Best organization for small monthly donation
August 8, 2005 10:21 AM Subscribe
I have a small amount of extra money in my monthly budget. What charitable organization should I consider giving this money? Should I keep it local, should I send it to support children in a developing country, are there other better options?
There is no one right answer to this.
What do you care about? Your donations should match your beliefs. When you talk about issues with friends, what do you keep coming home to? Is it the environment? Hunger? Education? Urban development? Disease research? If you had the power to completely solve just one of the world's (or the country's, or your city's) problems, which would you choose?
My pet causes are education and personal development, the eradication of racism, and environmental protection. Some of the charities I support are: the Quaker-based summer camp where I worked for 8 years, which integrates kids from all backgrounds; United Negro College Fund; Fresh Air Fund; Holiday Express (a local charity that brings a Christmas celebration/concert to homeless, poor, and disabled groups); The American Lung Association (because they helped me quit smoking and thus probably saved my life); the Surfrider Foundation and Clean Ocean Action (because I am a beach bum); several museums which I support through memberships and annual fund donations, and whatever charity my friends are walking/running/biking for each year. But obviously, YM willV based on your life experience and what concerns touch you most deeply.
posted by Miko at 10:39 AM on August 8, 2005
What do you care about? Your donations should match your beliefs. When you talk about issues with friends, what do you keep coming home to? Is it the environment? Hunger? Education? Urban development? Disease research? If you had the power to completely solve just one of the world's (or the country's, or your city's) problems, which would you choose?
My pet causes are education and personal development, the eradication of racism, and environmental protection. Some of the charities I support are: the Quaker-based summer camp where I worked for 8 years, which integrates kids from all backgrounds; United Negro College Fund; Fresh Air Fund; Holiday Express (a local charity that brings a Christmas celebration/concert to homeless, poor, and disabled groups); The American Lung Association (because they helped me quit smoking and thus probably saved my life); the Surfrider Foundation and Clean Ocean Action (because I am a beach bum); several museums which I support through memberships and annual fund donations, and whatever charity my friends are walking/running/biking for each year. But obviously, YM willV based on your life experience and what concerns touch you most deeply.
posted by Miko at 10:39 AM on August 8, 2005
For me, the local food bank is my charity of choice. It helps people who need it, without giving them the cash to go out and get blotto.
Second choice are the local no-kill pet shelters, one of which my wife volunteers at occasionally. They do excellent work and if the world was just and fair would replace PETAs and the SPCAs failing efforts.
For something on a grander scale, I like Doctors Without Borders quite a lot. Not much to complain about people who could be sitting in their nice homes living comfortable lives, yet instead travel to some of the unfriendliest places on earth to help victims of war, famine, and disease.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:44 AM on August 8, 2005
Second choice are the local no-kill pet shelters, one of which my wife volunteers at occasionally. They do excellent work and if the world was just and fair would replace PETAs and the SPCAs failing efforts.
For something on a grander scale, I like Doctors Without Borders quite a lot. Not much to complain about people who could be sitting in their nice homes living comfortable lives, yet instead travel to some of the unfriendliest places on earth to help victims of war, famine, and disease.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:44 AM on August 8, 2005
I think giving to the third world is the way to make your money go farthest - in terms of lives saved per dollar.
posted by handee at 10:53 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by handee at 10:53 AM on August 8, 2005
I know an orphanage in Pune, India that could use it. And also an organization that works with slum-dwellers to find legal living space. The slum-dwellers, in particular, have been pretty wiped out by the recent floods; most of their land is INSIDE the riverbanks.
But I don't want to push these, particularly. What I mean is that there are a thousand organizations that are worthwhile. If you can find one you make a personal connection with, it will be much easier to keep giving to them even if money gets a bit tighter later on. And this sort of sustained giving is really phenomenally useful, as it lets these organizations build long-running projects.
That sustained giving doesn't mean a whole lot to a ginormous organization like the ALA - they tend to work in the aggregate. But to a small organization (particularly in the third world), a bit of money regularly can mean a great deal. Of course, giving is giving, and the karma is the same either way - but it is nice to feel wanted.
I've got a bunch of contacts in the non-profit world of India and, through friends, in most countries of the world. Let me know if you'd like help getting in contact with any particular kind of organization out there in the third world.
(Actually, people working in Niger right now could definitely use it.)
posted by metaculpa at 10:56 AM on August 8, 2005
But I don't want to push these, particularly. What I mean is that there are a thousand organizations that are worthwhile. If you can find one you make a personal connection with, it will be much easier to keep giving to them even if money gets a bit tighter later on. And this sort of sustained giving is really phenomenally useful, as it lets these organizations build long-running projects.
That sustained giving doesn't mean a whole lot to a ginormous organization like the ALA - they tend to work in the aggregate. But to a small organization (particularly in the third world), a bit of money regularly can mean a great deal. Of course, giving is giving, and the karma is the same either way - but it is nice to feel wanted.
I've got a bunch of contacts in the non-profit world of India and, through friends, in most countries of the world. Let me know if you'd like help getting in contact with any particular kind of organization out there in the third world.
(Actually, people working in Niger right now could definitely use it.)
posted by metaculpa at 10:56 AM on August 8, 2005
Why not save your money and do volunteer or charity work on the weekends.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:59 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:59 AM on August 8, 2005
Start volunteering with an organization, and then donate your money to them as well. You'll get a lot more gratification from donating to them if you are a "part" of the charity, and if you are someone who helps out and personally experiences what the charity does. Also, you can gauge by volunteering if the organization seems like the type that will use your money wisely and effectively.
posted by apple scruff at 11:01 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by apple scruff at 11:01 AM on August 8, 2005
Response by poster: Thanks everyone for the wonderful links. It means a lot to me that you all wrote lengthy and well thought responses. I've been reading the idealist.org; It's a great resource, thanks phearlez.
apple and jesse, most of the year I work seven days a week at two different jobs, and so it's easier to give money than time.
posted by tumble at 11:11 AM on August 8, 2005
apple and jesse, most of the year I work seven days a week at two different jobs, and so it's easier to give money than time.
posted by tumble at 11:11 AM on August 8, 2005
Try Spirit of America. They have many ongoing projects, and you get to pick which one you want your money to go to. 100 percent of your donation goes to the project of your choice; overhead and administration costs are raised seperately.
posted by the_W at 11:14 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by the_W at 11:14 AM on August 8, 2005
Save your extra dollars and create an fund for your chosen charities. Keep adding your savings to the fund and only disburse the interest. If you invest carefully, even the principle can help a company that is somehow involved in the area that you would like to donate in. That way it's the gift that keeps giving!
posted by loquax at 11:18 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by loquax at 11:18 AM on August 8, 2005
That sustained giving doesn't mean a whole lot to a ginormous organization like the ALA - they tend to work in the aggregate.
I wouldn't worry too much about the size of the organization. I work for a large museum, and you'd be surprised what a big chunk of our budget comes from $20 and $25 donations and $35 annual memberships. We actually could not survive without these, and the same is true for the big organizations. After all, the 'aggregate' is just a lot of people giving what they can. As a fundraiser myself, I can attest that when giving falls off, long-range planning gets scaled back and projects grow less ambitious.
You can do big things when you've got a big group behind you. There is no small, local group that provided me the resources to quit smoking; only the ALA could put together a project of the scope of Freedom From Smoking, and fund the research behind it -- and they had the money because so many people have experienced lung disease in their lives, and want to fight it. Big charities seem to always be criticized for being big; but they're doing big things, and they need every supporter. They're not all bad.
posted by Miko at 11:20 AM on August 8, 2005
I wouldn't worry too much about the size of the organization. I work for a large museum, and you'd be surprised what a big chunk of our budget comes from $20 and $25 donations and $35 annual memberships. We actually could not survive without these, and the same is true for the big organizations. After all, the 'aggregate' is just a lot of people giving what they can. As a fundraiser myself, I can attest that when giving falls off, long-range planning gets scaled back and projects grow less ambitious.
You can do big things when you've got a big group behind you. There is no small, local group that provided me the resources to quit smoking; only the ALA could put together a project of the scope of Freedom From Smoking, and fund the research behind it -- and they had the money because so many people have experienced lung disease in their lives, and want to fight it. Big charities seem to always be criticized for being big; but they're doing big things, and they need every supporter. They're not all bad.
posted by Miko at 11:20 AM on August 8, 2005
Personally, I tend to go with larger, more national organizations for political goals, and local organizations for humanitarian ones.
I'd suggest the EFF as an example of a political organization, and any one of the zillion local housing or addiction programs that probably exist in your city (or close by) as an example of a humanitarian organization. If you live out in the country, and don't see any worthwhile groups closeby, you might consider giving money to an organization like Doctors Without Borders, Telecoms Without Borders, or The World Wildlife Fund.
One simple truth is as follows: if you don't have an awful lot of money that you're willing to give (like, maybe $20/mo or something), you should look for smaller charities. It's simply math: if the organization has donation revenues in the millions, your money (or lack thereof) will not significantly influence their operations. Your $20 will help the EFF, but it's going to be a lot more meaningful to your local animal shelter with an annual operating budget of $150,000.
On preview: you might also look at charitable organizations that provide you with a service you regularly use. An example of this might be a local symphony, NPR, or your library.
posted by Netzapper at 11:23 AM on August 8, 2005
I'd suggest the EFF as an example of a political organization, and any one of the zillion local housing or addiction programs that probably exist in your city (or close by) as an example of a humanitarian organization. If you live out in the country, and don't see any worthwhile groups closeby, you might consider giving money to an organization like Doctors Without Borders, Telecoms Without Borders, or The World Wildlife Fund.
One simple truth is as follows: if you don't have an awful lot of money that you're willing to give (like, maybe $20/mo or something), you should look for smaller charities. It's simply math: if the organization has donation revenues in the millions, your money (or lack thereof) will not significantly influence their operations. Your $20 will help the EFF, but it's going to be a lot more meaningful to your local animal shelter with an annual operating budget of $150,000.
On preview: you might also look at charitable organizations that provide you with a service you regularly use. An example of this might be a local symphony, NPR, or your library.
posted by Netzapper at 11:23 AM on August 8, 2005
This is a page that rates charities based (mostly) on how much of your donation goes through to help the needy.
I'm going to agree with handee, the best bang for your buck will be had donating to charities that operate in third world countries to provide basic needs: food, medicine, clean water and shelter. Some of my recommendations:
posted by thewittyname at 12:52 PM on August 8, 2005
I'm going to agree with handee, the best bang for your buck will be had donating to charities that operate in third world countries to provide basic needs: food, medicine, clean water and shelter. Some of my recommendations:
- Freedom From Hunger
- The Heifer Project
- UN World Food Program
- American Refugee Committee
- Doctors Without Borders/MSF
- CARE
- International Medical Corps
posted by thewittyname at 12:52 PM on August 8, 2005
Also take a look at Partners in Health, which was founded by Dr. Paul Farmer, a MacArthur Foundation Fellow and the subject of a book by Tracy Kidder, Mountains Beyond Mountains.
posted by mogget at 1:08 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by mogget at 1:08 PM on August 8, 2005
My family gives $25 per month to The Holt International Children's Fund Sponsor-a-child program. Most recently, we had sponsored an 11-year-old girl in Haiti, largely because we thought there was no way she was going to be adopted. We got pictures and reports of how she was doing, and then last month she got adopted. Yay! It may not be the most efficient use of money to get those reports, but it really keeps you involved and connected. We used to send that girl gifts and care packages, just trying to make her life a little lighter.
We believe Holt and its use of donations is above reproach, and they aren't doing the obnoxious charity-for-faith thing that I always worry more religious-mission-oriented groups are doing. In any case, thanks for trying to find some people you can help. Have fun selecting a charity you can believe in!
posted by Invoke at 2:11 PM on August 8, 2005
We believe Holt and its use of donations is above reproach, and they aren't doing the obnoxious charity-for-faith thing that I always worry more religious-mission-oriented groups are doing. In any case, thanks for trying to find some people you can help. Have fun selecting a charity you can believe in!
posted by Invoke at 2:11 PM on August 8, 2005
Do it anonymously. You will quickly get very very tired of being harassed for more money otherwise.
posted by joseppi7 at 2:14 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by joseppi7 at 2:14 PM on August 8, 2005
Have you looked at Modest Needs? (Posted on MeFi twice three years ago, here and here.) IIRC, part of the appeal was how transparent it is with its financials, showing all the requests made and every specific request funded, with details of exactly where the donations are going; and that the founder committed a portion of his own small salary to it every month also.
posted by Melinika at 2:44 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by Melinika at 2:44 PM on August 8, 2005
Just another 2c about charity finances. The AIP site cautions:
Because many factors determine a worthy charity, we at the AIP suggest that you use the ratings on this page not as the sole determining factor in your decision, but rather as an aid.
Certainly, the percentage of donations that go to a cause is an important measure of how effective it can be. However, and this is a major point, a charity that spends a lot on admin is not necessarily evil. I've worked in not-for-profits all my life, and I can tell you that cause-minded people do not always make good managers - of money, people, or resources. Not-for-profits can become havens for the mediocre who are afraid they won't cut it in the business world. For this reason, you can't swing a cat in most nonprofits without hitting a handful of lazy, unproductive people who believe their pureness of heart devotion to the cause is enough to give them a pass on poor performance.
Therefore, not-for-profits that make success a priority will often increase administrative costs in order to hire and retain better staff. The salaries are never as high as they would be in the private sector for similar work, so perks and benefits are much more important. Providing health insurance for your staff is a worthy goal. Paying good people for their valuable time and skill, rather than rely solely ing on volunteers, is a worthy goal. Hiring the best, most effective people is a worthy goal. Being a good workplace -- not an overworked, compassion-fatigued mill -- is a worthy goal.
I'm not knocking the small charities, mind you, and I agree that your dollars may have more power there. But one day a small, successful charity may become a big one, and that doesn't mean it's lost its soul. So % of donations to service target is important, but not everything. Really healthy organizations use some donation money to make the organization better, stronger, longer-lasting; they shouldn't be penalized for that.
posted by Miko at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2005
Because many factors determine a worthy charity, we at the AIP suggest that you use the ratings on this page not as the sole determining factor in your decision, but rather as an aid.
Certainly, the percentage of donations that go to a cause is an important measure of how effective it can be. However, and this is a major point, a charity that spends a lot on admin is not necessarily evil. I've worked in not-for-profits all my life, and I can tell you that cause-minded people do not always make good managers - of money, people, or resources. Not-for-profits can become havens for the mediocre who are afraid they won't cut it in the business world. For this reason, you can't swing a cat in most nonprofits without hitting a handful of lazy, unproductive people who believe their pureness of heart devotion to the cause is enough to give them a pass on poor performance.
Therefore, not-for-profits that make success a priority will often increase administrative costs in order to hire and retain better staff. The salaries are never as high as they would be in the private sector for similar work, so perks and benefits are much more important. Providing health insurance for your staff is a worthy goal. Paying good people for their valuable time and skill, rather than rely solely ing on volunteers, is a worthy goal. Hiring the best, most effective people is a worthy goal. Being a good workplace -- not an overworked, compassion-fatigued mill -- is a worthy goal.
I'm not knocking the small charities, mind you, and I agree that your dollars may have more power there. But one day a small, successful charity may become a big one, and that doesn't mean it's lost its soul. So % of donations to service target is important, but not everything. Really healthy organizations use some donation money to make the organization better, stronger, longer-lasting; they shouldn't be penalized for that.
posted by Miko at 2:50 PM on August 8, 2005
Just my $.02, but have you considered the Shriners hospitals for children? They have top-notch surgeons doing life saving and life altering work for people whose lives have barely begun.
posted by mystyk at 3:31 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by mystyk at 3:31 PM on August 8, 2005
Do it anonymously. You will quickly get very very tired of being harassed for more money otherwise.
in my experience, it is the large charities that are the worst about getting you off their mailing list (and the most aggressive in sending frequent solicitations). i wish more charities made it easier to not get on their mailing list in the first place, but i can understand why they mine their lists as aggressively as they do — as miko said, the large organizations depend on a large number of small donations.
all that said, i would happily endorse any of the charities i have donated to over the last few years. personally, i have been focusing more on charities local to me recently.
posted by jimw at 5:07 PM on August 8, 2005
in my experience, it is the large charities that are the worst about getting you off their mailing list (and the most aggressive in sending frequent solicitations). i wish more charities made it easier to not get on their mailing list in the first place, but i can understand why they mine their lists as aggressively as they do — as miko said, the large organizations depend on a large number of small donations.
all that said, i would happily endorse any of the charities i have donated to over the last few years. personally, i have been focusing more on charities local to me recently.
posted by jimw at 5:07 PM on August 8, 2005
Of course it entirely depends on your personal causes and motivations. Reiterating others, I believe that third-world human and environmental concerns (irretrievably intertwined) are the most in need of cash and can take your dollar the furthest. There are far too many options for giving, sadly, but I would favour the larger organisations, which may have expensive infrastructure and overheads, but have the biggest reach and ability to intervene strategically. Red Cross, for example, operates hercules aircraft: expensive overheads, incredibly useful when dropping supplies where trucks wont reach.
posted by wilful at 5:45 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by wilful at 5:45 PM on August 8, 2005
I wanted to second the suggestion to start a charity "nest egg" and donate all or a portion of the interest from that. Not only will you see your charitable contributions grow over time, but if you're relatively young, this will allow you to have a sizable endowment that you can give upon your passing (if you so desire). This gives you a lifetime to find the perfect charity and bequeath it your "nest egg', allowing you to continue giving long after you've departed for the Elysian Fields.
posted by forforf at 6:09 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by forforf at 6:09 PM on August 8, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
For local giving I personally think there are few better charities than ones that deal with stray pets. Every $1 likely makes a difference in how long a found animal gets to live after it is brought in. Local organizations that get people jobs or help them cope with addiction likely will have the most secondary benifit to you of making where you live a better place for YOU to live. You can check Idealist for places.
posted by phearlez at 10:38 AM on August 8, 2005