BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The problem with charities

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
02:37 / 06.01.06
as noted earlier, I've been scratching my head trying to figure out what's at the heart of this, what's bothering me about the system of charities and the examples i cited.

i've volunteered many hours for non-profits, never for charities.

the usual face I see of a charity is that of the fundraiser (whether that be a person canvassing door-to-door, a billboard, or whatever means used to appeal for donations).

I think the ulimate problem lies in that somewhere.

charities are our larger population's means of offering aid and comfort to one another. I think that the system in which they operate makes it more difficult for them to be effective. Not impossible, just more difficult.

when i refer to the system, i'm pointing at a vaguely teeming mass of humanity involved in the exchange and flow of currency. That involves most of us, I suspect. i don't want to apply labels to it, as that often breaks down into semantic debate.

i mean the system that encourages us to pour toxins into our drinking water. i refer to the system that allows drinkable milk to be poured into the ground. i refer to the system that allows us to bring suffering to hundreds of millions of animals.

a lot of charities are using this system to try to address its shortcomings.

i'm wondering if there weren't a more efficient way of facilitating a grass roots exchange between people who need the most help and those able to give it.

some charities do this already. I reckognise that.

however, there's something like this:

Dr Rafil Dhafir was imprisoned for 22 years by the US for founding the charity "Help the Needy." The purpose of which was to help children in Iraq suffering under the sanctions.

Maybe the problem I'm trying to address is somewhere nestled in amongst all these de-canned worms. Those charitable institutions that have chosen to work within the modern transnational economic network are trying to address the problems that the network itself causes and ignores.

are they the conscience of our economies?

charities in such a position have their work cut out for them, but it strikes me that there's a better means for them to achieve their ends that makes better use of people's time, labour and money.

or something like that.

--not jack
 
 
Not in the Face
07:27 / 06.01.06
Not Jack

Some interesting and valid points. As I mentioned previously there has been some observers, mostly philosophical, which have argued that the term charity should only be applied to entirely voluntary, and most likely grassroots, organisations, similar to what you are describing.

i've volunteered many hours for non-profits, never for charities

Perhaps this is a UK/US difference? What do you see as the difference between a non-profit and a charity?

charities are our larger population's means of offering aid and comfort to one another. I think that the system in which they operate makes it more difficult for them to be effective. Not impossible, just more difficult.

This is the case in English speaking countries. In France charities/non-governmental organisations have been traditionally distrusted, in Scandinavia the vast bulk of not-for profits are social and sports associations.

When considering whether charities are only symptomatic of the problem you might want to consider why voluntary groups exist. From an academic perspective these have been broken into three functions

Association (groups of people coming together to provide themselves with services and support);
Advocacy(representing the views of a minority or an issue and attempting to change wider perceptions/laws);
Service delivery (providing services to people).

Although the last function is the most high profile and requires the most funding (for instance cancer charities carrying out research) it is also the one that suffers from the criticisms you've raised namely that a lot of charities are using this system to try to address its shortcomings.

However in the first two functions many charities are actually very effective - sports and social organisations, advocacy groups that support changes to the law and wider society etc. The problem becomes where the service delivery function outweighs or hinders the other two functions.

i'm wondering if there weren't a more efficient way of facilitating a grass roots exchange between people who need the most help and those able to give it.

I think the short answer is 'no'. A longer answer is that there are of course more and less efficient ways of facilitating volunteers to reach those who need help and many charities already do this, but the 'public' don't know about it. In the UK there are 4,500 charities with an annual income of over £1 million and 95,000 charities with an income of less than £10,000. Those 95,000 are almost entirely dependent on volunteers and the time those volunteers spend probably exceeds the volunteer hours of the big ones. The problem is that most of those small ones are very local and the support they can offer is intermittent and limited because it depends on volunteers.

charities in such a position have their work cut out for them, but it strikes me that there's a better means for them to achieve their ends that makes better use of people's time, labour and money.

Can you clarify more what that better means would be? If its simply a dissatisfaction with the way things are run in wider society then you have hit one of the main limitations of charities and not-for-profits. Their resources are often pretty much inadequate to the task that faces them.
 
 
Persephone
09:46 / 06.01.06
Not in the Face, thanks for posting all of that. I like how this thread has developed.

Not Jack, I think I know what you're saying. I got confused with the cancer part, but

are they the conscience of our economies?

is something that I've been turning over in my mind. You're talking about the overall function of charities (a term I use synonymously with not-for-profit, though NFPs can range from shelters to theaters to condo associations, though I'm mostly talking about shelter-type NFPs) in the larger system, which is capitalism.

I suppose that I don't prefer to dismantle capitalism --just to have a single viable alternative, and I don't really see anything that capitalism hasn't co-opted. Including charities. I'm thinking about working in the NFP sector & I want to see very clearly what this action is and isn't. I'm leaning toward saying that contributing money or work to an NFP isn't doing anything to take down the larger system. I think it supports the larger system by doing its dirty work.

The question is, can it still do good? Can more good be done by reinventing the wheel --and I don't invoke "reinventing the wheel" as a foregone conclusion. I mean, is there a better wheel? Or could even more good be done by going whole hog into the system & getting to the money, because it's money that matters. Because I don't actually think it's true that money never solved anything --though again, this is in the context of a system that values money.
 
 
Quantum
21:35 / 06.01.06
Just a couple of hours ago I was telephone fundraising for a charity and after a conversation about charitable medical research a supporter asked me if I was a volunteer- I told him I was paid, but of course there was no commission involved, and he said he would never support that charity again. They obviously didn't need the money if they were throwing it away on paying people to fundraise. I told him all charities fundraise, and for every pound spent we raise three, but I'd make a note we'd never contact him again. He hung up.

Is spending money to raise money acceptable for a charity?
 
 
Not in the Face
11:53 / 08.01.06
Persephone

I wonder how much in this discussion we are confusing form for function - not surprising as wider society has romanticised NFP's. Charities, NFP's etc are simply a legal entity, a type of organisation mandated by the state. Its certainly not the case that only charities can carry out good work etc - both public and private agencies are perfectly able to do so and there are plus' and minuses' to all three types of structures.

As a product of the system they operate in charities will inevitably run against a limitation at some point in changing that system. As an aside a friend of mine did her dissertation on whether the various strands of the anti-capitalist movements could be considered NFP's or not. The answer was it was still too early to say - some were and some weren't; the main point was that as the movement is trying to change the system, the purest parts of that movement will reject the forms created by the system, even if they agree with some of the activities undertaken.

The question is, can it still do good?

I think this depends on your value for 'good'. NFP's in the end are quite parochial, they are concerned with their particular issue or set of issues and shouldn't be romanticised into a 'force for good' - its the people involved who are the force for good and that is as valid if you work for the government, a charity or a private sector company.

If you have a particular concern or feel strongly about an issue then by all means support a charity that works in that field. After all theatres, homeless shelters and religious schools are all charitable but are all very different causes. All three may 'suffer' from working within the capitalist system but in the short term all three are also bringing a lot of improvements to people's lives at least from the point of view of those who use their services.
 
 
Not in the Face
12:00 / 08.01.06
Quantum - that sort of question really pisses me off. It seems a product of people not wanting to support charities in the first place and the whole 'worthy poor' approach that 19c charities operated in and which lingers on in places like the Daily Mail.

I liked the fact that you were able to give him an answer about the ratio of fundraising expenditure to income, and so clearly it is acceptable for your charity to spend money as it is indeed raising twice as much as it otherwide would (and indeed perhaps three times as much). Or does he expect the clinical staff at the labs supported by the charity in question to take a pay break on occasion because donations have dried up because no one is out there fundraising.

The worst example of that I have heard of is when I used to work in the Charity Commission and one particlar loon phoned up to complain that Save the Children was spending money in Romania. Despite us pointing out that they were fundraising for Romania and therefore not tricking anyone she was still disguted.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
17:37 / 08.01.06
quantum,

the tightfisted person on the phone was looking for a rationalisation for not giving the charity any money.

I doubt it has much of anything to do with whether you're getting paid or not.

alas.

--not jack
 
 
Persephone
12:38 / 09.01.06
NITF: I do tend to agree with you.

This is by Flyboy from another thread, and I think it is apposite:

work is an environment in which many of us find ourselves having to make uncomfortable compromises and negotiations in order to survive capitalism
 
 
Quantum
18:48 / 09.01.06
the tightfisted person on the phone was looking for a rationalisation for not giving the charity any money.

Nope, he really was appalled that a charity would spend money paying fundraisers, to him only voluntary fundraising was acceptable. Thankfully you don't get many like him, most people are pretty understanding about essential costs.

I'm still sort of wondering what charities have these massive problems, IMHO it's pretty rare, it's much more common for people to feel money is being 'wasted' when in fact it's a personal perception based on C19th notion of what constitutes charity, as pointed out by others in this thread.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:10 / 09.01.06
quantum,

fair enough. you spoke to the man...

getting back to the topicness, I've shifted my perspective on this away from particular charities mishandling their donations (ie put towards exhorbitant administration costs - I think the Canadian Red Cross got in some hot water recently over their expenditures).

Charities are fighting a battle against the tide of business, which is assumed (by me) to be at the heart of many of the problems they seek to address/resolve/solve. Is there a system other than our current capital-based one that would better serve charities in achieving their ends?

ie employers pay their employees to work xxx amount of volunteer hours (details would take a while to iron out)
or
governments/businesses donate food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, water for the thirsty, and the means to transport and distribute these to those who need it.

there are any number of charities working towards these very simple, human fundamentals for survival. Our governments and private business are failing to care for these people (what with all the cuts to welfare programs in our Province).

is there a better way than raising money? How can we raise enough resources, donations and labour so that money can be circumvented, markets ignored, in order to take care of one another?

(i'm oversimplifying the problem to illustrate the point - hopefully, this hasn't lost track)...

--not jack
 
 
Quantum
10:57 / 10.01.06
is there a better way than raising money? How can we raise enough resources, donations and labour so that money can be circumvented, markets ignored, in order to take care of one another?

What's wrong with money? Is it intrinsically evil? It's just a token representing resources, labour etc. that's easier to transport. Rather than truck food and water around, why not electronically transfer money to where the need is and buy it there?

The only way to circumvent money in charity work is to abolish money in all areas of life. While I am personally all for that, I don't think it's necessary.

The most effective way to increase the money-free aspects of charity is to foster a stronger sense of community responsibility. If I pop over to visit my elderly neighbour and help change their lightbulb, that's one less person that Help the Aged has to help, which saves the cost of a visitor and the concomittent (sp?) support network involved. Me visiting my neighbour costs me time, but no money is involved.

Is that the sort of thing you mean? Because in the ideal world people look after each other out of good will, and there is very little need for charity organisations at all. Local solutions work for many things, but not all. For example international charities- I can't pop next door and help drought victims in Africa, or save the lives of Brazilian street children for an hour a week. I also can't research Cancer cures, or provide specialist care for disabled children, or provide accomodation for homeless families by donating my time. But these are things that my money can do, by paying a professional or helping toward a deposit or whatever.

Many major religions promote tithing (Christianity, Islam) and philanthropy, even Humanism has an altruistic element, fostering empathy and community seems to be the best way to go about helping without involving money, but I think money is essential for a lot of charity work.
 
 
Not in the Face
14:52 / 10.01.06
Not Jack - Agree very muxh with quantum here. Volunteering is in many ways a seperate issue to charities - charities use volunteers, but volunteering is much wider.

The bigest group of 'volunteers' in the UK, and probably elsewhere, is carers. Even if you discount normal parental/children caring there are many thousands of people who regularly give up their time to help others, but are not officially recognised, nor are they organised. Yet they provide essential life support, from friendship to meals and baths to many people who would otherwise suffer and perhaps die of neglect.

As has been said many charities of the type referred to are a symptom of the inequalities within the system, not a direct answer - although many might try to be. They share elements of both government and business having a public service ethos but also having to respect their financial situation or go bankrupt.

Also I get the feeling that assume that volunteers could replace paid staff. Am I right? Volunteers have different motivations to paid staff - for many people volunteering could be characterised as a form of leisure activity, something they receive a positive internal response from even if the work that they undertake is arduous or demanding. They stop doing it when it become like work.

Having said that there are organisations that do work to try and improve the way that organised volunteering is carried out (although the biggest reason for people not to volunteer is that no one has asked them, which suggest we need more money to charities to be able to widen their pool of potential volunteers). This perhaps relates to some of the issues you have raised. One of them in the UK is Timebanks which was started from a US model.

However as Quantum suggests, the biggest way to improve local volunteering is more community building increasing the opportunities people have to meet others and see how they can help.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
14:53 / 10.01.06
Quantum,

the way money has developed, and the systems to which it's intrinsically tied are, indeed, evil.

money is part of the dynamic that supports large-scale bloodshed, displacement, disease and suffering. Can't say I'd call any of that good, personally. And I think money is used as a tool to further this agenda.

ever seen how much of the world's money goes into buying arms?

it is practical, in terms of one degree of seperation from what it represents. 1 dollar (pound/dubloon/whatever) buys you a chicken. or an hour of labour. or something tangible.

currency speculation? wtf? international money transfers, corporate welfare? what's that all about?

the world of modern finances has become a giant video game, wherein the various stock exchanges keep score.

in the end, money isn't the solution. It's treated as if it were, but the solution is us, and our skills and labour and time. I don't see why money is necessarily necessary for us to continue to have skilled medical practicioners.

and if a medical practicioner's main motivation is money, I have to wonder about the integrity of their work.

--not jack
 
 
Quantum
18:40 / 10.01.06
'Money is intrinsically evil' deserves a thread of it's own I think, unrelated to charity.

I don't see why money is necessarily necessary for us to continue to have skilled medical practicioners.

In the current system doctors have to pay for food and board etc. so in order to research cancer cures full time they need to be paid a wage. Otherwise only independantly wealthy philanthropist surgeons would be able to do it, and there's not enough of them to go round.

There's loads of unpaid voluntary full time carers (for example elderly partners of Alzheimers or Parkinsons sufferers), and many charities act to support these people (respite care, advice and emotional support etc). So some charity money goes to enabling voluntary work.
 
 
alas
11:03 / 11.01.06
in the end, money isn't the solution. It's treated as if it were, but the solution is us, and our skills and labour and time. I don't see why money is necessarily necessary for us to continue to have skilled medical practicioners.

and if a medical practicioner's main motivation is money, I have to wonder about the integrity of their work.

I agree with Quantam's reaction to this point, not jack, and would extend it. I think you are in danger of romanticising volunteerism and unpaid labor generally. I am a teacher and an adoptive parent who raised two children from foster care. I think it's safe to say that I am not primarily motivated by money.

But the money does matter, for all the reasons Q. listed and more. Women do most of the unpaid 'voluntary' labor in the world, and I deliberately do include childrearing and elder care, and that lack of financial compensation for our labor is directly--if complexly--connected to our lack of social and political power worldwide. If we truly valued this work, we would devote financial and social resources to the caregivers as a matter of course--and that devotion of resources would probably come in the form of money.

And, having been a welfare mom for a time, I'm fine with that.
 
 
Not in the Face
12:34 / 11.01.06
and if a medical practicioner's main motivation is money, I have to wonder about the integrity of their work.

Those must be the high living cancer researchers I've heard so much about selling quack cures over the internet to fund the downpayment on their porsches.

More seriously, trying to equate volunteer time with paid work often fails due to the differences of value placed on the work by different people. Someone who came and tidied my garden (if I had one) would be rather nice but I would value it less than if I was physically incapable of the task myself.

It seems to me that you have fixed upon charities as a symbol of why the world isn't lovely and are dtermined to curse charities as failing because they have to make compromises about money. While you are right about the pressures that money can put on charities in terms of they deliver a service or gather support, you seem unaware that many people who work in charities work extremely hard and often at some cost to themselves to ensure that these pressures do not compromise their work in terms of the quality or ethos. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they aren't. Also this is only really the case with larger charities; the overwhelming number of charities are severely hindered by their lack of cash.

You might also consider when condeming bureaucracy in large charities that while it can make an organisation less efficient, its primary purpose is to ensure the organisation is stable and constant in its activities. Large charities provide a service to thousands or millions of people, all of whom are entitled to receive that service to a constant, and hopefully high, standard. Without bureaucracy and the paid staff that support it that wouldn't happen often leaving people in a worse situation than they were before because they are unable to reliable expect support.
 
 
Quantum
12:53 / 11.01.06
we would devote financial and social resources to the caregivers as a matter of course

...and the reason we don't is because we couldn't afford it, if carers were paid it would cost literally billions of pounds a year.
voluntary activity across the UK was worth £17.7bn in 1995, but only £13.2bn in 2000 - a fall of nearly 26%.
 
 
Quantum
13:45 / 11.01.06
...and that's a very conservative estimate, CarersUK puts the figure at £57.4 Billion pounds a year, the same cost as the ENTIRE NHS. That's 57,400,000,000 million pounds of evil money not spent on care every year, but given in kind, so it should make you happy Tenix!

(From Without Us : Calculating the value of carers' support. (2002))
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
14:36 / 12.01.06
It seems to me that you have fixed upon charities as a symbol of why the world isn't lovely and are dtermined to curse charities as failing because they have to make compromises about money

really? don't know what I might have typed that would lead you to see this in my words.

there are enough symbols of why the world isn't lovely to pick on charities... how about Plutonium, for one.

you may want to reconsider rereading my posts.

--not jack
 
 
Not in the Face
15:50 / 12.01.06
you may want to reconsider rereading my posts.

I say you have fixed on it because you have started a thread particularly about charities in which you consistently comment that they operate in system focused around money and that this system is a bad thing. Despite points raised by other posters, including myself, that raise a different perspective you keep returning to this point using charities as your entry.

Your previous post is entirely focused on the evils of money, ending with a condemnation of medical workers for taking payment. Given that you started this thread on medical charities and have mostly focused on them I hope you can see why it reads to me that you have chosen charities as a symbol of your feelings about the wider world. You might also want to consider that a summary that begins 'not all charities, but the ones with problems' is itself an covert way of attacking all charities. When someone wants to make an attack on a particular group but doesn't feel its going to go down well they can use this method to convince listeners that they are not attacking group X (when in fact they are) only those with 'problems'. In this way you try and get people to agree with you and allow you to go to the stage of saying 'all of group X have problems' and indeed it seems, from re-reading your posts, this is largely what you've done in this thread.

However it might be more interesting in this thread for you to unpack your comment it is practical, in terms of one degree of seperation from what it represents. 1 dollar (pound/dubloon/whatever) buys you a chicken. or an hour of labour. or something tangible.

I wasn't sure if you were condemning money for representing this something tangible or questioning whether it is possible to set up some kind of equivalency system where it is possible to measure an hour of ones time given freely against say another person's hour or a physical object such as a chicken.

Personally I would question the idea that an hour of a person's time is tangible - the product of that time is tangible but the effort and time itself will vary between people and even from one day to another in an individual person. However I'd be willing to be convinced that there would be a way of creating such an exchange mechansim.

There are of course lots of people who do try to work it out. I am becoming involved with a project that wants to set up a residential community for older people (people in their 50's and over) which has both a social and economic dimension; that is it forms a community but is also income generating as an organisation. One way that residents would be able to 'pay' for their accommodation is through volunteering mostly for each other but perhaps for the community.

The people behind the project are keen that it is the intent of the time spent that is valued rather than the activity - mostly because it would reflect the different capabilities of older people who would be resident.

Furthermore a residents' contributions would be remembered even when they are unable to make any further efforts themselves, although that would be in the case of several infirm (because all tasks would be weighted the same). We haven't yet gone into a serious discussion about how this would work but I'd be interested in hearing the views of Lithers on how they felt this would happen, particulary those who've had experience of anything similar. And hopefully I've made it clear what I mean here.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
16:27 / 12.01.06
not in the face
Your previous post is entirely focused on the evils of money, ending with a condemnation of medical workers for taking payment

"and if a medical practicioner's main motivation is money, I have to wonder about the integrity of their work." is what I wrote.

tell me, how is that a condemnation?

I'd personally rather have the care of someone who's primary motivation is care, not money. I've been treated by both.

let's clear the air:

charities do good work.

money has been developed into a tool that is used to segregate, and facilitate many of the problems that charities are trying to alleviate.

how can charities be freed from the constraints of a system to do the work they need to (or that we need them to) without the opposition of the proponents of an economic system that depends on inequality?

I idealise a lot of things - it doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of the pragmatic, utilitarian and material aspects of the world.

as for unpacking monetary equivalency: I don't want to discuss details of how much a doctor's time should be worth versus a toilet-cleaner.

simply that things like interest, for starters, generate money out of nothing - well, it's generated out of time. the longer you owe money, the more you owe.

an international standard of trade might be useful. (other topic altogether).

--not jack
 
 
alas
16:36 / 12.01.06
When someone wants to make an attack on a particular group but doesn't feel its going to go down well they can use this method to convince listeners that they are not attacking group X (when in fact they are) only those with 'problems'.

Interestingly, we've just been discussing this same problem over in the "Schisms in the isms" headshop thread, wrt feminism. That is, wrt the way people who are threatened by feminism and women's equality create terms like "misandry feminism" or "feminazi" in order, ultimately, to discredit the whole movement. (Sadly, it works, I find, pretty well, given enough power in conservative hands.)

Second, re: the intentional community you're describing, not in your face. It would definitely be worthwhile to visit some places that have been doing this kind of thing. I'm most familiar in the US with Twin Oaks Intentional Community near Louisa, Virginia, which is a fully income-sharing, work-based community. Every member pledges to contribute, I believe, 46 hours of work/week, which includes all housework, meal prep, etc.

It's been around since 1967, so they know what they are about, although they have recently been experiencing some financial difficulties due to forces pretty much beyond their control. Still, it's a great place (a friend of mine just spent New Year's there). They, like many such places, have a structured three-week visiting program for people who are either interested in living there or who just want to know more about it.

I know people who live there and I know people who have stayed at TO for the full three weeks, and--because of a slightly unusual circumstance--they let me stay over night one night. (These places, to remain functional, have to develop some pretty careful policies in regard to visitors).

Twin Oaks is part of the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, which is, again, North American exclusive. However, this site, "Diggers and Dreamers", looks like a good place to start for people in the UK who are "interested in joining or setting up some kind of intentional community," as the site says.

Back to the subject of money being so horrible for charities to engage with. I meant it when I said that as a former welfare-mom I have no problem with cash handouts, as opposed to not jack's proposed system whereby governments/businesses donate food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, water for the thirsty, and the means to transport and distribute these to those who need it.

When I was earning an income below the poverty line and raising two foster children, giving me cash said: "We trust you to spend this money appropriately." It was empowering. It was invisible to outsiders. Even food stamps come with an implicit warning: "you better not buy anything that someone watching you use these--the cashier, the person in line behind you--might think is frivolous or unhealthy," if you live/shop in a middle-class neighborhood, that is. (I told my students about this experience recently, and one student who grew up in, essentially, a ghetto told me that when everyone gets them, they're not such a big deal and the stigma's a little lessened. But, still, he said, he could really relate to the experience I described.)

Give me a chicken, and not only will I never learn to fish (heh heh), but you're essentially saying: we know what's best for you.

Or, take the experience of a friend of mine, whose father was, alas!, a missionary, in South Africa, when she was a very young child. [I realize that being a missionary is a whole 'nother can o' worms, but let's bracket those worms for a moment]. Anyway, my friend's family knew a rich old white Christian lady living in the same city where they were working, who used to give this "worthy" but poor family all her used (once only!) tea bags. So they could use them again.

You know, as an act of "charity."

I'll take the cash, thanks. And I'd think very seriously before I decided that some jobs, including especially charitable, care-giving ones, are too "sacred" some how to be "tainted" by the lure of "filthy lucre." That idea has been responsible for much mischief in the world, methinks.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
17:34 / 12.01.06
not jack's proposed system whereby governments/businesses donate food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, water for the thirsty, and the means to transport and distribute these to those who need it.

eugh. did I write that? doesn't come across as what I intended. apologies for the sloppy transcription of my thoughts.

I think that ensuring that everyone's fed, watered and sheltered is my key. Not necessarily through handouts, but urban gardens replacing many streets/parking lots, for example.

I don't have a lot of faith in our current administration, mostly because they see more value in markets, and less in the comfort of all their constituents.

Most food programs are run with government financial support, but they are administered by NGOs (in the few Canadian cities in which I've resided).

Any system I would propose would require a radical restructuring of, well, everything.

Our task would be getting from here to our ideal.
 
 
Not in the Face
06:46 / 13.01.06
Not Jack - how can charities be freed from the constraints of a system to do the work they need to (or that we need them to) without the opposition of the proponents of an economic system that depends on inequality?

I think this may be why we are perhaps speaking past each other. As I've indicated upthread I don't think its possible because the charities are a product of the system that as you say depends on inequality. If you changed the system then the need for charities, as they exist today, would vanish. So rather than discussing how you mught free charities you are best looking at how you might change the system. For instance the options you have described about provision of food, water etc seem to me to be a move towards a more state-managed social system where the government provides all of the basic services directly to the people who need them. In this model there would actually be less need for charities because another organisation would be doing the work, although they would still have a role to play as voluntary organisations and associations. And if you are looking to change that system then charities are probably the wrong way to go about it, representing a tiny proportion of the overall activity within the system.

That being said a lot of charities do endeavour to change the workings of the system and its in that issue that I think a lot of the focus on charities and money is located. Its not a case of how can we change the system to free charities, but how can charities manage within the system without compromising their ethos and quality. One of the aspects of this I would say is the aspect of volunteer time and how it can valued.

I have some more ideas on this but will have to come back to it after work.
 
 
Not in the Face
06:47 / 13.01.06
Alas - thanks for those links. Will have a look - I'm very interested in the fact that they have to control who is a visitor and membership of these communities to make them work.
 
 
alas
13:58 / 13.01.06
a residents' contributions would be remembered even when they are unable to make any further efforts themselves, although that would be in the case of several infirm (because all tasks would be weighted the same).

Oh, at Twin Oaks, for example, when a member is ill, their "job" for the week is to get better. So lying in bed, taking care of oneself counts towards the work quota. They are starting to grapple with some seriously aging members, because, of course, this is the US--where not only is medical care famously disastrously unfairly distributed, but social security payments are based on your working for pay. If you've lived on a commune during a majority of your income-earning years, you won't have that, so the community won't gain that income either. Most of the community is on Medicaid.

But at least with the over 50 crowd you're concerned with, you shouldn't have to think about determining how many births can be supported in a given year, which can be a rather delicate matter. At TO, fertile / heterosexually active people are expected to use birth control, and you have to kind of "apply" to be allowed to have a child, since, although TO children are reared by the parents, the community is still financially responsible--through college, in fact, assuming the family stays. (They're humane, of course, and they leave the door open to unplanned pregnancies; they don't categorically say: we will not support any unplanned child, but, by controlling membership in the first place to people who "get" the communal structure, this hasn't been a huge issue, as I understand it.)

Thinking about "charity" in such a context does require a kind of shift in one's thinking: this kind of "from each according to hir abilities, to each according to hir needs" as a basis for organizing life means that "charity,"--or, better yet empathy and attentiveness to the needs of others is built into the system.

If I'm understanding not jack's postings correctly, it's the fact that many charities function in our current capitalist system to kindly clean up the messes made by the system, bear some of the costs of the system, which never has to pay for or really confront its true costs. Corporations make billions from some product that, in the process of manufacture created toxic waste dumps, which make people get cancer, and a charity works on the cancer, and the corporation rarely is required to pony up the true cost of their venture. Although there are of course highly publicized exceptions of massive class-action lawsuits, they much more often just walk away, because it is, scientifically, very difficult to say that definitely chemical x caused sickness y, and with a transient population, it becomes even more difficult to isolate and identify causes and effects.

Interestingly, TO was originally based on the behaviorist ideas in Walden 2, by BF Skinner. It's weird, to me, because the behaviorist model is very economic in nature: one basic principal that arises from behaviorism and which is still part of TO's ethos is that people do need to be aware of the full "cost" of any activity, they deliberately make some more "expensive" indulgences inconvenient so that members are more intentional about all their daily choices.

(I do a little of this in my own life. We put our TV in an inconvenient place in the house so that we have to really want to watch something on TV; it's not a "default" activity. We, my kids included, therefore watch almost no television. I don't think they'd have spent as much time on the piano, playing guitar, reading, if TV had been an "easy" choice.

The same cannot be said, now, of my frivolous computer use, however...)
 
 
Not in the Face
20:00 / 17.01.06
But at least with the over 50 crowd you're concerned with, you shouldn't have to think about determining how many births can be supported in a given year, which can be a rather delicate matter.

Possibly. I think there would still be a issue to be addressed with access and membership. The assumptions behind the plan is that older people aren't going to die off soon after 60, but will continue into their 80's and beyond, which for someone who joined at say 50 represents more of a commitment to a degree than bringing a child into a community, as the expectation would be that the child is likely to leave in their 20's.

I think, as it sounds with Twin Oaks, that there would have to be strict rules around certain aspects particularly the giving of time to ensure it is not devalued - or in fact valued in a monetary way. This has impact on how accessible and popular the model will be, which is one of the aims of the organisation.

Thinking about "charity" in such a context does require a kind of shift in one's thinking: this kind of "from each according to hir abilities, to each according to hir needs" as a basis for organizing life means that "charity,"--or, better yet empathy and attentiveness to the needs of others is built into the system.

I think this is one of the problems within the US/UK system. Because co-operatives don't have a popular appeal, and certainly don't get the range of funding support available to charity a great many charities are in fact based around the concepts you describe and it sits poorly with the paternalistic legal underpinnings of charities.

Not Jack, perhaps rather than asking how we can help charities be free from monetary constraints, another approach is to ask 'should charities be doing this work in the first place?'.

You have focused on the very large charities - medical, disaster relief, provision of basic food etc. I would argue that charities are poorly suited to providing this kind of service which is quite institutional in nature and bureaucratic. This amplifies the inherent failings of charities (paternalism, limited resources) and created what is called funder-dependency. For these charities the largest funder is probably the government and the impact of this is that the charities end up modelling their internal culture and decision making processes on the government (or whoever their largest single funder is). This isn't direct or malign influence - it can come about simply as a result of being forced to adopt the funders' priorities.

Personally I would like to see less emphasis on charities as providers of large scale services and more focus on their ability to provide service to minorities and those people without access to mainstream services - this is what I think charities are best at, because they invariably draw in people with direct experience of those issues and a willingness to provide answers tailored to specific needs.

The kind of large scale activities you describe I think are often best left to government or private firms to carry out.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
20:47 / 17.01.06
not in the face typed
You have focused on the very large charities - medical, disaster relief, provision of basic food etc. I would argue that charities are poorly suited to providing this kind of service which is quite institutional in nature and bureaucratic

which was my point. they don't provide the best service, as you call it, exactly because they are working in an institutionalised bureaucracy.

also this: should charities be doing this work in the first place?

should?
ideally, in the world of my dreams, there would be no need for charities because our communities would find the means of developing themselves into such a series of relationships as to address the problems without the need for intervention from an outside body.

or less so. there's only so much you can do to prepare for a force of nature, whether that be a hurricane or warfare or epidemic, etc. That's where communities start lending support, whether it be homes for evacuees, supplies, food, medical care, etc...

our current set up, at least in Canada and from what I gather the US, much will have to change for that to be the case.

it's not impossible, but it requires a very radical shift in our priorities, and finding a means of sticking to a plan over long times.

people who began building medieval cathedrals didn't live to see its completion. If only our political will embodied such long vision. alas, it falls far far short of that, leaving us wallowing in the mess that our immersion in the marketing of the world has brung upon us.

it's not all bad, by no means, particularly for someone born into as much comfort and privilege as I have.

the good stuff doesn't threaten to alter the very systems inherent in our environment and upon which we depend to survive by acts of heedless greed.

which is at the heart of our current mire.

so the question, is how do we get from here to there?

--not jack
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
15:20 / 22.09.10
**bump**
saw this story that reminded me of this thread:
Full article


"Canadian registered charities paid $762 million to third-party fundraisers between 2004 and 2008, all of it deducted from donations and often dwarfing guidelines set out by the Canada Revenue Agency, a CBC investigation has learned.

"In more than 200 cases, charities paid more than half the money they received from donors to external fundraisers, according to documents obtained from the CRA, which regulates Canadian charities."
 
 
teleute
16:11 / 26.10.10
I'm in an interesting position as I work for a charity which actively seeks donations from both private individuals and businesses, along with chasing appropriate government contracts for defraying charitable money to local groups. I have recently been challenged by an acquaintance who believes this is an immoral method of working.

I disagreed, but it did make me think about how we work. Our management fee is low - between 5 and 10% per private donor / company, and about 15% for government contracts (privately raised investorrs not suprisingly drive a harder bargain). Much of our operating income is derived from our endowment funds, which have flatlined during recent economic times (and if you check the accounts of many big charities you'll see a similar situation). A previous post mentioned the core being weak in some charities - mine is currently on the verge of becoming hollow as government contracts draw to an end without any repalcement. Funding from our private donors will not ensure our survival.

We are regrouping and assessing our business model at present. We are based on the American system of Community Foundations, in that we act as a link between community groups and potential donors. For our fee we facilitate tax breaks, networking events and much back scratching for the donors (we work at a sub-regional level). The benefit for the community group or charity that applies is that there is one form hosted and assessed (then managed if a grant awarded) by us that has a chance to be funded by 150 donor funds. Any locally based group of any size can apply for support.

Our marketing budget has become astronomical. We are expected to look as professional as possible, and host events in outstanding venues - occasionally donors will sponsor these, but it normally comes from our budget. This cannot continue - we are no longer sustainable and facing redundancies - not from our donor care or marketing side, but from the side that cares for the local community groups. This is making those of us that chose a job that supports groups working with the most marginalised in society very uneasy - but as I'll be redundant next year I'm trying not to overthink it!

So we face some very specific challenges. How do we provide the service our donors expect if they are not prepared to pay the true cost of delivering it? When did style become more important than substance and customer care? I don't know the answers - I can only say that working in the charitable sector for five years has left me infinately sadder, if not wiser.

Postscript ~ I previously worked for a UK lottery distributor (a registered charity). I walked out after a very short period of time - I was told I have too much integrity. I had to sign a secrecy agreement so can't really comment on it, but it does make me question how charities are defined in the UK - and how much cash is syphoned off by the government for their own use.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply