Charity Begins at Home

While eating my salad one evening at dinner, I happened to notice the following statement on the label of a bottle of salad dressing:

"Paul Newman and the Newman’s Own Foundation donate all profits and royalties after taxes for educational and charitable purposes. Paul Newman and the Newman’s Own Foundation have given over $200 million to thousands of charities worldwide since 1982."
http://www.newmansown.com/commongood.cfm

Well, this wasn't exactly what the label said but it is almost the same. Apparently, the label and the web site differ a bit as to the amount of money contributed (what's a measly 25 million anyway?). But, it made me start thinking about how many charities there are out there -- thousands? After doing a little research, I convinced myself, yes, maybe there are thousands of charities out there -- maybe even more than thousands. If you want to get some idea of the enormity of the non-profit world, you can go to http://www.charitynavigator.org/ and list all the charities they rate in alphabetical order. I am relatively sure all the charities they rate are not all the charities there are.

CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME -- "One's own family (or country, etc.) comes before any other responsibilities. The idea of the proverb can be found in the Bible (cf. I Tim. 5: 8, etc. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.)."

"The proverb dates back to the time of the Roman comic playwright Terence (about 190-159 BC). In 1383, John Wycliffe wrote: 'Charity should begin at himself.' Five hundred years later Dickens said that 'Charity begins at home, and justice begins next door.' First attested in the United States in the 'Winthrop Papers' (1628).'." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" (1996) by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

Recently, we learned one of our relatives was in dire circumstances financially and needed help. Many of our relatives donated money for food and housing for the mother and children of the distressed family. I'm thinking this is an example of how charity begins at home. It is also an example of the most efficient form of charitable giving and usage of charitable contributions. All the money went directly to the needy family with almost zero administrative "overhead" except for several long distance phone calls, postage stamps, etc. This is always the desired goal, that ALL the charitable contributions go 99.9% to those needing it. It seems the farther away from home the charity is, the less efficient the process becomes. Obviously, the most efficient transfer of charitable funds would be the personal exchange of money or some other form of aid which would result in zero overhead expense.

The idea of "begins at home" could conceivably extend out into the community and/or neighborhood you live in. It could also include the desire to help with the "overhead" costs. Some charitable organizations are supported with the intention of helping to cover the overhead expense. I give to our church every first day of the week with the intention of what I give being used to help with local ministry expenses, building upkeep and maintenance, and whatever else it might be needed for. I contribute to the local Salvation Army too. I don't know what their National Commander gets paid but I doubt it is anywhere near $500,000 a year.

Getting back to the thought above, thousands of charities. I view giving to charity somewhat like investing. I want the highest possible return for my investment dollar. The biggest BANG for the buck if you will. I bet you do too. My theory is that the more you "invest" in charitable giving close to home, the better your return on "investment." There are many, many "societies," "associations," and "foundations" you can give to that are administered by highly paid executives whose job it is to bring in the donations which sustain the organization (and themselves). These organizations for the most part do good work with varying degrees of efficiency.

Using the close to home principle, I tend to give to organizations which exist to help in some area which affects me directly in one way or another. I think most of us are pretty much motivated by a form of self interest, if you want to call it that, when it comes to charitable giving. In other words, if you have cancer, you tend to be interested in giving to charities which support cancer research in general and/or your specific kind of cancer (and there are over 200 kinds of cancer). Unless one is a multi-millionaire and/or a lottery winner, one can't really afford to give to all the charities, foundations, and societies that are out there needing money. We have to be selective because our resources are limited. We want our limited resources to have the biggest impact and in some small way, benefit us too. I suppose, in that sense, we aren't much different from the executives who manage the non-profits.

Big, nation wide societies and foundations solicit contributions from hundreds of thousands of people. Local organizations and family solicit from relatively few individuals. Therefore, I usually try to give the most to local organizations and family because the big organizations will pull in thousands of small donations the sum of which dwarfs any local effort I might involve myself in. Big organizations are also less efficient at delivering money that is contributed to where it is needed. Sometimes, the research or cause that is being supported turns out to be useless.

Often, big societies and foundations try to get close to home by moving into the community with community fund raisers. I don't really have a problem with that because it tends to draw attention to the cause and draw in donations that might otherwise not have been made. So even though the overall process is not as efficient as it could be, that is offset by the extra giving and increased public awareness not to mention the opportunity for excitement and gala social events.

Sometimes, you give to non-profit organizations and aren't really aware of it. Take for example the National Cancer Institute which is supported by your tax dollars. In a way, you are giving to charity and don't even know it or have any say in the matter except by personally contacting your representatives and/or volunteering as an advocate in one or more of the many societies or foundations which are involved in such. One example would be the Lance Armstrong Foundation http://www.livestrong.org/site/c.jvKZLbMRIsG/b.594849/k.CC7C/Home.htm

Lance is beginning to encourage the local community involvement approach by declaring Wednesday, May 16 "Livestrong Day." http://www.livestrong.org/site/c.jvKZLbMRIsG/b.1419713/k.917D/LIVESTRONGSTRONGstrong_Day.htm

Lance is trying to stop the cuts in government spending which have reduced the budget of the NCI over the last two years. I think we need to support Lance and the effort to influence Congress to increase government funding of the NCI. But it is difficult, to say the least, to focus on the "war on cancer" when the war in Iraq eclipses everything else!

With the advent of the internet with its personal web pages and e-mail, big national societies and foundations can help their participants get as close to home as possible. When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, she developed a complication involving the placenta which could have killed the baby if not dealt with appropriately. That experience lead my wife to become involved in the March of Dimes. Now, there is your paradigm of hope if your charity organization ever finds a cure. It is also a good example of a big national non-profit getting small in the neighborhood close to home.

Anyway, my wife went door to door soliciting donations for the March of Dimes to raise money to help prevent birth defects (not polio). At the insistance of the charity fundraiser directors, she would do this during super bowl weekend in order to catch people at home (not to mention the affects a couple of beers could have by half-time). Of course, this was in January so she had to be out in the cold trying to collect money. I don't think anyone enjoys being uncomfortably cold or going door to door asking for donations.

Well, my wife did all this because she believed in the March of Dimes -- until, one year, she learned that the March of Dimes was going to sponsor a big expensive awards dinner at the Governor's mansion. That lead her to investigate the March of Dimes' financials. She came to the conclusion that thirty percent or more of the contributions were going to overhead expenses. Remember what I said about the biggest bang for your buck. While my wife was hearing explosions out in the winter windy cold knocking on the neighbor's doors asking for money risking making a nuisance of herself, the organization executives were sitting in the warm comfortable Governor's mansion dining on expensive wonderful food. Needless to say, that pretty much eliminated the need to go door to door in the cold winter wind asking the neighbors for money any more.

Now, I'm not saying the March of Dimes is a bad organization and that they don't deserve your charitable contributions. The point is, prior to the internet, the only way to get up close and personal when soliciting donations was to mail letters or go through the neighborhood knocking on doors. Now, you can set up your own web page to accept donations and send e-mail directing your friends, family, and neighbors to contribute. Of course, you could still mail letters and go through the neighborhood knocking on doors if you wanted to.

Well, at the expense of Mr. Newman, I have pretty well wandered all over the place with the thousands of charities idea. Suffice it to say, there are lots of places to "invest" your charitable dollars. If you are more interested in efficiency, you should focus your efforts "close to home." If you don't have a problem supporting organizational overhead and maybe want to get involved in some of the socializing activities big national non-profits sponsor, go for it.