How I decide where to give – and not give

I have the impression that most people give in response to requests for money, but I try not to do that. Instead, I try to think proactively about what I most care about and where I think my money would do the most good, and then give there.

It starts with being aware of the world. What do I think are the biggest problems locally, nationally, and globally? I then look for organizations that try to solve these problems, and try to evaluate how effective they are.

I read the organizations’ websites, of course, and if I am contemplating giving a significant amount I look at their annual reports. I also take a look at what the charity rating organizations have to say. And I rely on other sources – books, articles, and word of mouth – to help me understand the context of a particular charity and its work.

It’s really hard to evaluate effectiveness. Because of the recent focus on accountability, more organizations are trying to measure objectively, with hard numbers, the results of their programs. I applaud that effort, and want to see it continue, but I also know that the world is complex and interconnected and it’s often difficult to trace cause and effect.

Say a group is teaching farmers how to improve their yields and diets by including fish in their rice paddies, and a drought devastates all crops in the region. Does that mean their work was a failure and not worth trying again? Say Massachusetts passes a particular piece of environmental legislation. How do we apportion credit among the multiple groups that were working on it? The real world is tricky.

So when I can I try to talk with someone who is in the midst of things and get their perspective on the organizations in their area. I can’t always do that, of course, but I find such personal perspectives extremely helpful.

When I start to feel overwhelmed, I remind myself that perfection is not required. If an organization is doing good work, other people will support it too, and I will eventually hear about it. If some of the money I give is wasted, that’s unfortunate, but it’s more unfortunate if my fear of doing the wrong thing makes me give nothing at all.

It bothers me, though, when people sometimes suggest that I shouldn’t think critically about how effectively my donations would be used. What is most important, they seem to suggest, is the state of my spirit – whether I am giving generously and open-heartedly, not what happens after that. Frankly, the state of my spirit isn’t that important. I want to make an actual difference in the world, even though it’s inevitably a small one. If I give money ineffectively in one direction, that means I have less to give in other directions.

For the same reasons, I rarely put cash into a basket that is being passed around. I prefer to make my decisions mindfully, after some research and consideration, and I prefer to get the federal tax deduction for documented charitable giving, which enables me to give more in total. Sometimes I give a few dollars on impulse, especially if I have some relationship with those passing the basket. But usually, if an organization sounds good, I add it to the list of groups worth researching, and if it is as good as it sounds I’ll usually give more than one would ever put in a basket.

I never give in response to telephone calls or individuals on the street. These methods of fundraising are inefficient, so relatively little of the money raised goes to the programs they ostensibly support. Sometimes they are outright scams. More often the charity just spends a lot on paying people to raise money, and relies on guilt and personal pressure to make their funding goals. I want to have time to evaluate a charity before donating to it, and I object to the invasiveness of phone calls.

I therefore generally warn organizations that call me for donations that I don’t make decisions on the phone and if they call me a second time I will never donate again. The exception is smaller local charities, where the person calling is a staff member and one of the purposes of their call is to develop a personal connection with donors. Larger charities generally hire a specialized fundraising company to make phone calls on their behalf, which is a very different thing.

I am also wary of giving in response to emergencies – earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Human need is immense under these circumstances, but a flood of people and money can produce more chaos than anything else. At my distance, I cannot hope to evaluate which organizations have the organizational capacity to do anything useful in a particular place. So I generally prefer to support organizations that do both general development work and emergency relief work, such as Oxfam, and let them decide where their resources are best spent. Their staff know so much more than I possibly can about where the needs and the opportunities to make a difference are greatest.

If I want to help with a particular disaster, I look for organizations that were already working in that area and find out whether their websites are asking for additional donations. Sometimes responsible organizations, such as Doctors Without Borders, will indicate that they simply have no more ability to spend money effectively in a particular location. The same is often true for organizations that were not already on the ground when the disaster struck, but they may be less candid in admitting it.

I thought a lot about what my donations are for when I joined my church. On the one hand, I know that religious institutions need money to survive. Indeed, pretty soon I was chair of my church’s property committee, and I experienced first-hand what a tight budget meant. Among other things, our sanctuary was a deep dark cave, since the architect hadn’t included any plans for how to replace light bulbs at the ceiling without renting a crane. One of my major projects was running a $35,000 fundraising campaign to install workable light fixtures and make other much-needed improvements. The sanctuary is much more friendly, welcoming, and functional as a result.

On the other hand, I struggled with the idea of reducing my other charitable donations in order to give to First Parish. Most of my donations went to people who were struggling with poverty and needed basics like reliable food and clean water. Other donations went to try to prevent the growing disaster of climate change. How could I justify taking resources away from these important endeavors in order to give them to comparatively affluent and comfortable Arlington residents?

Ultimately I decided that I couldn’t include donations to First Parish in the ten percent of my income I “give to the world.” I care about my congregation, a lot, and I have given it significant amounts of time, energy, love, and money. I believe this sort of community is very valuable for its members, and I believe in the values we share and reinforce in each other. But much of what my congregation does is good for my congregation, and only indirectly benefits any larger group. The IRS considers religious donations tax-deductible, and I accept the deduction, but it seems to me that religious donations benefit primarily the donors and their friends.

So my approach to giving is rather hard-headed. I don’t want to be swayed by my emotions, by guilt or sentimentality or peer pressure. I try to plan ahead, and make long-term investments in effective programs, rather than respond to the emergency of the week. My goal is to truly help improve other people’s well-being.

See also: Why ten percent?