Ship of Fools: Charities

Thread: Charities Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027017

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

When it comes to supporting a charity, what would be your preference, a big international or small local?

Any favourites that you always like to support when you can?

What would influence you to donate to a particular charity?

[ 15. March 2014, 05:31: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

The charity I donate to most often is my local church, but we have managed to get said church to pass quite a lot of it on to the needy, so I have some confidence in it.

The food banks here are well and transparently run. The street mission we often donate to is open to volunteers and accountability.. Larger charities...meh. I trust that some actually do spend most of their money appropriately, but remain a bit sceptical. Is flying another worker out to a school in Guatemala more valuable than sending the money to be spent locally (creating employment as well as service)? Maybe, but not always.

Big-name, much-advertised stuff - count out the pennies carefully.

And "educational" tours (=photo-ops) are always to be forced to be accountable in attitude as well as money.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I prefer local charities where I know the need and I know some of the people involved.

Two that I favor are the Valley Interfaith Childcare Center, which offers high quality childcare to low-income families and the Interfaith Food Pantry. I know people who work at both of these. They fill real needs and are not wasteful.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ours are mainly person-to-person, like writing a check to cover somebody's doctor bill or what have you. That's because of the life situation we're in, with Mr Lamb as a pastor and a regular supply of such situations coming to hand. But it's embarrassing because our host congregation (and tax guy!) are under the impression we give no charitable $$ at all (the direct thingy not being funneled through a reportable agency, and therefore not being justifiable to the IRS either). [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I give to the church both local and national outreach and I am pleased to see how it is spent in making the world a better place, with next to no overhead costs. I also like that in times of national disasters they are in for the long hall years rather then months.

I give to other local needs such as the local fire department. I give to local high school, senior center, and library. I simply think we need to support our friends and neighbors. I feel a need to buy cookies from the girl scouts, but this is totally in my own self interest. Oh those thin mints.

I never give money to any organization that calls me on the phone.

Finally I give money to an organization that does outreach to those who are incarcerated, because I know personally of the good work they do.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

90% of my charitable giving last year was planned. I set up (mainly) monthly donations to a range of causes, and give a one-off donation at Christmas. There's a large international relief agency in there, but the rest are much more niche.

The rest is given through friendraising activity: supporting people trough Movember, Dry July and similar causes. I only occasionally respond to disaster appeals or to street collections.

In Australia, general offerings to churches are not tax-deductible, although we have charitable funds for heritage and music that do attract tax deductions, so part of my regular giving goes that way.

I made a decision some time ago not to support the relief agencies of the churches, particularly my own, because of the churches' homophobic stance. I informed the agencies of that reason as I withdrew my support.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I never give money to any organization that calls me on the phone.

Ditto. Or chuggers.

In the days before gift aid I would sometimes respond to junk mail that nonetheless touched my heart by sending just plain cash without attribution, so as not to perpetuate the junk mailing. Sadly gift aid requires name and address, so I just grit my teeth and await the inevitable deluge.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

I favour Acts435. It allows you to give pretty much directly to a person's need rather than going into a general pot. The running costs of the charity are funded from the gift aid received.

It's always difficult to choose a charity because of the question: why this one and not that one?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
When it comes to supporting a charity, what would be your preference, a big national or small local?

One church I pastored always had a charitable "Cause of the Month". Although there were a few hardy perennials such as Lifeboats, we generally favoured local charities which could not afford to advertise, and to whom our small donation would make a real difference.

Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :

I actively support two charities, I make a small regular donation of money to a children's hospice and I donate fabric to a charity that makes clothes for premature, still born babies. In both cases I had heard about the charities via third parties and researched them before deciding to support then, neither charity approached me for support.

There are also charities that I support passively, i.e. I will put a few coins in a collection box or envelope.

There are also charities that I will not support

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Christian Aid - because it consults and works with the people it helps and has less overheads than many similar agencies.

Other than that, I avoid charities because they bind wounds when we should be politically active about what/who causes the wounds in the first place.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christian Aid - because it consults and works with the people it helps and has less overheads than many similar agencies.

Other than that, I avoid charities because they bind wounds when we should be politically active about what/who causes the wounds in the first place.

I have in the past counted campaigning organisations (so not strictly charities) within my target percentage for giving, although I don't have any such groups on my list at the moment. I also believe that charities should not be necessary, but I'm not very good at putting my mouth and pen where my principles are, so I use money too.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Split between local and national.

Nationally I support the Children's Society; a charity for seafarers and fishermen; a bursary fund for choir schools; the Welsh equivalent of English Heritage; and a charity for deaf children.

Locally I support the local hospice - I did in any case but they were wonderful when my late-lamented was dying and afterwards. I also give time, money and goods to the local night-shelter, and pass on stuff to the local food bank. Plus all the usual things like going into one of the local schools to hear children read, and providing emergency transport as required for the hospice.

It goes without saying that I support the church where I work.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I am the exact opposite of leo, as I look for charities which avoid campaigning and stick to practical attempts to help people.

I liked the look of the one the Alethiophile has mentioned, and have signed up to it yesterday.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christian Aid - because it consults and works with the people it helps and has less overheads than many similar agencies.

Other than that, I avoid charities because they bind wounds when we should be politically active about what/who causes the wounds in the first place.

I agree with the need for political action, but disagree with your second para, because if we wait for the political process to take care of the wounded, a lot of them won't survive the wait.

The charities I avoid now are those that tempt the punters with extravagant lottery prizes. In Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Cancer Society, and even Amnesty International are particularly bad, and I try to find other ways to make my money work. It's not much money, but I don't want it to pay for my neighbour's new car, and I don't want to be the beneficiary of other people's gambling losses.

The best charities, to my mind, are those where unconditional aid is given to the hungry, the sick, the homeless and the oppressed. That's what the church ought to be able to do, and if the recipients ask why we do it, then we can tell them. If not, we do it anyway.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Personally, I won't support anything with a telethon where celebrities pose in front of the cameras and tell you a sob story with an appropriately photogenic child during the course of one evening. There's the whole of the rest of the year to go and lots of less photogenic children - and adults - who need help but never get into that spotlight.

There are also some huge international charities that do good work, but their marketing departments can be utterly relentless if they get hold of your name. After a protracted experience of unwanted junk mail from one, I was so annoyed that I resolved never to support them again (except possibly with an anonymous cash donation).

The two charities I particularly like at the moment aren't particularly high profile and don't do flashy advertising, but are quietly working away to help homeless people get back into mainstream life, and to help children who are victims of war to rebuild their lives, get some skills and education, etc.

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :

I support my local cathedral parish and occasionally other deserving charities. I gave an old Honda to the Kidney Foundation a few years ago.

My late grandfather was chairman of Community Chess in LA County the year I was born. The charity is now known as United Way.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I support Christian World Service as my only overseas charity, but apart from that I have been supporting only local charities since the quakes as some people are much worse of than they were.

I also need to find out where I can donate some money to Tonga as they sent money to help Christchurch straight after the quakes, which really moved me.

Some years ago Greenpeace had chuggers outside the library and I was stopped numerous times. In an effort to get away from them I muttered "Nuke the whales". The collector said, "That's not very nice". "nor is being bullied everytime I use the library" I said.

I wasn't approached again.

[ 13. March 2014, 09:14: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

Local Church: used to be main vehicle, >50%, but given inward looking nature of the church I now tend to give a share of the running costs and give more directly to charities.

Christian Aid: now my main focus, more because of the practical stuff it does in the field through local partnerships, particularly through their "in their lifetime" initiative, than because of the campaigning.

Homelessness charities: esp those with whom my partner is involved. made some shift from campaigning charities to those doing practical stuff on the ground.

Other as moved - esp appeals.

Churches and Cathedrals I visit. But I prefer put in collection than pay for coffee.

Various cultural societies to which I belong..

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :

I've heard people say you should give 10% to your parish, and everything else is on top of that. I'm afraid that for me, there wouldn't be much else as I am not as sacrificial as they!

Our interim rector summed up nicely what I've been doing: Give to the parish, and then give to organizations that do the work of the church that we can't really do because we're so small. So for me that means monthly automatic payments evenly split between the parish, Episcopal Relief & Development, and Free the Slaves.* The rest is one-off donations to organizations like Amnesty International, as well as $1 to the first panhandler who asks me each day (doesn't happen every day!), & after that I consider whether to give to them or not.

*Not an explicitly Christian organization, but the work is definitely consistent with Christian values.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I've heard people say you should give 10% to your parish, and everything else is on top of that.

Also doesn't work well if you're part of a church that doesn't use a parish system.

Though interestingly my church itself tithes by giving 10% of its gross income to other local churches, including those with whom we would disagree doctrinally. As far as I can tell, we don't receive a similar tithe from other churches, which makes me wonder if this is unusual.

It's certainly a nice touch.

Posted by The Intrepid Mrs S (# 17002) on :

The church, first of all.

Then two local charities that run both the food bank where Mr. S volunteers, and various other ways of helping the poor, the hungry and the (metaphorically) naked, in our neck of the woods. That way we know exactly where the money is spent.

Then a charity that works in our link diocese in Uganda, helping set up things like a tree nursery, woodworking and tailoring training and so on. Again, we know where every penny goes and it isn't on Toyota Land Cruisers or the like.

Finally a part of the CMS working with street children in the DRC.

No postal appeals, no telephones, no multinationals. And certainly not the RSPCA or Guide Dogs for the Blind, seeing the hotels their workers stay in [Mad]

BTW, telling chuggers that you funnel all your giving through a Charities Aid Foundation account is very effective, as they can't accept money that way but it stops them trying to guilt you into anything [Two face]

Mrs. S, sneaky

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I've heard people say you should give 10% to your parish, and everything else is on top of that. I'm afraid that for me, there wouldn't be much else as I am not as sacrificial as they!

This idea of tithing does not take into account that we are already paying 25% to income tax. Some of that goes towards 3rd world aid, social services, education, national health service - all things which the church used to do.

Jesus wanted us to give to the poor and needy - not sure what he'd say about paying for the upkeep of church roofs etc.

[ 14. March 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :

Leo, I suppose every person has to decide for him/herself whether paying taxes makes a difference. I guess I feel that's just a cost of living, but I can see the counter-argument. As with whether 10% is off the top or net.

TheAlethiophile, sorry for the confusion. When I said "parish," I just meant the church one attends.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But the whole tithing thing is based on Early Israel's income tax.

People who give 10% to the church cannot claim that they are being biblical.

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :

If I understand you, leo, you're saying that we should consider that at least some portion of our "tithe" has already been paid because we pay income tax, and that money goes to things that one's tithe went to in ancient Israel when the idea originated? Correct me if I'm not getting it.

That's what I was assuming when I said I could see the counter-argument. I can't say I've given it a lot of thought, but I guess I've assumed that depending on who's in office at the moment and what they're doing, my taxes may be used for good or for ill. Always some of both, of course. But my donations reflect my intention to support what I think to be godly work, so I need to have more control over them.

I can see I could give this more thought. Is this getting purgatorial?

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

To me, tithing is a misunderstood Old Testament legal provision: as much a part of the law of Moses as circumcision, offering up burnt offerings, and the like. Attempts to work out whether income tax is included, or whether it all "belongs" to the "local church" (whatever that is), is all part of the anachronism of trying to apply OT Jewish law to modern gentile life. Do we (men) also marry our widowed sisters in law if they have had no children?

The NT standard, as far as I can see, is simpler: "Freely you have received, freely give" (Matt 10.8). We are meant to learn to enjoy giving - "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7). We are called to be generous because God is lavishly generous to us.

And I don't understand the OP's distinguishing between local and national. Why ignore international? Why restrict giving to people in your own (probably first world) nation? I have given to this international charity because almost all the money goes straight to a poor family: GiveDirectly

This site might give people some ideas - and there are other charity evaluation organisations too.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
And I don't understand the OP's distinguishing between local and national. Why ignore international? Why restrict giving to people in your own (probably first world) nation?

Careless typing on my part. It should indeed be international, so I'm amending that in the OP. Thanks for pointing that out.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
If I understand you, leo, you're saying that we should consider that at least some portion of our "tithe" has already been paid because we pay income tax, and that money goes to things that one's tithe went to in ancient Israel when the idea originated? Correct me if I'm not getting it.

Yes, that is what I mean.

As for whether tithing and other laws are superceded bu the NT, that is a big issue all of its own.

But church leaders are happy to guilt trip people about tithing when they want more money for their church. Christians need to see that God's kingdom is bigger than the church.

Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :

A quote from something I have previously published:

quote:
we can begin to understand the spirit behind the provisions of Jewish Law; the Old Testament Law provides for the community both in areas now covered by the state and areas which are not so covered. Jewish tithing was part of the overall system of Jewish law that governed the whole of society (we have to carefully look at the cultural context of ancient Israel)

In the post resurrection age we know we are told by Paul, expanding on Jesus teaching, that we should live by the Spirit but that the law is fulfilled rather than abolished. Paul insists we are no longer bound by the law and it is wrong to selective to apply part of it – if we wish to be circumcised we should obey the whole law. My understanding then is that we should study the law not to derive rules such as ‘you must tithe 10%’ which seems to be against the spirit of freewill giving taught by Jesus and Paul but to understand the underlying intention.

The Law of tithing may have looked like this: a 10% tithe went to the Levites to maintain public service; some 10% of the above went to the priests to maintain the temple (i.e.1% of total); an additional 10% tithe every 3 years went to widows, orphans; people set aside a tithe of 10% pa to pay for their pilgrimage to Jerusalem every 3 years. In addition there were many free-will offerings, the system of Jubilee etc.

Various commentators have tried to work through the logic to see what proportion of income was required and, although a 10% tithe is often talked about, the Old Testament burden can be calculated to be as much as 38%, or if you look solely at the upkeep of the temple, as little as 1% plus free will offerings. However, in summary, we can see that God looked to members of the community to pay for the upkeep of the temple, the maintenance of the priests, the maintenance of community services and the relief of the needy: by grace it would be surprising if we were called to do less.

I would re-emphasise that even in the Old Testament we read of joyful free will giving in addition to the requirements of the law. The law provided for the basic minimum to maintain the fabric of the community. Two examples of such free will gifts were Abraham giving a 10% free will tithe to Melchizedek and David giving joyfully to the building of the temple. It is the latter story which resonates for me; the example and joy of David giving beyond any obligation for the re-building of the temple. David explains this in a beautiful passage: “But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand”

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

And in the spirit of charity, the Heaven Hosts are donating this one to Purgatory.

Cheers

Ariel
Heaven Host

Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :

Due to current unemployment my giving is not of the standing order, direct debit, variety; but of the widely-spread, organic, here-and-there variety. I do put money in the collection plate at church but don't tithe.

Local charities - hospices (there are a few places around here with a hospice collection box on the counter); air ambulance (often have a station inside or outside the local supermarket); I buy stuff for the local foodbank. I made a donation to a local wildlife hospital when a very damaging break-in hit the local news.

Nationally - I do not respond to Chuggers or solicitations through the door. I donate to the Samaritans and Cancer charities. When I donate goods to charity shops it tends to be either to British Heart Foundation (clothes) or PDSA (the local PDSA shop being a popular book-hub).

[ 15. March 2014, 22:55: Message edited by: Huntress ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

We like to channel a certain amount of our giving money to local charities or families with imminent needs. We make a lot of donations in kind to a local mission that provides basic help to many poor residents. (Ironically, the founder of the mission was a notorious homophobe who constantly wrote gay-bashing, pro-Republican letters to the editor of local papers; so we began donating our "gently used" goods here with a sense of profound irony...she's off the board now, and although I suspect her successors are of the same mindset they aren't broadcasting it in the local media.)

As far as organizations with a broader mission, we like Lutheran World Relief and ELCA Disaster Relief, which get good marks as far as stewardship of money. LWR also has a policy of supporting environmentally sustainable projects and for empowering women economically in countries where they are especially vulnerable, and we like that. Ditto Heifer Project, which we usually make one donation to around the holidays.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Mostly individuals. Some outright gifts of cash, some taking a person who lacks sufficient food out for an inexpensive but filling meal. Also some offers of work to financially desperate people when I know the work won't be done competently and will take my time (or cost to repair damaged tools) to redo decently.

Much of what I give to the church is off budget. Food for the newcomers receptions and funeral receptions (I'm not counting food for pot lucks as a contribution), art supplies for the VBS kiddies, gifts for the Christmas giving tree, candy for the easter egg hunt, buying sheet music for the special event solos/duets/quartets. Lots of church projects if you sign up to work the project (or propose a project) you pay the costs.

I'm feeling guilty about saying no to driving an acquaintance to dialysis regularly. (Her husband can't take time off work to do it, no job gives that much vacation time. Seriously ill people need a team of strangers to keep them alive by taking them to frequent doctor appointments)

Charity organizations? All local. People in my own community are without adequate food or medical care or school supplies, enough adults can't read and write to keep the adult literacy project busy. Lots of need right here. Maybe not as urgent as the needs of those newly homeless in the latest natural disaster, but serious needs anyway.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

Years ago I was given what still seems to me good advice, though hard to follow: pull your weight in your "own" congregation, but otherwise support one big charity wholeheartedly, and take on a personal beggar.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I can't face giving to Christian Aid anymore - they are partners with SCM, I know people who work for them, they do good stuff. However, they are a nightmare for harassing you by phone. I want to be able to give a one-off donation without being harassed into giving more regularly.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Years ago I was given what still seems to me good advice, though hard to follow: pull your weight in your "own" congregation, but otherwise support one big charity wholeheartedly, and take on a personal beggar.

As a former homeless person, I really wouldn't have appreciated being someone's pet project. Campaign for social housing, give to soup kitchens, give to local hostels, but don't patronise people by making them your 'personal beggar'. I'd want the person to make a difference to ending homelessness, not take advantage of my bad situation in order to make themselves feel more holy.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

Any charity who cold calls me is off the list. As is any charity who I may have supported in the past who feels it necessary to send monthly begging letters. I had a difficult phone conversation with one this past month.....

Suppose that I choose the amount per week first, then look for the opportunity to find a home for that amount.

[In a previous lifetime, annual decisions and standing orders happened; that's no longer possible]

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

For me, I try to set aside 10 % of what income I receive, mostly because it's a neat number that I can usually do without. I tend to save it for when I encounter situations where that amount can have a big impact on a person's life somewhere around me or somewhere through someone whose judgment I trust on how to use it. This, to rely on your own/close ones' judgment when you have good insight into the situation, is actually strongly recommended by GiveWell as well.

When it comes to international non-acute charity, I'd say try to keep it boring. Mostly because that tends to have the effect that Leo asks for, creating more equal and independent conditions, raising people out of poverty, rather than diminishing the suffering from being poor.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Years ago I was given what still seems to me good advice, though hard to follow: pull your weight in your "own" congregation, but otherwise support one big charity wholeheartedly, and take on a personal beggar.
As a former homeless person, I really wouldn't have appreciated being someone's pet project. Campaign for social housing, give to soup kitchens, give to local hostels, but don't patronise people by making them your 'personal beggar'. I'd want the person to make a difference to ending homelessness, not take advantage of my bad situation in order to make themselves feel more holy.

I don't quite see how sustained help over longish periods with money, shelter, food, clothes, casual work, advocacy in the face of the bureaucracy, is "taking advantage", since your assumptions about motive are quite mistaken.

Of course it is patronage: whether done individually or as you'd prefer institutionally. Individual patron-client relationships may be tricky, needn't be all bad, any more than those between, say, an advice centre and its clients.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
Years ago I was given what still seems to me good advice, though hard to follow: pull your weight in your "own" congregation, but otherwise support one big charity wholeheartedly, and take on a personal beggar.
As a former homeless person, I really wouldn't have appreciated being someone's pet project. Campaign for social housing, give to soup kitchens, give to local hostels, but don't patronise people by making them your 'personal beggar'. I'd want the person to make a difference to ending homelessness, not take advantage of my bad situation in order to make themselves feel more holy.
I don't quite see how sustained help over longish periods with money, shelter, food, clothes, casual work, advocacy in the face of the bureaucracy, is "taking advantage", since your assumptions about motive are quite mistaken.

Of course it is patronage: whether done individually or as you'd prefer institutionally. Individual patron-client relationships may be tricky, needn't be all bad, any more than those between, say, an advice centre and its clients.

It's patronising crap though. Homeless people still don't need to be taken on as personal projects, they are people who deserve autonomy not projects for budding Lady Bountifuls.

It IS taking advantage since it wouldn't be possible for you to have a 'personal beggar' (what an appalling phrase, and not all homeless people beg or indeed are on the streets) if homelessness didn't exist.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I can't face giving to Christian Aid anymore - they are partners with SCM, I know people who work for them, they do good stuff. However, they are a nightmare for harassing you by phone. I want to be able to give a one-off donation without being harassed into giving more regularly.

I told someone from Christian Aid that if they ever cold-called me or sent me emergency appeals I would cancel my standing order. It worked.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Giving is supposed to be sacrificial (I think). It won't be sacrificial until it makes you think really hard about how you might live with what you have left after giving to others.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
My church itself tithes by giving 10% of its gross income to other local churches, including those with whom we would disagree doctrinally. As far as I can tell, we don't receive a similar tithe from other churches, which makes me wonder if this is unusual.

It's certainly a nice touch.

I've never heard of this before. Is it done via some kind of ecumenical framework, or do you just send the money directly to each church?

I can imagine that some churches might be ambivalent about receiving money directly, especially if yours is the biggest and/or wealthiest church in the vicinity. In a way, they're beholden to you, even though they're grateful for the cash.

Some would say there should be some accountability in charitable giving. My old church regularly sent money to a church in South America, but we hardly ever heard what was done with the money. I don't think that was right.

Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

[del]
It's patronising crap though. Homeless people still don't need to be taken on as personal projects, they are people who deserve autonomy not projects for budding Lady Bountifuls.

It IS taking advantage since it wouldn't be possible for you to have a 'personal beggar' (what an appalling phrase, and not all homeless people beg or indeed are on the streets) if homelessness didn't exist.

You seem to have zoomed off on a tangent about homeless people. The word actually used was not randomly chosen. "Beggar", one who solicits alms: the interaction is definitely initiated by the person seeking help; if that were not so your continued assumptions about motive might have validity.

But, hey! Next time I'm asked "for a bit of help" I'll know to reply "Sorry, mate; I've given up patronising folks for Lent."

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Right. This is an attempted summary of where my charitable giving goes. I would welcome any constructive criticism, as, being fortunate enough to be able to donate a healthy amount every year, I always welcome suggestions as to organisations that could do the most with the donation:

I'm part way through a three year direct debit to Growing in Faith. A slice of this comes back to my parish (we have finally replaced the broken-down boiler!) the rest goes to Caritas (working with the poor in the UK and overseas), priests' training, and sick and retired priests.

I give a weekly amount directly to my parish - we have to pay the bills, and last year's accounts show that we had just £20-odd pounds after all bills were paid.

CAFOD - I give to every appeal that comes to my attention.

I give a slice of my Christmas bonus to
Kids Company because its founder, Camila, is a hero.

I give now and then to Apostleship of the Sea because sea-farers have a grim life and because the priest who baptised me is now laicised and working as a lay-chaplain for AoS, and I want to support him.

I also support The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery because I'm a patient there.

I give a monthly amount to my alma mater because I want them to keep widening access and specifically target young people who are being deterred from degree study by cost.

I give small monthly amounts to RNLI and Centrepoint.

I give to and fundraise for the national charities my firm supports, which this year is Shelter and Action for Literacy.

And I give time and cash to the primary school parents' association.

So: are any of these bad (or less good) choices? And if I am giving more for Lent, do you have any recommendations/requests?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Homeless people still don't need to be taken on as personal projects, they are people who deserve autonomy not projects for budding Lady Bountifuls.

It IS taking advantage since it wouldn't be possible for you to have a 'personal beggar' (what an appalling phrase, and not all homeless people beg or indeed are on the streets) if homelessness didn't exist.

A woman knocked on my door (we had met once) who the shelters wouldn't take because she has no kids. And because she had two dogs. The shelter told her to ditch the dogs or they won't help her. No food, no counseling, no medical care, nothing unless you reside in the shelter.

What is your advice, I should have turned her away when she asked to sleep in my yard? Tell her to go sleep in the park so the cops can take her to jail?

I invited her to sleep in my (messy) spare room. Her presence - her shock and trying to adjust to sudden homelessness, her needs for shelter, food, dog care, medical care, a spiritual place, exhausted me.

I gave her my (pre-paid) cell phone so she could contact her family several states away to try to arrange a return their state, and apply for local day jobs a earn some money for the trip. You are saying I should have left her unable to connect with her family?

Instead of giving her money and time and individual attention, I should have written s check to the shelter that rejected her? How would that have gotten her shelter the night she asked to sleep in my yard? I have to say, writing a check would have been much easier if all I wanted was to feel good about myself!

But giving a couple hundred bucks to the shelter won't open their doors to the next single woman with dogs who needs a place to sleep.

It's not fun to be someone's project, we all want people who care about us personally. But personally I'd rather be fed as a project than starve. YMMV

(Why did I do it? Because once I was homeless - employed but nowhere to sleep, and knocked on the door of someone I barely knew and asked to sleep on their couch. They said yes and took me until I could get on my feet. For which I am still grateful.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Drowning people do not need swimming lessons at that point.

I don't think Jade was knocking emergency aid; or at least that's not what I read. She has a point though, re the distinction between kind heartedness and a kind of condescension. Restoring self-respect, helping people to find that again, is more about the long term journey, and it sure doesn't sit well with condescension.

The folks I know who are involved in helping folks to get out of poverty, either here or overseas, do not do condescension, and are well aware of the sometimes double edged nature of emergency help. Avoiding the creation of either a long term dependency or resentment is a part of the challenge of doing it right.

Emergencies call for short term responses. Genuine long term help brings many more complexities into play.

[ 18. March 2014, 09:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I refuse to give to unsolicited phone appeals, especially the ones that happen just as I am sitting down to dinner. My response to the caller is 'if you can afford to ring me, you don't need my money'. We tend to decide at the commencement of each year which charities we will support for the year, but of course consider special emergencies that arise.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
My response to the caller is 'if you can afford to ring me, you don't need my money'.

I do understand your irritation with unsolicited calls, but if a charity expended its marketing budget on its charitable aims, that money would be gone without any increase in donors and resources for the future demands of those in need.

Charities *should* have overhead costs and costs of attracting donations (if you don't like the term "marketing"). It's right that they should spend wisely and in proportion to their size and aims. But I would be just as sceptical of a charity with no overheads or marketing costs than of one with high costs.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I understand that most "cold call" charity solicitations pay over 60% of the received proceeds to the company hired to do the calling. This doesn't seem like good bang for my charitable buck. Here's an interview of the CEO of the charity watch dog Charity Navigator.

Last year, for the first time in my life I took on a "project" if you want to call it that. A homeless man started coming to our church and I became friends with him. We would talk and tell each other what was going on in our lives and of things in our pasts. I'd get lunch for us both sometimes or fix TV dinners for us in the church office kitchenette. I liked him, and he helped me see even more clearly that homeless people can be interesting folks like anyone else.

He collapsed in the street from a heart attack and was pronounced brain dead in December. He had lost his ID but had a certain business card in his pocket. Because we had been friends and I had helped connect him with his sisters out of state and got him to an employment office (which gave him the card), the hospital admin was able to ID him and contact his sisters who were able to see him before he was taken off life support.

Yes, I'm glad I was there for him. No, I don't think I had too much virtuous pride in what I could do. It wasn't much, but it made a difference and he made a difference to me. And I miss him a great deal.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
... Yes, I'm glad I was there for him. No, I don't think I had too much virtuous pride in what I could do. It wasn't much, but it made a difference and he made a difference to me. And I miss him a great deal.

As Lydia*Rose's example points out, charity doesn't have to be giving money. Especially if you're retired, giving time - and care - may mean more than giving money.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I'm seriously considering changing to putting coins in collecting tins in shops, as charities get more and more hard nosed about sending you repeat requests. They say it's necessary in order to raise funds, but they must lose as many people as they gain, surely? And there's a limit to how many free pens, bookmarks, stickers and cards I really need!

The one I do support regularly (and am happy to put my name to) is Cancer Research, we have lost so many family members and friends to cancer that I really hope for a breakthrough one day...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0