November 15, 2024

Wealth Matters: Charitable Giving From Head or Heart

Lucy was a retired guide dog who, during her working life, gave birth to 32 puppies, many of whom also became guide dogs. My wife got involved with guide dogs by accident — she saw a striking Labrador walking down Fifth Avenue and asked the person walking it for the breeder’s name. Instead she heard about a program where volunteers take puppies for a year and train them in basic obedience before they’re ready for formal training as guide dogs.

When I came into the picture a few years later, my wife had trained several dogs before becoming a foster parent, as it were, for Lucy, a yellow Labrador who had been selected as breeding stock.

As the years went on, we traveled back and forth to the foundation for Lucy to be bred and to whelp her puppies. We got to see how the school turned energetic puppies into well-trained guides. We also started to make larger donations. In 2007, we paid to sponsor a puppy, Ocho, from Lucy’s last litter and then asked to train it.

When that year was up and we had to give him back, my heart would have been broken had I not seen the good these dogs do for people. Ocho is now guiding a young woman who sends us periodic updates.

A few years ago, a friend asked if I’d like to become involved with anothergroup that helps blind people achieve their full potential in life. I agreed and have been giving time and money since.

Today, probably 90 percent of the money my wife and I give to charity each year goes to groups involved with helping the blind. Before Lucy came into my life, I didn’t have a dog, know any blind people or think much about charity beyond writing a check to my alma mater’s annual fund.

In giving this way, we also unwittingly waded into one of the big debates among donors and their advisers: is it better to give in response to an emotional need or feeling, or are dollars better spent when tied to a metric that measures how effective they are?

“The whole issue of measuring and metrics and trying to have impact data is, I think, a very contemporary part of philanthropy,” said Thomas E. K. Cerruti, former personal lawyer to Sam Skaggs, a billionaire philanthropist who made his fortune in supermarkets and drugstores. “What motivates people to give? For selfish reasons, a name on a building is at the top of the list. But some people want to effectuate something that has some personal interest to them. Other types of motivations are hard to analyze.”

Mr. Cerruti, who founded a Web site to link donors with nonprofits, said he never tried to presume why Mr. Skaggs gave the way he did, and felt it was something too personal to ask. “He really cared about being a catalyst for opportunity primarily for those who would benefit the most from that opportunity,” he said.

We have been emotional givers from the start. It always seemed like a pure good to support groups that helped blind people. We’ve never looked at the ratings from Charity Navigator or GuideStar on either group. But we have followed closely what both organizations have done. We may have gotten lucky.

“The giving with the heart people, they may go wrong in trusting an organization that is not trustworthy,” said Gene Tempel, founding dean of Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. “One of the pieces of advice we give to people is get to know the organization. It means walking into the organization and asking questions. It means asking for a copy of an annual report.”

Ani Hurwitz, who retired this week after 24 years of working at the New York Community Trust, said she came from a family of emotional givers.

“My father gave a lot to religious stuff because he was religious,” she said. “He was also a bleeding heart.”

She recalled him crying as he watched the nightly news and then making a donation to a charity aimed at easing whatever troubling situation he had seen.

Even though she has worked in philanthropy for decades and knows how to evaluate nonprofits, she said she was personally moved by stories more than measurements on the impact of her money. She gives money to Doctors Without Borders because she admires their courage in caring for people in poor, war-ravaged places. She recently gave $250 to help buy a telescope for students in the Bronx because she thought it would be great for children who don’t get to travel to gaze at the stars.

“I don’t look at metrics,” she said. “Let’s say we make a $75,000 grant to reduce poverty in Bushwick. Do you really think anyone can evaluate if our $75,000 did that? Or was it someone else’s $75,000 grant? Can you even evaluate that?”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/your-money/charitable-giving-from-head-or-heart.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: The Case Against Ending Food Drives

Church youth group members sort canned items for a food drive in Montana.Nikki Carlson/Havre Daily News, via Associated PressChurch youth group members sort canned items for a food drive in Montana.

Over on Slate yesterday, the new Moneybox columnist Matthew Yglesias sounded off on food drives. Having to pick up or sort your donations of random cans is highly inefficient. Much of the stuff that people remove from their pantries is unusable because it’s old or it’s junk food, he said. Plus, most food banks, he noted, can buy highly discounted bulk food in a variety of ways.

It’s better, he concluded, to simply hand over the money you would have spent on the food at retail prices and let the food banks buy what they need on the cheap.

There is part of me that loves the pure rationality here. But here’s what you miss when you make this all about the money: the opportunity to teach. For a child, for instance, a food drive offers all sorts of lessons.

The conversation might start here: Sometimes, we buy more than we need. Isn’t that silly? What can we do here in our house to figure out the difference between things we need and things we want? The discussion possibilities are endless; every room offers fodder, not just the kitchen.

But let’s say we do have more than we need. If that happens, we can give it to someone who has less than they need. The visceral experience of sorting through physical items (including toys and clothes and books) and figuring out what isn’t truly necessary is something that you can’t easily replace by writing a check to the needy.

Then, you pack up the items and deliver them to a central collection point. The volume of items is itself illuminating: Oh look, others are trying to help, too. We’re all in this together. Can we do it again sometime? Or, alternatively, why is it that no one is helping? Can we help get the word out?

I’m not sure whether the real and pressing need to teach children to be charitable outweighs any hassle or waste that is created by the cans themselves. But I’m pretty sure that the children who participate in food drives stand a good chance of growing up to be adults who write the sort of checks that Mr. Yglesias calls for. Or of turning into the sort of children who might bring a few dollars from their allowance, too, the next time there is a canned food drive in their community.

What do you think?

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=3a4d8dfd74a0d7f9b08a4b2480355df2