Solicited charitable contributions, that is. Wounded Warrior Project, another similar group for disabled veterans, Shriner’s Hospital, the one for homeless or abused pets, probably others that I’m not thinking of. The commercials are all heavy on the heartstring tugs and sympathy-inducing visuals. Is there some industry-standard guidebook for these appeals, or are they all done by the same agency? Or maybe it’s a charity conglomerate, and they stick with what works.
I don’t, frankly, trust these organizations to do what they say they do, above and beyond making money for the people running them. Call me cynical.
There are tools to research charities.
You can find out about overhead and salaries.
I think we all know how much and how often some of the big ones have been abused by their CEOs and staff, but you are correct that a lot of smaller ones are also not a great use of your limited resource of charitable dollars.
Let me see if I can find the tools I use to use to check out charities. I haven’t done so in years.
I will say United Way has a terrible record and please use your money somewhere else.
Hopefully this Consumer Reports quick review isn’t behind a paywall:
Thank you, that last bit was just a passing remark, and I am aware of the existence of such tools.
My real question is in the thread title – how is it they all land on exactly the same “pricing” strategy, and why do they all offer a blanket as a little prize for giving?
Oh, I can’t help with that part. The charities I mostly give to give out reusable shopping bags, LED flashlights, stuffed animals or just a newsletter and a thank you. Mine are overwhelmingly environmental and wildlife groups.
For what it is worth: Wounded Warriors Family Support (Omaha, Neb.) got a good rating from Consumers.
More precisely, they’ve done research (or read research by other groups) which says that if they spend X amount of money on a certain item, they can expect that over the next few years they can expect the person they send the item to will donate enough money for it to be worthwhile to have spent X on buying and sending the person that item.
In my experience, it’s not always $19 and rarely a blanket. Might depend what list you’re on. Having spent months unsubscribing an older relative from enormous mountains of solicitations, I will say that many aren’t actually separate organizations, and a great many are outright fraudulent, not what they purport to be, or fast and loose with your money.
Guidestar, Charity Navigator, and AARP have useful information on charities as well as “charities.”
Wounded Warrior Project claims it’s not a scam, yet here’s an article from Fox:
and CBS:
Suggesting this isn’t your best donation option (even if you like the blanket).
Personally, I would be less concerned about the honesty of the charity as the value of charitableness to begin with.
My expectation would be that, in your region, the local and central governments collect taxes to support programs that help domestic people. They hire professionals to oversee these programs, they track numbers to ensure that they’re operating effectively, they ensure that the various programs work together as a cohesive whole, and (ideally) they try to ensure that the programs actually have a positive effect on society.
Random charities each have their own idea of what’s good for the world - which might not be true - they’re usually using volunteers who are more interested in making themselves feel good than in helping out (and often aren’t the most reasonably-minded of humanity), and they’re running in conflict and competition with the programs that you voted to enact and are paying taxes for.
Even for foreign aid, where your government doesn’t have direct control, it’s still likely that most charities are operating without any clear benefit to the recipients. Helping people is more difficult than chucking a sandwich over a fence every once in a while. Just as likely, that leads to the biggest strongest guy taking that spot on the other side of the fence, and you’re helping him to get bigger and stronger, so that he can repress the others more thoroughly.
You really need to research that the organizations have a model to help people that actually helps people. They should be able to prove that they can perform better than a control. That is not true of nearly all of them.
The vast, vast majority of charitable spending is for the sake of the giver, not the recipient. You’re better to save your money, pay your taxes, and make sure to elect smart people who will review all this stuff critically.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, these are TV commercials, usually on channels with programming that appeals to seniors (to judge by the constant Medicare supplement commercials during that season every year).
You’ve just described Scrooge’s position when he asked about the poorhouses and refused to give. And it shows exactly the issue: what the government does is never going to be enough. The poorhouses were horrible places that provided far less than any moral person would think was appropriate.
You can no more rely on the government than you can on a charity. You need to look at exactly what they do, and whether it aligns with your values. Your broad brush statement is not remotely true: most charities are not about “making the people feel good.” You can directly look at what they have accomplished, and decide whether or not you support that. Heck, with “boots on the ground” charities, you can even directly see the people who get helped: the kid who gets a toy that they wouldn’t get, the houses that get built, the people who don’t go hungry, the new school music program or donated instruments, the new law that gets passed, and so on. Whatever the charity, you can look at the output.
Sure, you are free to argue that too much of the money gets wasted, and that your money would be better spent elsewhere. But then, are you spending it to do good elsewhere? Or are you just using that as a reason not to support anything?
Two hundred years ago, the way that people thought was that if a person wouldn’t be taken care of by their family, then probably they weren’t worth saving.
The way that we think of this today is that you should prove that you’re helping before trying to put someone on a regimen to change their quality of life. The assumption that you’re doing it right is how you get witch doctors and snake oil salesmen.
First: Do no harm.
I’ve read dozens of studies on the actual effectiveness of charitable efforts, versus control groups. As I recall, the most effective was (in India) to send women around to teach new wives about contraceptives. Nearly everything else resulted in little-to-no-change or a negative result for one reason or another.
I wish that wasn’t true, but it is. Helping people in a meaningful and lasting way is very difficult to accomplish and requires as much effort to accomplish as performing surgery or developing a vaccine.
If you’re worried that your government isn’t doing enough or would not do enough, elect better people and vote to have your taxes raised.
Hm, funny. My mom just commented on exactly this same question yesterday. And yes, it was while watching a TV channel targeted at seniors (in her case, M*A*S*H).
I am a single person. I can’t make the government support every cause that I want in the way that I want them to. I am not the lone person who controls everything. Other people vote.
For example, I support trans people and trans charities. Now what chance do you think we have in 2021 for the US government to support trans people? You know, with both the TERFs and conservatives voting against it? And is there any way the foster home I just supported to get Christmas gifts would get them from the government?
With a charity, I can offer my support to causes I support. As for whether they actually help? Again I can check their output. I can check to see if they have actually helped anyone. I can see if their projects came to anything. I can look at the numbers of people they helped. I don’t have to rely on some broad brush study, which I’m sure did not (and could not) actually test every type of charity out there.
You keep on talking about weird things that have nothing to do with how most charities work. No, charity doesn’t generally prevent government aid. No, charity doesn’t usually involve forcing people into some sort of regimen. (The government, however, often does the latter.)
Look, the end results of your recommendation are not good. The government won’t help because not everyone agrees that they should be helped. (Plus people have other concerns.) And you say we shouldn’t give to charities because you think all of them are scams that just make people feel good.
So the result of your recommendation is that nothing ever gets done. Just as it was with Scrooge.
Huh, I’ve never gotten a blanket. I did charity gifts for the holidays for a few years through some clever organizations that marketed the gifts in fun ways, like if you donated $X to the clean water fund in someone’s name, that person would get a nice stainless steel water bottle. Gave you something to put under the tree, made it feel less like the Human Fund.
There are a variety of things that charities give as presents for donations. Blankets (which are too small to completely cover anyone except a baby) are fairly recent such items. Water bottles, plush stuffed animals, socks (with designs on them), jackets, scarves, mugs, hats, umbrellas, and tote bags are other such items. They give you pens, calendars, address labels (and other such stickers), yearly planning booklets, notepads, greeting cards (with envelopes), bookmarks, maps, wrapping paper, and other such items in their solicitation letters before they even get any money from you.