Hacker News Reader

I have to agree. If I don't know where my money is going, I simply can't countenance giving money to a nonprofit (or a company for that matter). I don't know what their selection process is. The one nonprofit they show on their site, Shelterbox, I've seen in action in the Philippines and I have a lot of issues with how they run their operation and the efficacy of their solution.

I've actually looked into that model. You wouldn't have to have partnerships with nonprofits, you can just mail them checks (they are already set up to receive donations and you don't need permission to donate!)

The wrinkle with that concept is with pass-through donations, the donor can't claim a tax exemption unless the pass-through entity is also classified as such. The way around it is to set up a clearinghouse with a bank that authorizes the pass-through entity to write checks on behalf of members. Then when you donate your $1 a day, it goes into your bank account, and checks are written from there every month to the charities of your choice. Then you have to figure out pricing and transaction fees with the extra overhead you're introducing across sending payments to multiple nonprofits.

Maybe it's not a big deal with $1 a day, but if you want to scale to supporting bigger recurring donations people are going to want a tax exemption.

It's a good start but I think it needs to be thought out more to become a viable product.

Do you know if there a legal/tax impediment to getting the pass-through classified as a not-for-profit? Or did you just mean it makes it harder to implement as a traditional startup?

The pass-through would have to set up as a foundation that then issues grants to other non-profits. That isn't an easy process. I won't donate anything unless there's a tax advantage. The reason is that non-profits that are registered 501 3(c)'s have certain reporting requirements. If they aren't registered, there's little accountability.

It appears that Network For Good largely operates this way as a "donor-advised fund":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donor_advised_fund

From their site:

We’re a nonprofit too! Dollar a Day makes no money, in any way, from donations on this site. Dollar a Day was built by a team of (almost entirely) volunteers.

Are they a 501 c3? Nope? Then no tax deduction. Calling yourself nonprofit and actually being a non profit are not one and the same under tax law.

Hey. I work for Dollar a Day. Just a few quick facts:

• You can read about our selection process in our FAQ: https://dollaraday.co/faq#calendar

(We welcome feedback, if you have it.)

• You can always view a calendar of upcoming nonprofits on site: dollaraday.co/calendar

• All of our donations are anonymously processed by Network For Good,Inc. a registered nonprofit, and are US-tax deductible.

> From my perspective I will never donate to an unknown entity regardless of filtering criteria. I have limited resources and believe I can have the impact I want to have by chosen where to use those resources.

That's your choice, of course, but then I think you're not their target audience. This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective non-profits on their own.

IMO, it is actually an excellent model. People who just want to buy warm fuzzy feelings of helping people can donate with almost zero hassle, having all thinking outsourced from them, Dollar a Day has a chance to distribute those funds in an effective way, and non-profits will likely know in advance that they're getting $ThisManyDollars in the next 4 weeks, which will give them some little chance for planning things.

> If this system catches on I imagine it will result in many a controversy, which may just be the price dollaraday.co is willing to pay, but it sure seems like an unnecessary distraction.

I think it will only be a distraction to people who like to participate in stupid controversies. Unless they start donating to ISIS or KKK, the only source of controversies will be trolls and "journalists" trying to make a quick buck.

> I think it will only be a distraction to people who like to participate in stupid controversies. Unless they start donating to ISIS or KKK, the only source of controversies will be trolls and "journalists" trying to make a quick buck.

There have been plenty of stories over the years of non-profits that do shady things with donations or engage in activities against parts of the population, should this site ever accidentally pick one up, that is where the problem will be.

Well, this sounds like something that people will ignore unless someone purposefully blows it out of proportion. It falls under "journalists trying to make quick buck" and people being generally stupid in their reactions.

> Unless they start donating to ISIS or KKK

Or an organization that provides family planning support, or that funds stem cell research.

At first I thought you were joking, then realised you likely live in the US. I guess each country has it's share of things that other countries don't understand!

I don't know about whether they were joking or serious, but I think their point was that for any person, there are probably some charities they'd object to funding. I know people who won't donate to Habitat for Humanity (US charity that builds houses for poor people) because of their religious proselytizing. There are Catholic charities; there are charities that distribute birth control; there are even white supremacist charities. Aside from religious considerations, while charities in the US generally can't directly engage in political activity, there are lots of charities that are connected to political organizations, all across the political spectrum. Pick any controversy (climate change, gun control, religious freedom, reproductive rights, etc.) and I bet you could find charities aligned with either side of the question.

That's why they explicitly stated that they are excluding charities with religious and political affiliations. But there is only so much you can do to avoid controversies - there will always be someone who want to earn a quick buck on a scandal, or sometimes someone who just wants to watch you burn. Controvery is something people manufacture. At some point you have to stop caring.

There are issues that are inherently controversial.

For example (don't hate): if you believe human life begins and has value at conception, then abortion is in the same category as murder. If you believe it begins some time later, then any restriction on abortion is a violation of a woman's control over her own body and is in the same category as rape. Those positions are fundamentally at odds, and fundamentally do not lend themselves well to compromise. An organization with activities that touch on either side of that issue is going to be controversial, not because of religion or politics or making a quick buck, but because neither side is even remotely acceptable to the other side.

There are a handful of issues that are like that. There are a handful of issues where people are unwilling to compromise even a little bit. If you casually insert an organization that even remotely touches on that type of issue into a list of 30 organizations to support this month, with no ability to skip, you lose a certain category of sponsors.

I'm quite serious.

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/cincinnati_archdiocese_to_ca...

The article quotes a vatican directive about stem cell that uses the phrase "cooperation in evil".

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/28/protesters-gathe...

The article mentions a 1994 incident in which a gunman murdered two people and injured five more in attacks at three different clinics that provided family planning services.

> This service seems tailored for people who would gladly give some money to charity, but don't feel like researching effective non-profits on their own.

That's really the problem. If you would gladly give money to charity, but don't care enough to even research who you're giving to, the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely. Don't get me wrong, being able to raise money for charities (assuming it's a good cause) is undoubtably a good thing, and will have a positive impact, but this is the kind of shallow giving that doesn't create lasting change. I believe true impact comes not just from dollars but people having their hearts invested in causes they believe in.

If you're willing to trust Dollar A Day to spread your money to charities, why not just cut out the middle-man and find one charity you trust and believe in to give to?

> If you would gladly give money to charity, but don't care enough to even research who you're giving to, the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely.

1) I think it might be less, but unlikely? That's a pretty strong statement.

2) Rational assessments of charities, like stock picking, can go horribly awry if you put all your resources in one pot. This is more like a 'managed fund'.

3) mindlessly giving money away could be a gateway to mindfully giving money away. Creating zero or low-barrier modes of entry to beneficial habits is a good idea. Ultimately, a user of this service could see, hey $360/year isn't that bad for my bottom line, and begin regularly donating $360 to a charity of choice.

I am not going to argue that it isn't BETTER to have your heart invested in a cause you believe in, there are going to be a lot of people who just don't want to spend that time or effort, for whatever reason. In addition, even if a person has the time and effort available, not everyone in the world is capable of effectively researching and vetting a charity; in fact, I think most people will probably not have that ability. It makes sense to choose to place that decision making responsibility to a group who has the proper training, time, and access to vet a charity properly.

Yeah, it's basically outsourcing effective giving. Makes economical sense for everyone involved.

> this is the kind of shallow giving that doesn't create lasting change. I believe true impact comes not just from dollars but people having their hearts invested in causes they believe in.

I don't really agree with this. Whether or not this "shallow giving" creates a lasting change depends on what DaD does with the money.

It's true that "people having their hearts invested in causes they believe in" can have an enormous impact when they act on their feelings. E.g. I care deeply about the current spread of Ebola, or the war that is raging 350 kilometers from my home, but since I'm doing exactly nothing about any of this, my state of heart has absolutely zero impact on anything.

You said "the chance that you help create lasting change and a shift in thinking about yourself versus others is unlikely", but I believe it is important to explicitly separate those two concerns. When one considers donating to charity, one can have multiple reasons for that (usually at the same timie) - like a) "creating lasting change", and b) "shift in thinking about yourself". And maybe c) "positive emotions from helping people". All those reasons are good, but I endorse the idea that one should consider and maximize them separately, or in other words "purchase fuzzies and utilons separately"[0]. The post I linked is a very good take on this topic.

Dollar a Day is not a good way to optimize for a). There are definitely more effective charities out there. It can be an decent way to c) purchase fuzzy feelings cheaply, especially for those who don't have much experience donating or helping people in general. As for b), I think it might have a good enough effect given how strong the human need to stay internally consistent is. You find yourself spending money on charity, therefore you start thinking about yourself as a kind of person that donates to good causes.

> If you're willing to trust Dollar A Day to spread your money to charities, why not just cut out the middle-man and find one charity you trust and believe in to give to?

That was the point of my comment. Between people who don't give to charity at all and people who are willing to "cut out the middle-man" there will always be a group who would give if someone handled the cognitive burden for them. By reducing the process to just subscribing somewhere, Dollar a Day has an opportunity to capture this group, and thus increase amount of money that is given to charities.

So TL;DR: if you think this idea is too cheap a charity for your taste, you're probably not the target audience - you already are willing to be more effective at donating. So give to whom you think you should, and let DaD guys help capture people who otherwise wouldn't donate at all.

[0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/6z/purchase_fuzzies_and_utilons_sepa...

This seems like it could work as a simple expansion of the idea. Everyone donates to the daily non-profit, but the email has a "Support Continuously" button that adds them to a list of "your" non-profits that you chose. Then you'd start donating $1 a day to that organization on top of the $1 random donation.

This seems the way my brain wants to donate. I want to pick and choose instead of giving $1 every day to a random charity I have no idea how I feel about.

Exactly, not every charity is worthy. Some charity wasting my money on CO2 mitigation has a different value to me than a charity helping battered women escape abuse. ..as an example.

Now think for a minute which one of these actually matters more for continous well-being of mankind, and you'll see why effective charity is a hard problem.

Diversifying your donations increases the chances that you will be funding a worthy cause / charity.

Depends if the average charity is actually good or is net negative.

> From the non-profits perspective, re-occuring and emotionally invested donations are much more valuable than a one off big shot of money.

That's the big one, IMO. Would definitely like to see b) implemented. It would work similarly to Flattr, but specifically for curated lists of non-profits with good track records.

You could do what these volunteers did with their free time and build out your idea.

Great point.

I'm not at all trying to detract from what they have chosen to spend their time building. I'm simply giving my perspective which can be taken as feedback for the builders or alternatively just sideline commentary on the problem space they are addressing and is interesting to a number of us who care about using our money to impact the world.

There is a fine balance in communities like HN between giving honest feedback/having honest discussions about a topic vs. everyone just being a negative critic and armchair quarterbacking anything anyone builds. I think it's often best to sandwich real feedback in some positive encouragement to avoid the negative critic spiral. On the other hand, sometimes I think that's the same sugar coating as "no offense but..." in which case I skip it.

I was hoping the same thing :(