Comments on: The dismal science strikes again

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:35:33 +0000

I believe it’s false to say that “money rarely solves anything.” The money raised by the March of Dimes didn’t think of the cure for polio but it did pay for Dr. Salk’s laboratory. And, especially in the developing world where we’re talking about basic necessities, money solves the ills of poverty: as UNICEF says, $17 can immunize one child for life against 6 serious illnesses.

But that doesn’t mean it’s effective to give $17 at a time, so I, like you, try every year to increase my giving amount while holding steady or reducing the number of groups. And yet I want to be open to important new causes . . .

Not a simple calculus, that’s for sure!

By: Frank Roman

Frank Roman — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:37:23 +0000

I know that there are too many things I want to accomplish in life. Too many good causes I want to help.

I also realize, I’m not going to be the next Bill Gates (despite what my mother says).

I tend to give to charities in a increasing way. I start small, watch how they respond to ME, see what they do with my donation, and let the relationship mature.

Though I do a lot of research on the causes I support – how will I know everthing there is to know? If I wait till I know it all the cause upon which the charity is founded may be gone?

I know my $25 won’t cure AIDS. I know that money rarely solves anything. My donations usually equate with my growing (or waning) belive in a mission. People can move moutains if they get involved with and beyond mere money.

All that being said, I tend to give smaller amounts to a number of groups and a select few that earn my trust and effect positive change get increasingly larger amounts.

Am I unique in this?

I hope not.

By: Nonprofiteer

Nonprofiteer — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:33:38 +0000

It’s hard to imagine a check too small to be worth the processing to a nonprofit–it’s already spent the money to solicit the check, and the money to process the responses, so one response more or less has little marginal cost. The $1.29 to Yale is an insult rather than a prank, and it could be taken as such by smaller nonprofits as well. But the major objection to checks for $1.29 is the extent to which they make people feel justified in responding to the next appeal with, “I’ve already given.”

Specifying a dollar amount on the reply card usually produces that amount, so most groups can rely on the power of suggestion: “Yes! I’ll give (circle one) $25-$50- $100-other.”

By: a fundraiser

a fundraiser — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:17:20 +0000

Excellent rebuttal.

By: Anita Bernstein

Anita Bernstein — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:57:08 +0000

Exactly right. If charity were selfish, then more selfish people would spend their money that way.

But I wonder about a factual point: Is it possible to write a check so small that you’re harassing the recipient rather than helping? You hear about disgruntled alums of expensive colleges who send checks for $1.29 out of spite, just to throw a monkey wrench into their school’s ledger. I wonder whether some portion of charitable giving doesn’t achieve the same effect with better intentions.