In the United States, large charitable organizations have a management structure resembling a corporate one. They pay their permanent employees decent salaries (heads of the largest charitable organizations earn $500-700 thousand a year, which is certainly less than the incomes of people of similar rank in industry, but quite respectable for a professional manager), publish annual financial reports and the results of independent audits. Such organizations compete in advertising campaigns, periodically get into trouble due to the misuse of funds – in general, the normal business cycle.
On the one hand, such an "industrial" approach depersonalizes the donor, but on the other hand, those in need of help are less dependent on the individual whims of the rich.
It is no exaggeration to say that the U.S. charity industry exists mainly on the money of the middle class.
Soup & more
There are two main ways of helping, which do not exclude but rather complement each other. The first is to benefit the poor: shelter the homeless from bad weather, operate on sick poor people, feed the destitute free soup. The second is to help a person as an individual: teach something, pay for education, give funds or a soft loan for a business start. Most large charitable organizations combine both methods. But they usually specialize in one of them.
Most of the donations are spent on the implementation of the first scenario. The highest income in 2003 ($4,2 billion), according to the rating of the newspaper The Christian Science Monitor, was that of the Christian Association of Young People (YMCA). It is followed by the American Red Cross (American Red Cross), "Catholic Charities" (Catholic Charities), the Salvation Army (Salvation Army). Standing apart are the United Jewish Communities (United Jewish Communities, annual income $2 billion, mainly engaged in development programs for Jewish communities) and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (Boys and Girls Clubs of America, annual income $1 billion, field of activity – raising children).
As for "non-child" education: 13th on the list is "Planned Parenthood" (Planned Parenthood of America, annual income $700 million). In a religious country, the task of providing young people with cheap contraceptives, almost free medical consultations, and financial assistance for abortions is very important.
At 21st place is "Public Broadcasting" (PBS – Public Broadcasting Service, annual income $530 million). PBS is non-commercial radio and television. Its income consists of donations and subsidies. The state cannot interfere in PBS's broadcasting policy – and does not.
Cultural and educational organizations also engage in charity – museums, research foundations, distributors of education grants. But their budget, as a rule, does not exceed $200 million, which is understandable: the purpose of these institutions is narrower than "feed all the homeless".
However, it would be a mistake to think that the giants of charity spend money only on "free soup". YMCA sponsors youth sports events, keeps cheap youth hostels, organizes tours. "Catholic Charities" awards educational scholarships to capable children from poor families, etc.
From each – according to capabilities
Charity help can take rather fanciful forms: for example, there is an organization that collects outdated but still decent business suits from "white-collar" workers. They are given to the unemployed for interviews – a good suit increases the chance of getting a job. Old cell phones also get a second life – they are modified so that only one number can be dialed – 911 (emergency services). The devices are given to single mothers from poor neighborhoods and victims of domestic violence.
In short, everyone donates what they can. For example, large consulting firms "give" the labor of their employees: consultants, whose hour of work costs from $200 to $500, "slog" on public projects for which the firm does not bill. Many corporations give their employees an annual paid leave (usually one to three days) that they can spend only on charity – at their own discretion.
The organization "Big Brothers and Sisters of America" (Big Brothers and Sisters of America, annual income $200 million) "attaches" successful young people to teenagers in bad neighborhoods. Such a "big brother" (unlike good-for-nothing parents and crack-dealing peers) can become an ideal for the "little one" to strive for. This scheme rarely works, but if it does, you'll agree, it's nice to realize that you helped a capable child not become a petty criminal.
My favorite charity organization is the American Civil Liberties Union (American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU). Its purpose is to protect civil rights literally as written in the Constitution. Therefore, the ACLU sues everyone – regardless of political preferences. In Alabama, they may defend the rights of transsexuals – to the delight of the liberal public. And in New York, they sue to protect smoking – to the disappointment of the same liberals. The ACLU is a purely libertarian organization. True, the word "libertarianism" must be understood broadly – the overwhelming majority of charitable organizations in the United States have a religious basis.
Do good for your own benefit
In the United States, not only charitable organizations are exempt from paying taxes. Donations from citizens to charities are also not subject to income tax. If I donate, say, $90 to the ACLU, in fact I will only pay $60 out of my pocket – a third will return to me at the end of the fiscal year. This is a powerful incentive for individuals, and even more so for corporations.
That's not all. Here I have old skis lying around that I will never ski on again. I can give them to needy skiers (don't laugh, it turns out there are such people.) The receiving clerk at a ski shop conducting a charity drive, glancing at my warped 1996 Atomic skis, will write with a flourish in the receipt: estimated value $200. So that tomorrow I will come back to him. When filling out my tax return, I can deduct one-third of that two hundred from my taxes – for skis that, from my point of view, aren't worth even twenty. In the same way, citizens and businesses get rid of old cars, office furniture, computers... Everyone wins here – even the state, which loses on under-collected taxes but saves on creating infrastructure for the redistribution of goods.
Charity ratings
There are three main independent organizations that compile ratings of charitable structures. These are the American Institute of Philanthropy (American Institute of Philanthropy), the Alliance for Reasonable Giving (Wise Giving Alliance), and the Philanthropist's Navigator (Charity Navigator).
Their ratings are very similar to corporate ratings or to ratings of securities. Roughly speaking, the list is based on bookkeeping. And the accounting standards of philanthropic offices reflect their main goal – to raise money and spend it for the benefit of those in need. Therefore, philanthropists are ranked primarily by the volume of donations. The second important indicator is the percentage of funds going directly to charity (to take into account how much administrative costs eat up).
Respected charitable organizations spend no more than 10-20% of their budget on administrative work – everything else goes directly to beneficiaries. Since many donors are corporations that view charity as a component of PR and advertising, they are interested in how carefully thought out the advertising policy of the charitable organization itself is. This indicator is called fundraising efficiency and reflects how much needs to be spent on a campaign to attract every $100. An important evaluation criterion is stability – donors want to be sure that they are not dealing with a fly-by-night outfit.
Education expenses
It is known that at the initial stage, the United States was settled by British sectarians who exchanged their established way of life in England for the opportunity to practice their religion in new lands. Even when the American territories were English colonies, they had unprecedented freedom of religion. It gave them the right to teach children in their own religious schools that did not belong to the official Anglican Church. Therefore, from the first days of its existence, the American education system was private and was created at the local level by religious communities of a town or county using parishioners' money.
Even now, when secondary education has long become public (at the state level) and compulsory, church charity is still very strong. Since there is a clear separation of state and church, religious education is possible only outside public schools. Accordingly, various denominations create all sorts of private schools and establish scholarships.
The state does not need to feed just anyone free soup. Therefore, it makes sense to engage in charity when there is a need to change the world for the better. If you want something to be done – do it yourself. That will be real charity.