Yesterday I made a phone call that ended a relationship that had lasted most of my life. I called a large international charity I had started donating to in 1977 to support a child in a struggling country. I vaguely remember being moved by a TV ad with suffering children. I used to write regularly to "my" child, but then was taken aback when that child was abruptly replaced by another. Many years later I would learn that donations for such charities actually go into a big pool, that there really isn't a one-to-one correlation between a particular donation and a particular child. The idea of supporting a particular child is just part of the emotional hook.
Anyway, I felt badly ending such a long relationship. But I guess that was the point, the reason why after nearly forty years I stopped supporting the organization: my relationship to this charity had started out based on emotion, and I was sustaining it not because I thought that this charity made the most efficient use of my money, but because I was nostalgic for my young, idealistic self.
There is nothing wrong with emotion and idealism, but if we want our money to do the most good, we have to look at hard facts and numbers such as the amount of money spent on overhead and staff and the degree to which local people are included in projects. And although pity is a powerful weapon in opening people's pocketbooks, it doesn't provide a strong foundation for working with and helping others. I am excited to spend the money that once went to that charity to ones that do more with less.
No comments:
Post a Comment