charity fundraising companies, they should be legally obligated to disclose what percent of the money I am donating is actually going to the charity in question. If I donate $20 to a charity with the expectation that the entire $20 is going to that charity, and any amount less than $20 is actually given to that charity then it is fraud.
Furthermore, if a charitable organization doesn't know enough to put up their own donations page where they can reasonably expect to get near 100% of the donations (minus small processing fees like credit card fees and whatnot), then I can't trust them to be smart enough to use the money wisely. I would love to see a future where the technically competent streamline charitable giving via open source projects so we get to the point where an organization can set up a page to receive charitable donations and the person managing the process can direct the money directly to the final individuals or expenses the money is going to. i.e.
website/app endpoint for receiving money =>
bank account =>
people doing actual charitable work (not administrative) ||
equipment, materials and other expenses necessary for said said charitable work.
The site/system should open up and make public the books of the charitable organization in question. If you want trust, you need trust and accountability.
[0] Ladar Levison for legal defense. Open source projects where the money goes directly to to a developer (i.e. Marijn Haverbeke and Joey Hess).
There is already a fairly useful tool https://www.charitynavigator.org/ to ascertain the validity of a charity. You can also type in a keyword and attempt to filter by category to narrow down the options.
36 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 88.1 ms ] thread[1] http://www.givewell.org/
If the other core issue is vetting & curation, isn't that what United Way (and many other meta-charities) have been doing for decades? How is your approach better?
How I found my charity? A radio show many years ago highlighted Children's Healthcare of Atlanta. I give nearly two percent of my gross salary to these people through automatic credit card payments.
Good point; despite many being flush with money some can be notoriously stingy. Of course, it's the stuff of proverbs that the most well-off give less freely than those with less.
I thought the same thing when I read this post. I'm sure there are folks who don't donate because they're genuinely concerned about fraud or lack of efficiency, but my perception is that most of the people who have the means to donate but don't simply aren't interested.
Finding a great organization that is well-known and reputable is not difficult, and there's no reason that a person's generosity needs to be spread thinly across multiple organizations. Pick an organization that you like, set up an automated monthly donation via credit card (as you hinted, most organizations make this easy) and be happy. It's that simple.
Yes, swinging by your local Boys and Girls Club takes a bit more effort, but I don't think that extra effort accounts for all of the 75%. So what does? Speaking for myself, I think a lot of times we just don't think about it. Or I see a worthy charity I like and I'll, umm, do that later (and later never comes).
Regardless, omakasecharity.org is bookmarked, and a reminder added to my phone that will go off when I'm home so I'll click the site's "buy" button.
Older people, who skew Republican, believe in small government, and believe in private charity. (They're also more religious, and remember that a lot of charity is really donating to your church.)
Whereas younger people (especially techies), who skew Democrat, tend to believe more in active government, and believe that democratic participation will ultimately lead to effective social use of their tax dollars.
And it's not an unreasonable position, necessarily. If you support higher taxes and more political activism, there are many good arguments as to how government policy is a vastly better conduit for doing social good, than private charity.
I'm strong left in the UK, and would gladly contribute more taxes to go towards social policy for helping with healthcare, welfare and similar. I still contribute to charity now and then, but more random acts than regular contributions.
Interestingly in the UK with the double dip recession we've seen a great many people fall into severe poverty where they cannot feed, heat or home themselves. With this we've seen an explosion of Foodbanks, places you can donate foodstuffs to which are then redistributed to those too poor to be able to afford to feed themselves.
Some on the Right have said that the growth of foodbanks are evidence that everything is working as it should be, with the needy being provided for by private donations. People like myself on the left say instead that this is evidence of failure of policy by the government, which is not helping people in desperate need of even the most basic things.
Who knows who's right, perhaps a little of both.
So let me rephrase it so that you understand: I'd rather live in a society where everyone pays more in taxes than a society where people in need has to rely on charity.
Oh, I see: you'd rather send armed men to kill people who don't support the charitable programmes the majority of the populace wish them to. Very enlightened of you.
I'd rather live in a society where enough folks are enlightened enough to choose to support those in need, and only use violence in order to ensure support of who are not otherwise supported.
I'll have to dismiss your comment as nothing but a school book example of a strawman argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Easy:
> I'd rather live in a society where everyone pays more in taxes
How do you think taxes are enforced? Not by asking nicely, and not by the Happy Fluffy Peace Fairy. Taxes are collected under the threat of violence.
Then maybe at that later time their internal generosity dries after years of toiling and smaller than expected payback.
======
How do we balance this? What if an organization employs non-technical people that pay 3x as much as necessary for tech services because they don't understand what's necessary.
I'd much rather kick someone with an idea a bunch of money, or put it towards something that benefits my community. But when it's this easy, who really cares about 50 bucks here and there?
http://lwr.org
http://lwr.org/about/reports-finances
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...
Why don't I use it? Because it takes a cut out of my contribution and doesn't give me any indication that my money is being used towards good purposes. They have percentages of administrative overhead for each charity listed, but we all know that those are gamed.
In Sum, you aren't solving the problem of making contributors feel as though they are a critical factor in making a change unless they see EXACTLY where their money is going - just like any business person. So charitable giving is always going to be low for people who want a high level of control and don't have enough money to just blindly throw at a cause and/or do it for the tax benefit.
http://www.livescience.com/2376-key-happiness-give-money.htm...
Statistical analyses revealed personal spending had no link with a person's happiness, while spending on others and charity was significantly related to a boost in happiness.
"Regardless of how much income each person made," Dunn said, "those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not."
n another experiment, the researchers gave college students a $5 or $20 bill, asking them to spend the money by that evening. Half the participants were instructed to spend the money on themselves, and the remaining students to spend on others.
Participants who spent the windfall on others — which included toys for siblings and meals eaten with friends — reported feeling happier at the end of the day than those who spent the money on themselves.
Furthermore, you state "I worry the donation isn't going to charity as advertised." is the number one reason. For me this reason is really "I worry the donation isn't really going towards the supposed aims of the charity". Therefore I'm only really going to be interested if you show me some measure of the "efficiency" of each charity, ie how much money goes on supporting their cause directly, and how much gets spent on administration, marketing, sending coins in the mail etc?
I've often often thought about the feasibility of a charity where 100% of funds are spent directly on the cause, and administration costs are covered by interest incurred between the time donations are collected and the time suppliers are paid (and whether you could run a lottery on the same principle).
I want to see someone wipe out the for-profit charity fundraising industry [1]. These are jobs that should not exist. IMHO these companies are committing fraud. When I get pestered on a street to give to charity by someone who is in fact working for one of these for-profit charity fundraising companies, they should be legally obligated to disclose what percent of the money I am donating is actually going to the charity in question. If I donate $20 to a charity with the expectation that the entire $20 is going to that charity, and any amount less than $20 is actually given to that charity then it is fraud.
Furthermore, if a charitable organization doesn't know enough to put up their own donations page where they can reasonably expect to get near 100% of the donations (minus small processing fees like credit card fees and whatnot), then I can't trust them to be smart enough to use the money wisely. I would love to see a future where the technically competent streamline charitable giving via open source projects so we get to the point where an organization can set up a page to receive charitable donations and the person managing the process can direct the money directly to the final individuals or expenses the money is going to. i.e.
website/app endpoint for receiving money => bank account => people doing actual charitable work (not administrative) || equipment, materials and other expenses necessary for said said charitable work.
The site/system should open up and make public the books of the charitable organization in question. If you want trust, you need trust and accountability.
[0] Ladar Levison for legal defense. Open source projects where the money goes directly to to a developer (i.e. Marijn Haverbeke and Joey Hess).
[1] http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.pag...