There is a lot of information out there about different charities from the perspective of the percentage of money raised that goes to the cause vs. administration. And there's a lot of information about how to optimize tax incentives etc. But I'd really like more information about the best general strategic approach to take.
Would you get better results by donating to a charity, or by donating to a political organization that works to obsolete the need for that charity? Would my charitable dollar help more people if I donated it to a third world country (on the assumption that the cost of living is lower there, so therefore they could buy more stuff with it) or if I donated it locally (on the assumption that less of it might get lost in transit?). Callous as it sounds, do you get better long-term results by saving lives or by improving lives? Do you save more lives, or improve more lives, with food or with health care? Or health research? Or education? Or literacy? Do microloans get better results because of their relendability?
The same could apply with volunteering. What's the best use of general volunteer labour? Which sectors benefit most from a donation of time, and which benefit most from a donation of money? What about donations of specialized professional services? What about in-kind donations?
Some might object to this way of thinking on the basis that it might lead to a dearth of donations in areas that, while still worthy causes, are found to not to be the very best use of charitable donations. I'm not sure whether this would be the case, because people donate for all kinds of reasons. People donate to research into the disease that killed their grandparents or the disease whose genes they carry. People donate because a friend is doing a charity run. People volunteer for the humane society because doggies are awesome. People donate because they're asking for a loonie at the cash register and they're getting a loonie in their change. People donate because they have some stuff in their house that they want to get rid of. It isn't all calculated.
But, in cases where it is calculated, it would be useful to have information on the best strategic approach.
3 comments:
First you would have to agree on a definition of success, and there's a lot of disagreement on that. That's one reason there are so many different approaches to activism and volunteerism.
They could also do different calculations for different general definitions of success.
True. That's probably a lot more useful than my general "it's all good". Maybe it's not all good. Maybe some approaches are clearly better.
Post a Comment