5 ms·

I personally stopped donating to charities ever since I discovered that 70%+ of the money goes to executives and the rest is just wasted on useless stuff rather

I personally stopped donating to charities ever since I discovered that 70%+ of the money goes to executives and the rest is just wasted on useless stuff rather than furthering the mission. I would be impressed if over $500M of that money would be used properly.

yuliyp 6y ago
You should find more effective charities. In the US at least they all have to file fairly detailed forms (Form 990) with the IRS that include the compensation of their executives as well as the major ways the charity spends its money. That can help you steer well clear of the 70%+ overhead charities.
cbozeman 6y ago
That's not the case for all charities... you want to check out Charity Navigator and find charities that spend a proportion of their funds on programs that you deem worthwhile. This is why I've donated to the American Red Cross (89.8% of donations go to their programs, meaning every $10 you give, $8.98 of it goes to charity), and RAINN - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, who use 91.2% of donations on programs.
- Alupis 6y ago
  The American Red Cross doesn't have a great history either [1][2] [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    I only recently discovered that The American Red Cross is different to The International Red Cross.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  This TED talk on the subject of how we value charities is worth watching: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, I think the primary point that we should value charities by their overall community impact, not just by their ratio of program expenditures to overhead, is absolutely correct.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  Charity Navigator gives Mozilla 4 stars. Does not seem very reliable. I would also not give money to RAINN until they remove incest from their name.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    > I would also not give money to RAINN until they remove incest from their name. Okay, you lost me. Explain. > Charity Navigator gives Mozilla 4 stars. Does not seem very reliable. You're aware that they're measuring financial performance and objective criteria... not your personal feelings about what that charity does, right?
    - h_anna_h 6y ago
      > Okay, you lost me. Explain. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever sexual thing they want. Incest-shaming is not a desirable property of our society. > You're aware that they're measuring financial performance and objective criteria... not your personal feelings about what that charity does, right? Mozilla's mismanagement of funds and overpayment of executive staff is objective. I also don't appreciate your tone.
      - cbozeman 6y ago
        > Consenting adults should be able to do whatever sexual thing they want. Incest-shaming is not a desirable property of our society. Its laughable that you think they're crusading against consensual incest and that they don't mean sexual abuse of minors by their parents. Then again, given the rest of the comments in this chain, I'm not surprised. > Mozilla's mismanagement of funds and overpayment of executive staff is objective. Compensation is always subjective. What one organization feels is supremely generous compensation is viewed by another as hiring that executive at an absolute steal. > I also don't appreciate your tone. Let me guess, you're used to people who defer to your opinion.
        h_anna_h 6y ago
        I am sorry but I am not willing to deal with this toxicity. Have a nice day.
nbm 6y ago
Besides the advice in the other replies about choosing good charities, it’s also useful to separate giving to charities (organizations that have non-trivial resources and focus dedicated to handling and seeking donations and often figuring out which other orgs to send that money to) vs. direct charitable giving to colleges, food banks, clinics, universities and other non-profits with a local scope (which many of those receiving donations here appear to be). Certainly not a guarantee it’ll be used effectively, and that sort of outsourcing of deciding the best way to use money is part of the appeal of the larger charities.
radicalriddler 6y ago
You're donating to the wrong charities.
s5300 6y ago
You realize you can look into the financials of all charities and see which ones actually spend their money on their "mission" Many transparent charity navigators/comparers exist. Very many charities where 93%+ go directly towards the mission.

yuliyp 6y ago

You should find more effective charities. In the US at least they all have to file fairly detailed forms (Form 990) with the IRS that include the compensation of their executives as well as the major ways the charity spends its money. That can help you steer well clear of the 70%+ overhead charities.

cbozeman 6y ago

That's not the case for all charities... you want to check out Charity Navigator and find charities that spend a proportion of their funds on programs that you deem worthwhile. This is why I've donated to the American Red Cross (89.8% of donations go to their programs, meaning every $10 you give, $8.98 of it goes to charity), and RAINN - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, who use 91.2% of donations on programs.

Alupis 6y ago
The American Red Cross doesn't have a great history either [1][2] [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... [2] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-red-cross-500-million-in-haiti-relief https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...
- lostlogin 6y ago
  I only recently discovered that The American Red Cross is different to The International Red Cross.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
This TED talk on the subject of how we value charities is worth watching: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, I think the primary point that we should value charities by their overall community impact, not just by their ratio of program expenditures to overhead, is absolutely correct.
h_anna_h 6y ago
Charity Navigator gives Mozilla 4 stars. Does not seem very reliable. I would also not give money to RAINN until they remove incest from their name.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  > I would also not give money to RAINN until they remove incest from their name. Okay, you lost me. Explain. > Charity Navigator gives Mozilla 4 stars. Does not seem very reliable. You're aware that they're measuring financial performance and objective criteria... not your personal feelings about what that charity does, right?
  - h_anna_h 6y ago
    > Okay, you lost me. Explain. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever sexual thing they want. Incest-shaming is not a desirable property of our society. > You're aware that they're measuring financial performance and objective criteria... not your personal feelings about what that charity does, right? Mozilla's mismanagement of funds and overpayment of executive staff is objective. I also don't appreciate your tone.
    - cbozeman 6y ago
      > Consenting adults should be able to do whatever sexual thing they want. Incest-shaming is not a desirable property of our society. Its laughable that you think they're crusading against consensual incest and that they don't mean sexual abuse of minors by their parents. Then again, given the rest of the comments in this chain, I'm not surprised. > Mozilla's mismanagement of funds and overpayment of executive staff is objective. Compensation is always subjective. What one organization feels is supremely generous compensation is viewed by another as hiring that executive at an absolute steal. > I also don't appreciate your tone. Let me guess, you're used to people who defer to your opinion.
      - h_anna_h 6y ago
        I am sorry but I am not willing to deal with this toxicity. Have a nice day.

nbm 6y ago

Besides the advice in the other replies about choosing good charities, it’s also useful to separate giving to charities (organizations that have non-trivial resources and focus dedicated to handling and seeking donations and often figuring out which other orgs to send that money to) vs. direct charitable giving to colleges, food banks, clinics, universities and other non-profits with a local scope (which many of those receiving donations here appear to be). Certainly not a guarantee it’ll be used effectively, and that sort of outsourcing of deciding the best way to use money is part of the appeal of the larger charities.

radicalriddler 6y ago

You're donating to the wrong charities.

s5300 6y ago

You realize you can look into the financials of all charities and see which ones actually spend their money on their "mission" Many transparent charity navigators/comparers exist. Very many charities where 93%+ go directly towards the mission.