3 ms·

In my opinion, this is both unfair and simplistic. It implies that people will only donate to a charity if they have control over where the money is spent. I di

In my opinion, this is both unfair and simplistic. It implies that people will only donate to a charity if they have control over where the money is spent. I disagree with this vehemently; those who give likely do not want to micro-manage the funds. Rather, they want to ensure that it forwards the goals of the charity and is not spent on unreasonably large executive compensation payrolls or expensive private jet flights, etc. For instance, we might recall people donating money to the Red Cross to aid Haiti after the earthquake that country suffered in 2010. We later found out that maybe 75% of the funds donated actually made it to the country.[0] The argument can certainly be made that some of the donated funds should go towards the overhead of the organization but it seems reasonable for people to be upset when a full quarter of those funds somehow gets lost along the way. People are asking charities to be more accountable because such accountability is direly needed. When large charities break trust with the public, as in the case of the Red Cross (and many others, perhaps Mozilla, even), this is what happens. Laying the blame on those still willing to hand money over for the good of all strikes me as misguided. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...

CarelessExpert 6y ago
> In my opinion, this is both unfair and simplistic. It implies that people will only donate to a charity if they have control over where the money is spent. To be clear, I didn't meant to imply everyone does this. I'm just saying that many people do, and it's challenging for charities. It's one of the reasons I find charities provide options to direct giving to specific efforts, as it offers the donor some measure of control while still allowing the charity to manage things at the macro level. > We later found out that maybe 25% of the funds donated actually made it to the country. I think you've misread that headline? It reads: "Red Cross Spent 25 Percent Of Haiti Donations On Internal Expenses" Further, in the article, we see: "But Grassley's office found that 25 percent of donations sent to Haiti — or nearly $125 million — were spent on fundraising and management, a contingency fund and the catchall category the Red Cross calls "program expenses." What that says is 75% of donations did go to Haiti, and 25% did not. This is the opposite, I believe, of how you described the article? Nevertheless, the American Red Cross doesn't exactly have the... best reputation in the world, which is why I'd probably not give to that organization at all, but rather would direct my funds toward organizations that are better managed (and then trust them to allocate those funds appropriately). > People are asking charities to be more accountable because such accountability is direly needed. Accountability != micromanagement. My comment was about individuals micromanaging their giving, not about demanding transparency about how the organization is allocating those donations. The latter is just basic due diligence, and is something we should all expect from NGOs.
- cmiles74 6y ago
  Fair enough, you are correct. I misread the article in my haste to find a citation. That was my mistake, it certainly made my point more compelling. I updated the comment with the correction.

CarelessExpert 6y ago

> In my opinion, this is both unfair and simplistic. It implies that people will only donate to a charity if they have control over where the money is spent. To be clear, I didn't meant to imply everyone does this. I'm just saying that many people do, and it's challenging for charities. It's one of the reasons I find charities provide options to direct giving to specific efforts, as it offers the donor some measure of control while still allowing the charity to manage things at the macro level. > We later found out that maybe 25% of the funds donated actually made it to the country. I think you've misread that headline? It reads: "Red Cross Spent 25 Percent Of Haiti Donations On Internal Expenses" Further, in the article, we see: "But Grassley's office found that 25 percent of donations sent to Haiti — or nearly $125 million — were spent on fundraising and management, a contingency fund and the catchall category the Red Cross calls "program expenses." What that says is 75% of donations did go to Haiti, and 25% did not. This is the opposite, I believe, of how you described the article? Nevertheless, the American Red Cross doesn't exactly have the... best reputation in the world, which is why I'd probably not give to that organization at all, but rather would direct my funds toward organizations that are better managed (and then trust them to allocate those funds appropriately). > People are asking charities to be more accountable because such accountability is direly needed. Accountability != micromanagement. My comment was about individuals micromanaging their giving, not about demanding transparency about how the organization is allocating those donations. The latter is just basic due diligence, and is something we should all expect from NGOs.

cmiles74 6y ago
Fair enough, you are correct. I misread the article in my haste to find a citation. That was my mistake, it certainly made my point more compelling. I updated the comment with the correction.