“The rich man who gives to the poor does not bestow alms but pays a debt.” (— St. Ambrose)
Giving Tuesday is a refreshing, chilled glass of water in between the Black Friday-to-Cyber Monday gorging and the remaining holiday consumption season. I suppose some of it amounts to “causewashing” and ineffectual organizations, but most of the causes and charitable orgs I come across I find at least well-intentioned if not very good.
But one day per year? It’s a marketing stunt, right?
Deloitte has an event called Impact Day, which was one day per year set aside for every member of the firm around the world to give a full day’s labor to a local nonprofit. I planned and coordinated this event for the Boston office one year, and sometimes I’d hear people criticize the program with a cynical quip about it being all about the PR value (like, that’s great you make a show of volunteering one day a year, but what about the other 364 days?), but I really don’t think that was the case by and large, and a) there is a lot of good you can produce in one day, working together, and b) hopefully getting a taste of volunteering and seeing its effects causes in some percentage of the group the resolve to make it a more regular part of their lives. This latter point is an optimistic case to make with Giving Tuesday as well: once you take the two minutes to create the account on the website of your charity of choice and add your credit card info, it’s that much easier to make a habit of giving.
How to donate money…from an amateur…who is not wealthy
Master of Alkmaar, The Seven Works of Mercy, ca. 1504, polyptych (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)
We consult charity evaluators (GiveWell, Charity Navigator, etc.) as input, but caveat emptor:
I don’t want to fall into the minimize overhead metric obsession: this weird idea that ideally 100% of donated dollars would go to programs and $0 to overhead, which is problematic because charities and nonprofits and NGOs require talent and capital just like the for-profit world to produce the effective outcomes we’re all hoping for. I think people are increasingly aware of this $0 overhead fallacy and there have been some shifts in thinking, but it persists.1
We don’t all need to exclusively invest in mosquito nets even if effective altruism suggests that as the optimal resource allocation. Yes, GiveWell will show you that the highest ROI investments will nearly always be outside the US (due to the cost side of the equation) and in certain areas of need, which is wonderful. But we should honor our unique proclivities, and would do well to remember Mother Teresa’s words:
Stay where you are. Find your own Calcutta. Find the sick, the suffering, and the lonely, right where you are — in your own homes and in your own families, in homes and in your workplaces and in your schools. You can find Calcutta all over the world, if you have eyes to see. Everywhere, wherever you go, you find people who are unwanted, unloved, uncared for, just rejected by society — completely forgotten, completely left alone.
It’s not always about the metrics. There is this organization in San Francisco called At the Crossroads that a friend of mine was involved with. They do street outreach in the TL and elsewhere, focusing on youth. But what’s striking is that they take on the toughest cases and then work with these clientele indefinitely (no “aging out” of the program), which is sure to torpedo their metrics, however their “unconditional support” model is a beautiful one and to me very Christ-like.
Eliminate slacktivist causes so you don’t trick your brain into thinking you’re off the hook on actual charitable giving. The jury is out on this from a research perspective, but it’s possible that the “warm glow” associated with charitable giving can be activated just as easily by slacktivism, causing one to pass on real activism/philanthropy since that psychological need has already been satisfied. That would be a shame. The worst of these, in my opinion, was AmazonSmile in which customers to donate 0.5% of their eligible purchases to a charity of their choice. Do the maths: it amounted to nothing.2
Use a framework that resonates. We like the Corporal or Spiritual Works of Mercy. For example, “Feed the hungry” = SF Food Bank; “Give drink to the thirsty” = Charity Water, etc.
Give ‘til it hurts is at least uncomfortable. I’m working on this one. Of course we don’t usually give at a consequential level because it involves too much sacrifice…and trust. Reminds me of the Poor Widow’s Contribution (Lk 21:1-4).
Grab those corporate match dollars. (Starting off with a point that falls nicely into the Captain Obvious category.) There are a lot of generous corporate charity match programs—a huge benefit—and so I sort of think of it like the 401(k): don’t leave dollars on the table if you don’t have to.
Anonymously when you can. There’s the argument that the recognition sets an example, but sharing with others that you donate your funds anonymously also sends a powerful message: it’s not primarily about me and my personal brand or reputation, but about the cause and the people in need.
I like the adage that from those to whom much has been given much is expected, though I’ve got a long way to go to deliver against that. Poco a poco…
Master of Alkmaar, The Seven Works of Mercy, ca. 1504, polyptych (Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum)