It's complicated. When the Republicans declared that the government would scale back its aid to the poor, they said the place would be taken by volunteerism and charitable donations, but it wasn't. Charitable donations actually went down at first. In the last couple of years -- it looks like "since Katrina," but I'm not getting complete enough results in my searches yet to be sure of this -- donations have been rising again, but I can't tell what those numbers look like adjusted for inflation.
It worries me that so many of the US charities receiving the highest donations (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0770757.html) are outifts I never heard of. It's not surprising, but not really a good sign, that so many of them are church things.
I'm really having a hard time finding out what I want to know, which is where charitable dollars are spent, across the board (I could, if I devoted enough time to it, analyze the annual reports of every charity on that list, but I ought to be able to find that information in table form already, I think!). My suspicion, which I am embarrassed to put forward as it is only a suspicion, is that an unacceptable amount of money goes into pilot programs and into religion-informed side issues.
It's not as though there was a major charitable effort to supply prenatal and infant care before Bush, and the governments weren't doing a spectacular job then, either.
For alternate cynicism, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a lot of that money is just going for "administrative" costs. Bush and crew are theocrats in a minor but destructive way and they're pleased enough to indulge their mean streaks, but I believe that they're mostly thieves.
Infant mortality was going down before. The government was not doing a spectacular job of addressing perinatal health, but it was addressing it. Also, in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, there was a big rush of NGOs dealing with the issues that are related to it.
Think about it: Food Stamps, WIC, Food Banks, and the rest, were all started in response to poverty issues. WIC specifically addresses maternal and child health. All the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" programs that were so easy to deride at the time -- and the results of their removal (or gutting, or crippling with undderfunding, or subversion, in different cases)is that babies die.
One of the pernicious effects of channeling public money through "faith-based" organizations is that part of the money goes to supporting programs to save women's souls rather than to save their lives or the lives of their children. Or to keeping embryos in wombs rather than taking care of children who are born.
Finding out where charitable money comes from and where it goes to is sticky and nigh impossible, I think. I don't know which of the charities are outfits you haven't heard from. Some comments on a few in the top ten of the list you reference.
AmeriCares (http://www.americares.org/site/c.ivIYIjN3JyE/b.1704285/k.FB7C/International_Disaster_Relief_Organization_About_Us.htm) is an international humanitarian aid and disaster relief organization that also does national relief work in the USA. Good stuff.
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (http://www.charitablegift.org/index.shtml) works like the Community Foundation Silicon Valley. People donate $$ to the fund, which keeps separate tracking so you know how much money you've donated. You get your charitable tax deduction right then. Later, you tell the gift fund that you want to donate $xx to the food bank or to Swords to Plowshares or whatever. The gift fund takes your request under advisement but there is no guarantee that they will fund what you ask them to fund. I think they probably do so if they can because otherwise people wouldn't use their services. Some people donate their $xx and let the gift fund allot the $$ as they see fit. Most community foundations, the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, and other such work the same way. With CFSV, if you want your money to go to organization XYZ, the organization has to provide proof that they're a 501(c)(3) before CFSV will cut the check. I'm assuming most others do the same.
Gifts in Kind (http://www.giftsinkind.org/) distributes corporate donations of new product.
... and so it goes.
So, how to tell in aggregate what charitable donations are funding? Impossible, really. You have Community Funds and individuals and religious organizations and the Packards and Hewletts and Gateses.
You might find these sites informative, if you don't already know of them:
American Institute of Philanthropy (http://www.charitywatch.org/aboutaip.html)
National Center for Charitable Statistics (http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=31)
The Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org)
The Foundation Center does provide statistics for funding of nonprofits by the top 1000 foundations (http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/), but, of course, (as noted above) that's just a wedge of the nonprofit funding pie.
Interesting stuff. Sort by "subject area" You'll find for 2005, $ value of grants, # of grants, &c. for a number of different subject areas "Based on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a national sample of 1,154 larger U.S. foundations (including 800 of the 1,000 largest ranked by total giving). For community foundations, only discretionary grants are included."
The Foundation Center also does a slice that tells you which were the top organizations funded for a given subject area and how much. Under "environment" Longwood Gardens, PA, received $27m and Greenwood Gardens and Nature Center, NJ, received $15m (both in the top ten), but then you notice that each of those totals was from a single grant, which probably means that someone with a donor-directed fund sent a whopping check to a pet project.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
It worries me that so many of the US charities receiving the highest donations (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0770757.html) are outifts I never heard of. It's not surprising, but not really a good sign, that so many of them are church things.
I'm really having a hard time finding out what I want to know, which is where charitable dollars are spent, across the board (I could, if I devoted enough time to it, analyze the annual reports of every charity on that list, but I ought to be able to find that information in table form already, I think!). My suspicion, which I am embarrassed to put forward as it is only a suspicion, is that an unacceptable amount of money goes into pilot programs and into religion-informed side issues.
no subject
For alternate cynicism, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if a lot of that money is just going for "administrative" costs. Bush and crew are theocrats in a minor but destructive way and they're pleased enough to indulge their mean streaks, but I believe that they're mostly thieves.
no subject
Think about it: Food Stamps, WIC, Food Banks, and the rest, were all started in response to poverty issues. WIC specifically addresses maternal and child health. All the "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" programs that were so easy to deride at the time -- and the results of their removal (or gutting, or crippling with undderfunding, or subversion, in different cases)is that babies die.
One of the pernicious effects of channeling public money through "faith-based" organizations is that part of the money goes to supporting programs to save women's souls rather than to save their lives or the lives of their children. Or to keeping embryos in wombs rather than taking care of children who are born.
Charitable funding
AmeriCares (http://www.americares.org/site/c.ivIYIjN3JyE/b.1704285/k.FB7C/International_Disaster_Relief_Organization_About_Us.htm) is an international humanitarian aid and disaster relief organization that also does national relief work in the USA. Good stuff.
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund (http://www.charitablegift.org/index.shtml) works like the Community Foundation Silicon Valley. People donate $$ to the fund, which keeps separate tracking so you know how much money you've donated. You get your charitable tax deduction right then. Later, you tell the gift fund that you want to donate $xx to the food bank or to Swords to Plowshares or whatever. The gift fund takes your request under advisement but there is no guarantee that they will fund what you ask them to fund. I think they probably do so if they can because otherwise people wouldn't use their services. Some people donate their $xx and let the gift fund allot the $$ as they see fit. Most community foundations, the Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, and other such work the same way. With CFSV, if you want your money to go to organization XYZ, the organization has to provide proof that they're a 501(c)(3) before CFSV will cut the check. I'm assuming most others do the same.
Gifts in Kind (http://www.giftsinkind.org/) distributes corporate donations of new product.
... and so it goes.
So, how to tell in aggregate what charitable donations are funding? Impossible, really. You have Community Funds and individuals and religious organizations and the Packards and Hewletts and Gateses.
You might find these sites informative, if you don't already know of them:
American Institute of Philanthropy (http://www.charitywatch.org/aboutaip.html)
National Center for Charitable Statistics (http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=31)
The Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org)
The Foundation Center does provide statistics for funding of nonprofits by the top 1000 foundations (http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/), but, of course, (as noted above) that's just a wedge of the nonprofit funding pie.
Interesting stuff. Sort by "subject area" You'll find for 2005, $ value of grants, # of grants, &c. for a number of different subject areas "Based on all grants of $10,000 or more awarded by a national sample of 1,154 larger U.S. foundations (including 800 of the 1,000 largest ranked by total giving). For community foundations, only discretionary grants are included."
The Foundation Center also does a slice that tells you which were the top organizations funded for a given subject area and how much. Under "environment" Longwood Gardens, PA, received $27m and Greenwood Gardens and Nature Center, NJ, received $15m (both in the top ten), but then you notice that each of those totals was from a single grant, which probably means that someone with a donor-directed fund sent a whopping check to a pet project.