hmmm, Good Question/Ideas!

I've often thought about that myself, how better to give charity.

and, I've really been leaning towards something like 'completibility',

• can my contribution 'complete' a task?
• will my contribution actually do something? or will it simply help a problem continue to be supported but not solved?
• will $5 give someone a fish, when $50 could teach them how?

yeah, I kindda think that it's harder and therefore likely more productive to identify the most deserving recipient.

how-ever small $5 chunks are better than no chunks for those in need! :)

I think $25 from one person may not move the needle. $25 from a million people each might. On one hand I personally respect people that are very tied to one primary cause, be it Lance Armstrong and cancer, or Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's. When it comes to the really big orgs they can become so bogged down in process, structure, political issues and their own existence it seems like sometimes they lose focus on their mission, which often should be to solve a problem at hand and put themselves out of business. Personally (and not surprisingly; see Giving Project) I resonate with the idea of spreading the funds around. Health is tied to HIV/AIDS is tied to education is tied to tolerance is tied to the environment is tied clean water is tied to... well, you get it. I think six degrees of separation may not just exist in the world of person to person connections, but quite possibly answers or pieces of answers to some of the world's challenges.

Naïve, perhaps.

But it may be knowledge and solutions exist in many of the small organizations that simply just don’t have the resources to attract the attention or whatever it is they need. In some cases, they might not even recognize that they have or do is special, unique or world changing. Now if they are in a collaborative environment with other small orgs, their support of one another with sharing information could provide interesting outcomes. I saw this happen in happen with small arts groups collaborating in Portland 20 years ago.

Giving wide rather than deep to grassroots organizations more likely to collaborate might provide incredible possibilities and opportunities.

Anyway, I've rambled enough now.

In giving I focus everything on being comprehensive in love and design a gift that has both macro and micro ripples. Gifts as conductors of social capital have tremendous value beyond the act of giving and beyond the physical improvements that $$ can buy. I give from instinct, often when a door opens that allows for a new connection to be made that seems valuable to those I love most. This can be a triple gift through ONet and Global Giving for disaster relief that is made in the name of a relative or donating time and art supplies to do a PeaceTiles party....we've seen countless opportunities to give and share here and we all see thousands more flooding the inbox. Which doors do we choose?

Evonne, funny it doesn't surprise me to hear you explain how you give. The depth of your caring and attention is evident in everything you do, whether formally as a gift or simply occupying space in a room, virtual or not. Thanks for sharing here.

But yes, it's a selfish act too, and when done right it feels very good. I'm glad these gifts and more have bonded us.

I buy girlscout cookies, not because I need the cookies. And not because the girlscouts is the number one most important place to change the world. I buy girlscout cookies because I have a relationship with a family with a girl in girlscouts. So giving in this case is about relationship. Buying a livesmart bracelet from someone you know could be similar. Would we tell that girl we cannot buy her cookies because all our charitible dollars went to Uganda this year? Doubt it.

The guy running for state senate in my district from the green party has a self-imposed limit of $200 in donations from any single person, and nothing from corporations. So if political causes fit into your giving strategy, some would say that spreading it around is even good for democracy.

On the other hand, lots of small donations to big orgs means lots of paperwork they're going to process on their end and then mail you for years to come, so a $10 donation might easily just go for postage to send mail back to ask for more.

I like the grassroots strategy, if we're talking about spreading it around.

I think an empowered altruist would not give money but rather empowerment.

perhaps giving on a small scale should be more personal.

last winter when i was stressed to no end by leaking fuel lines from a newly installed furnace, both the fuel company and the furnace folks blamed each other, no one cared that i had spent $1200 bucks in 2 months for fuel....

except one of the secretaries, who saw what was happening, and just sent me a personal check for $300 to help me thru the winter.

she included a note, saying that for some reason, she felt that god intended for her to help me...and so, rather than donating to the united fund last year, she donated to me. she would not allow me to return it.

now, this doesnt seem like a big thing to some folk, but to me, at that moment, it was as if the earth moved. her generosity, her realization of my need, and her choice of giving to help me...all showed a true christian spirit of the season....that woman is the ONLY true christian i have ever met, and i will never ever forget.

that donation meant a change of outlook for me...

There are many ways to give, and many of those ways are highly effective. Some people give by percentage--a certain percentage to each cause they deem important. Others give a flat amount to each. And we recommend that there is a small portion set aside for small gifts that grease relationships--girl scout cookies or what have you.

Though I do wish these small gifts would get much more impactful. I would rather partipate in my child's school fundraiser if it was about selling small handmade goods from Uganda, teaching the children about Uganda and connecting them to an issue...than to some popcorn or candy company who eats up the majority of the cost and gives me some second rate food or goods to dispose of. And I personally would rather give to a cause I am connected to than some monster charity that, yes, indeed, sends me more than my monies worth in mail and pestering. I should note however that the most effective no to pestering is to state that you have a cause and you gave to that already. Pestering callers immediately lay off.

I can see the motivation to advocate for focused gifts--give all to one thing--but I can't imagine that would be easy or as self-satisfying. Perhaps we must seek a balance--giving enough to our top causes to make a difference with them, but honoring that we are complex people who value many things.

How about we look at it another way. There are lots of things I can do to make a better world. If I say recycling is my cause, and so I recycle everything in sight...but do nothing to reduce my energy consumption...am I really helping in the best way possible?

To give is to live.

I was under the impression that there was not a 'case' for charity, especially economic. Charity, from the Latin Caritat, which made its way into the church as one of its primary aims in the world. In its original use it was seen as a self-less activity.

I suspect our post-modern and skeptical ways would have us believe that there is no such thing as a self-less activity. I mourn that loss and what it implies for our future.

On the other hand, I do think it is wise to question the ways charity might produce negative outcomes.

Its funny (not really) how far the institutions we've built and the mental gymnastics the knowledge and logic we live by have removed us from each other.

it is nice nora to feel the earth move.

By the way, I thought the following was interesting:

The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project estimates that charitable giving in the United States was 1.85 percent of the size of the economy in recent years, 0.84 percent in the United Kingdom, and as little as 0.13 percent in Germany.

Often, the NPO sector (I assuming that is where the author gets his "charity" stats) is seen as a bridge, filling in where the market and government services don't provide. By this account, the data cited in the article could suggest that governments have their own degrees of charitableness: the amount of health care they provide their citizens, the extent of unemployment benefits, the size of subsidized food and housing programs.

Thus, the size of charitable giving would be inversely related to the size of government's 'social spending.'

By that account, the data may not suggest selfishness at all, and instead suggest that government endures as something of a social compact.

Good post/discussion, Thomas. I think we need of both types of donors. Those who are devoted to particular causes will significantly help maintain those organizations which are doing such good work, regardless of mass attention trends elsewhere. THis is very necessary for the long-term survival of organizations.

But personally, I am most interested in helping to feed Patterns of giving.

By distributing giving across numerous causes and projects constantly, you are not only helping the intended project goals, you are also encouraging and supporting the INVOLVEMENT of more humans in these types of activities and helping to associate their giving of time and effort with a positive experience..

In the bigger picture I think this helps to evolve generations that may take on greater responsibility for the welfare of humanity while seeing it as inextricable from their enjoyment of living and purpose. The feelgood aspect is a godsend I think...and possibly the only way for a mass transition..imagine the possibilities when scales are tipped...when giving and uplift endorphin 'rushes' in daily behaviors supercede those connected with the collection of luxury goods...

Also, as Mark said, "I think $25 from one person may not move the needle. $25 from a million people each might." I love the idea of how possible the seemingly impossible can become. I envision a day when a problem is brought to mass awareness and WE say, ok WE can solve this. And by as little as one dollar each (and the work of commited and honest implementers!) it is DONE. DONE? crazy. NEXT,please.:)

That is one of the dreams of the 10%Club. Again, if we look at a larger picture of cultivating giving behaviors in the masses...it's getting people involved in all arenas, including those that would be overlooked by a survey of looking for 'the best cause'. It's getting people involved in the nooks and crannies of uplift possibilities around them and around the world and having them continue to be flexible and MOVED by awareness and new information.

One of the dangers I see in individuals contributing solely to one cause is that it can create a self-protecting barrier against new information/scenarios in which we can be of help. Yet There IS such a thing as information overload...and the bombardment of causes in our awareness can create paralysis of sorts. I think one of the greatest challenges might be to create better and better tools to help individuals manage 'awareness' and 'action' as a part of their daily lives...

Hey, thought this is an interesting twist -- something that Tom Munnecke has sometimes referred to as being related to power laws.

Hi --

New here, going to dive in as this is a topic I just can't not comment on.

Personally, I've done both -- focused my donations, and "scattered" it. Why? Depended on my personal finances at the time, my inclination, and how comfortable I felt that who I was funding was getting monies from lots of other people. Nowadays, I fund mostly with my time, due to my background. And in this venture of starting this new group, I am coming face-to-face with having to prioritize my efforts. And some things I've been participating in, I may not be able to do anymore so that I can focus on the bigger picture.

YIKES -- that scares me a bit as I start to worry that I am going to quickly become just like the "big" groups who I believe have become too narrow in what they do.

But when I can "hear" reality -- what I will be doing with this new group will have a much greater impact over the long-term that keeping my efforts individualized. By creating a system that will allow LOTS of small groups to find information means more people and more animals will be helped.

So, I'm beginning to see that the best choice to achieve my goal is to stay more focused for now.

ON A BIGGER SCALE . . . This is an awesome query as it raises a number of related issues that may be used to help us all determine funding strategies: 1 ) are we really "charities"; 2 ) might the answer to this change our funding profiles; 3 ) can we use to our collective advantage the info of how do people like to donate; and 4 ) besides just plain old money, are there other reasons we care about how people donate?

I'm not long, or directly so, to the "non-profit" world although I have 25+ years of indirect relationships to non-profits. Either helping out as a teenager or donating when starting out in the corporate world.

And I'm going to throw a twist in here, perhaps. For me, I don't think of it as "charitable" giving. I LOATHE the term "charity" and avoid it at all costs.

Think of the perception it triggers. Begging, hands out, one-sided relationships. And mostly I have visions of everyone operating within the constraints of "this is what you're allowed to do with a charity group". Many things seem to occur and unfold in a linear fashion. And obviously some things need to be linear, such as corporate/legal structure, etc.

But beyond that -- if we're not charities, does the world's perception of their participation possibly change? And does the way they participate change? Example was last year and Katrina. Grassroots and individuals were sending out emotion-laden communications about how the animals need to be rescued. Well those weren't that compelling. What was compelling -- the FACT that people wouldn't leave without their animals. So if you wanted to save human lives or limit injuries to humans, plans must include animals. AHHH -- so this topic is no longer about charity. Does that make some groups or organizations more likely to help fund? You bet.

I think some non-profits have boxed themselves into the way things are done. Period. In fact, this is one thing that I bring to this new venture -- I am respectful of how things have been done but don't feel constrained to follow the same path. I believe that there are untapped funding sources if animal groups would stop trying to get money based on, "it's the right thing to do". While that may be true, it's not the reason why some corporations will participate.

Thomas' query is comparable to something that corporations struggle with in terms of sweepstakes -- is it better to have one large prize or lots of small prizes. And more often than not, the answer is "all of the above".

I appreciate Darlene's comment about the small monies adding up. That's a thought I've had for some time and will be the basis of funding for the new group I'm starting. It's fascinating that some groups go after the big monies and fail to realize how lots of small monies can be so much bigger. My local Chamber of Commerce found this out when they figured out that small businesses actually accounted for more jobs and more economic impact than the big groups they were focusing their efforts on. Oops.

And the comment about how someone receiving a small amount of money was exactly what they needed to get motivated again. So that money was so much more valuable than just the dollars.

Depending on the size of the organization's goals, is having lots of participants, even with smaller numbers from each, more of a draw to others? Does it lend credibility to the group that lots of people are donating? Do I want to donate to a group that gets mostly big numbers from a select few? What happens if they pull their funding? How important is general, broad-scale awareness of my group? If it's important, targeting even small numbers from lots of people will help you achieve other goals.

Here's an example. A domestic violence group has now added the ability to be able to take in, and foster or adopt the animals of a domestic violence victim. If you don't have broad-scale awareness builders, how will people know this is available? Many people won't leave these types of situations due to their animals. But if you only tell people when they call up the local group, some people may never call as they don't know they don't have to leave their animals behind. If you have broad-scale fundraising and awareness-building, then the word will get out sooner. Now, can you have broad-scale awareness-building without having fundraising attached? Of course, but why do so -- it's a wasted opportunity otherwise.

I hope I haven't digressed too far but I think Thomas' original query provides some good fodder for personal discussion but on a bigger scale, has interesting implications for fund-raising principles.

And I'll end with a personal choice. How am I currently making my "donations" -- still scattered but less so. Starting with, I have no interest in working with groups who aren't trying to collaborate or aren't willing to try. Collaboration is where the strength, or at least is, for animal groups. So, my scattered time/donation will at minimum, be more impactful because if I can empower a group or individual to collaborate, then I get a great ROI, however intangible.

Such as www.myelinrepair.org is achieving.

So now that I've burped everything I think on this topic -- for all of you who have been in the non-profit world so much longer than I, am I completely crazy?

Best regards, Laurel Ley

In a response to what I wrote on the http://www.gifthub.org web site recently, Phil Cubeta told me, "its there money". He's right. Each donor is giving their money, or their time, and thus making this choice based on their own personal values and experiencdes.

The more involved one is with a cause, the more focused I feel they become on their giving. For instance, if I lost a child to a car accident, I would probably be a very dedicated donor to causes such as MADD. If I or a relative have Cancer, I become a strong supporter of Cancer research.

At the same time, donors respond to tragedies, disasters, and compassionate need, which has been demonstrated by the responses to the Tsunami, Katrina, or to local tragedies like a family losing a home in a fire.

Thus, one kind of giving is because of a personal connection to the cause and another is in response to a visible tragedy.

I think the third type of giving that many of us are focusing on is strategic giving. If we want to end breast cancer, we need to consistently invest in agencies we trust for many years to come. We need to also give our time and talent where possible.

If we want to help inner city kids move through school and into jobs, we need to connect with them early and support them for the 20 years it takes to go from first grade to the entry levels of a career. To do that a donor needs to pick agencies that do this work, and support them consistently.

However, donors who support these causes could also think in broader terms, such as what causes cancer, or what causes kids in inner city to need tutors/mentors in the first place.

If we use our charity to remove the causes of these problems, we help solve the problem in more strategic ways.

I'm not sure many donors are yet spending the time to think of the strategic and long-term ways they can use their time, talent and dollars to solve complex social and environmental problems, but I know that myself and others are looking for ways to use the internet to create learning environments that help potential donors understand issues, get involved with solutions, and stay involved over many years.

I agree completely with what Daniel said. And I really agree with what Philip says on http://www.gifthub.org on "Awareness" about non-profits are not fresh or sharp enough on what their visuals are.

As commented in an earlier post, this is a common problem in the animal world and even with the "big" groups. Me, I'd try an economic and collaborative argument along the lines of quoting growing statistics on the impact of crime on communities and what the link is to animal neglect and/or abuse, etc. Hence, when talking to local political or business leaders who aren't compelled by the "hug a lizard" speech, give them something they can be compelled by. Or even if they are personally compelled by the hug a lizard speech, give them something they can use to get others involved. Find a rationale reason to let people get involved. Big issue for animal related topics.

Like the thinking Daniel on helping potential donors get involved. Again, in the animal world, it might not be easy to get involved or groups don't make it easy to stay involved. Small example, but I made a regular UNSOLICITED donation to a cat group in Jacksonville each month via credit card. Their processor even screwed up one month and threw my bank account in to a tizzy. I dealt with all of the ramifications. NOT ONCE did I receive a thank you. Never. Guess what -- I don't participate with them anymore.

Bottom-line, I think what I got excited about in Thomas' discussion is we can use the understanding of how people donate/participate to offer different ways for participation. For example, have a group I'm working with that Willie Nelson is getting involved with. I had suggested to the Exec Director that he ask Willie to come on board the advisory committee. Make it clear that he didn't want his money but tell Willie that he wants his help to get others' money. I think too often people get stuck in the same ways of tapping resources. May not be an issue in the human-centric world but is in the animal world.

Best regards, Laurel

Thanks for this topic, Thomas.

I like to integrate my giving. Rather than an either/ or, I prefer the and-and concept in many things. In my situation, giving to a big NPO for what I believe is a core cause and then spreading the rest out to grassroots and giving to empower those who are close to me or even to strangers (friends waiting to happen) with causes satisfies my concept of altruism. The world needs all types of giving - whether it is about skills, financials, intellectual, talents, etc. But I believe that the most underestimated donation is that of time given to people.

In a world of givers and receivers, most of us know that we receive more as we give so the concepts of selfless/selfish are not as much the issue. Most important to me is giving and receiving with compassion and love. Everyday, I continue to be a student in this area. And perhaps forever will be.