3 ms·

Picking charities, much like picking stocks, is not for amateurs. Now I just give to GiveWell and let them handle it.

Proven 7y ago
Good reminder why government shouldn't be in charge of wealth redistribution and charity activities.
ethbro 7y ago
I think of charities like Etsy shops. Their primary business is not keeping recordings and publishing neatly organized transparency records. Because (a) it's not what the people working for them are interested in, (b) they're heavily volunteer supported, & (c) they don't / can't spend the money to hire someone to do that work. In the same way someone on Etsy wants to make jewelry, not run a C-corp. End result... good charities look a lot like bad charities, with limited ability for bystanders to distinguish. In fact, possibly negatively, as actively malicious charities can spend time and money optimizing for externally visible attributes. The solution is, as you noted, to lean on someone who does have the time to externally audit various charities.
- taxidump 7y ago
  While a charity must supply tax documents to anyone who wants them, an Etsy store does not.
- GoodJokes 7y ago
  You'll have to forgive me, but its not like external audits do much for C-corps either. All they achieve are financial check boxes, nothing to do with ethics, morals, benefit to society. Nonprofits by design are not supposed to generate profit, they are for lack of a better term, a co-opted form of wealth redistribution. We shouldn't actually need them. Government or communities should be directly providing their services, but you know, capitalism is a thing, and shitty rich people are a thing.
- zaphirplane 7y ago
  When I give to charity I want to known that almost all the money is going to a cause and not spent on overhead As for charities being run by volunteers The American Red Cross paid its CEO ~700k in 2018 and spent ~110m on administrative expenses with ~89% of their income spent on programs, hardly a loose bunch of people Just saying and people should make their minds on if the overhead of their favorite charity is appropriate. And they are one of the better ones there are widely known charities with 20/30 % overhead. There was a charity that had most of its income spent on raising money ! https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... Edit: Cancer survivor charity spends 5% on programs.
  - comicjk 7y ago
    You're optimizing only one of the three important things about a charity. True, the absolute worst charities are those with massive overhead, basically scams. But just avoiding those scams doesn't mean your donation will do the most good. Also crucial are: is the charity directed at an evidence-based goal? And is the charity prepared to handle more money? These are the things GiveWell checks into.

Good reminder why government shouldn't be in charge of wealth redistribution and charity activities.

I think of charities like Etsy shops. Their primary business is not keeping recordings and publishing neatly organized transparency records. Because (a) it's not what the people working for them are interested in, (b) they're heavily volunteer supported, & (c) they don't / can't spend the money to hire someone to do that work. In the same way someone on Etsy wants to make jewelry, not run a C-corp. End result... good charities look a lot like bad charities, with limited ability for bystanders to distinguish. In fact, possibly negatively, as actively malicious charities can spend time and money optimizing for externally visible attributes. The solution is, as you noted, to lean on someone who does have the time to externally audit various charities.

taxidump 7y ago
While a charity must supply tax documents to anyone who wants them, an Etsy store does not.
GoodJokes 7y ago
You'll have to forgive me, but its not like external audits do much for C-corps either. All they achieve are financial check boxes, nothing to do with ethics, morals, benefit to society. Nonprofits by design are not supposed to generate profit, they are for lack of a better term, a co-opted form of wealth redistribution. We shouldn't actually need them. Government or communities should be directly providing their services, but you know, capitalism is a thing, and shitty rich people are a thing.
zaphirplane 7y ago
When I give to charity I want to known that almost all the money is going to a cause and not spent on overhead As for charities being run by volunteers The American Red Cross paid its CEO ~700k in 2018 and spent ~110m on administrative expenses with ~89% of their income spent on programs, hardly a loose bunch of people Just saying and people should make their minds on if the overhead of their favorite charity is appropriate. And they are one of the better ones there are widely known charities with 20/30 % overhead. There was a charity that had most of its income spent on raising money ! https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... Edit: Cancer survivor charity spends 5% on programs.
- comicjk 7y ago
  You're optimizing only one of the three important things about a charity. True, the absolute worst charities are those with massive overhead, basically scams. But just avoiding those scams doesn't mean your donation will do the most good. Also crucial are: is the charity directed at an evidence-based goal? And is the charity prepared to handle more money? These are the things GiveWell checks into.