Hacker News Reader

Comment by h_anna_h | Hacker News Reader

I personally stopped donating to charities ever since I discovered that 70%+ of the money goes to executives and the rest is just wasted on useless stuff rather than furthering the mission. I would be impressed if over $500M of that money would be used properly.

View on HN

That's not the case for all charities... you want to check out Charity Navigator and find charities that spend a proportion of their funds on programs that you deem worthwhile.

This is why I've donated to the American Red Cross (89.8% of donations go to their programs, meaning every $10 you give, $8.98 of it goes to charity), and RAINN - Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, who use 91.2% of donations on programs.

The American Red Cross doesn't have a great history either [1][2]

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...

[2] https://www.npr.org/2015/06/03/411524156/in-search-of-the-re...

I only recently discovered that The American Red Cross is different to The International Red Cross.

This TED talk on the subject of how we value charities is worth watching:

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...

While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, I think the primary point that we should value charities by their overall community impact, not just by their ratio of program expenditures to overhead, is absolutely correct.

Charity Navigator gives Mozilla 4 stars. Does not seem very reliable.

I would also not give money to RAINN until they remove incest from their name.

> I would also not give money to RAINN until they remove incest from their name.

Okay, you lost me. Explain.

> Charity Navigator gives Mozilla 4 stars. Does not seem very reliable.

You're aware that they're measuring financial performance and objective criteria... not your personal feelings about what that charity does, right?

> Okay, you lost me. Explain.

Consenting adults should be able to do whatever sexual thing they want. Incest-shaming is not a desirable property of our society.

> You're aware that they're measuring financial performance and objective criteria... not your personal feelings about what that charity does, right?

Mozilla's mismanagement of funds and overpayment of executive staff is objective. I also don't appreciate your tone.

> Consenting adults should be able to do whatever sexual thing they want. Incest-shaming is not a desirable property of our society.

Its laughable that you think they're crusading against consensual incest and that they don't mean sexual abuse of minors by their parents. Then again, given the rest of the comments in this chain, I'm not surprised.

> Mozilla's mismanagement of funds and overpayment of executive staff is objective.

Compensation is always subjective. What one organization feels is supremely generous compensation is viewed by another as hiring that executive at an absolute steal.

> I also don't appreciate your tone.

Let me guess, you're used to people who defer to your opinion.

I am sorry but I am not willing to deal with this toxicity. Have a nice day.

You should find more effective charities. In the US at least they all have to file fairly detailed forms (Form 990) with the IRS that include the compensation of their executives as well as the major ways the charity spends its money. That can help you steer well clear of the 70%+ overhead charities.

Besides the advice in the other replies about choosing good charities, it’s also useful to separate giving to charities (organizations that have non-trivial resources and focus dedicated to handling and seeking donations and often figuring out which other orgs to send that money to) vs. direct charitable giving to colleges, food banks, clinics, universities and other non-profits with a local scope (which many of those receiving donations here appear to be).

Certainly not a guarantee it’ll be used effectively, and that sort of outsourcing of deciding the best way to use money is part of the appeal of the larger charities.

You realize you can look into the financials of all charities and see which ones actually spend their money on their "mission"

Many transparent charity navigators/comparers exist. Very many charities where 93%+ go directly towards the mission.

You're donating to the wrong charities.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com