Should we be encouraging charitable giving? Having worked in the charitable sector myself, I’d answer in the negative. It’s extremely wasteful of resources, has broken feedback processes, and mostly acts to benefit “insiders” within charities.
I don’t work much in the charitable sector, but this flies against a lot of my experience in fundraising. Could you elaborate?
~
If this idea becomes thoroughly embedded in society, I am sure that the effect on charitable giving will be salutary.
Wasteful of resources: For example, I used to be involved in a hospital charity, which among other things ran a shop in the hospital. This was a prime concession location, but the store was run at a loss. Nor was this because they charged lower prices; the store was horrible, and they were just incompetent in many ways, particularly stock management. A private company would have run that store as a better service to hospital patrons, while using fewer resources. This is typical of so much charitable operations: they get given special favours by government because of entrenched anti-market bias, and then squander them.
Broken feedback processes: Most donors don’t give based on the good their money can do. Frankly most donors don’t have the information to even begin to evaluate that. But nor, for the most part, do they seek it. And even the charity typically doesn’t know. I used to work for a Christian environmental charity. I think we were doing a good job, but there were no real benchmarks, no way to really gauge. All we really did was measure inputs and activity. And that’s all donors wanted to hear about too—as well as platitudes about our mission statement, etc. Pure feel-good nonsense. I now work in the private sector and it’s night and day. I’m not going to pretend that the problems I’m working on are as important, but I’m damn sure we’re solving them to the satisfaction of the people who want them solved.
Benefits insiders: For example, at that hospital charity, the treasurer wanted to overhaul the shop, for the benefit of hospital patrons and the charity’s bottom line, but wasn’t allowed to, because it would have upset the volunteers. At that environmental charity, the fundamental driving force was the whims and interests of the workers and volunteers, not a clear-headed weighing of pros and cons. And indeed, how could there be, given the broken feedback processes? So many charities (including MIRI) have been victims of theft, fraud and other abuse by insiders, in ways that would never happen in the private sector because the controls and processes are so different.
Does this mean that all charities are terrible and should be eliminated? No. Does this mean that all private companies are perfect? No. But, on that margin, I’d like to see more problems solved by market activity and fewer by charity.
Why?
Because if we have a cultural shift such that giving to charity is seen as a low-status act done only by show-offs rather than concerned individuals, we’ll see less charitable giving, and those who do give will only be the genuinely concerned.
Obviously there are examples of ineffective organizations, but I don’t think that makes fundraising a net bad. (Though, perhaps one could argue that overall funding could shift money away from more effective organizations, and that would be a net bad.)
~
Because if we have a cultural shift such that giving to charity is seen as a low-status act done only by show-offs rather than concerned individuals
I have written a lengthy and detailed comment in response to your questions, and you have not engaged with what I wrote, but just followed up with more general questions. As a result I am disinclined to continue this conversation.
I can understand why you would be disincentivized to continue and I appreciate what you’ve contributed so far. But I felt like a lot of what you wrote about was not relevant to what I was writing about.
You seemed to argue that ineffective organizations exist. I acknowledge that, but also argue that effective organizations exist. Do you deny that effective orgs exist or do you think it would be counterproductive to fundraise for effective organizations as well?
You seemed to argue that ineffective organizations exist. I acknowledge that, but also argue that effective organizations exist. Do you deny that effective orgs exist or do you think it would be counterproductive to fundraise for effective organizations as well?
Why re-ask these questions when I’ve already answered them? To recapitulate...
“Does this mean that all charities are terrible and should be eliminated? No. Does this mean that all private companies are perfect? No. But, on that margin, I’d like to see more problems solved by market activity and fewer by charity.” [emphasis added]
I understand that’s what you’re saying. But how do you draw from that the conclusion that you’d “answer in the negative” the question “[s]hould we be encouraging charitable giving?”
I don’t work much in the charitable sector, but this flies against a lot of my experience in fundraising. Could you elaborate?
~
Why?
Sure, but you’ll understand if I am non-specific.
Wasteful of resources: For example, I used to be involved in a hospital charity, which among other things ran a shop in the hospital. This was a prime concession location, but the store was run at a loss. Nor was this because they charged lower prices; the store was horrible, and they were just incompetent in many ways, particularly stock management. A private company would have run that store as a better service to hospital patrons, while using fewer resources. This is typical of so much charitable operations: they get given special favours by government because of entrenched anti-market bias, and then squander them.
Broken feedback processes: Most donors don’t give based on the good their money can do. Frankly most donors don’t have the information to even begin to evaluate that. But nor, for the most part, do they seek it. And even the charity typically doesn’t know. I used to work for a Christian environmental charity. I think we were doing a good job, but there were no real benchmarks, no way to really gauge. All we really did was measure inputs and activity. And that’s all donors wanted to hear about too—as well as platitudes about our mission statement, etc. Pure feel-good nonsense. I now work in the private sector and it’s night and day. I’m not going to pretend that the problems I’m working on are as important, but I’m damn sure we’re solving them to the satisfaction of the people who want them solved.
Benefits insiders: For example, at that hospital charity, the treasurer wanted to overhaul the shop, for the benefit of hospital patrons and the charity’s bottom line, but wasn’t allowed to, because it would have upset the volunteers. At that environmental charity, the fundamental driving force was the whims and interests of the workers and volunteers, not a clear-headed weighing of pros and cons. And indeed, how could there be, given the broken feedback processes? So many charities (including MIRI) have been victims of theft, fraud and other abuse by insiders, in ways that would never happen in the private sector because the controls and processes are so different.
Does this mean that all charities are terrible and should be eliminated? No. Does this mean that all private companies are perfect? No. But, on that margin, I’d like to see more problems solved by market activity and fewer by charity.
Because if we have a cultural shift such that giving to charity is seen as a low-status act done only by show-offs rather than concerned individuals, we’ll see less charitable giving, and those who do give will only be the genuinely concerned.
Obviously there are examples of ineffective organizations, but I don’t think that makes fundraising a net bad. (Though, perhaps one could argue that overall funding could shift money away from more effective organizations, and that would be a net bad.)
~
Why do you think that would happen?
I have written a lengthy and detailed comment in response to your questions, and you have not engaged with what I wrote, but just followed up with more general questions. As a result I am disinclined to continue this conversation.
I can understand why you would be disincentivized to continue and I appreciate what you’ve contributed so far. But I felt like a lot of what you wrote about was not relevant to what I was writing about.
You seemed to argue that ineffective organizations exist. I acknowledge that, but also argue that effective organizations exist. Do you deny that effective orgs exist or do you think it would be counterproductive to fundraise for effective organizations as well?
Why re-ask these questions when I’ve already answered them? To recapitulate...
“Does this mean that all charities are terrible and should be eliminated? No. Does this mean that all private companies are perfect? No. But, on that margin, I’d like to see more problems solved by market activity and fewer by charity.” [emphasis added]
I understand that’s what you’re saying. But how do you draw from that the conclusion that you’d “answer in the negative” the question “[s]hould we be encouraging charitable giving?”