By Madeline Poage
Now that that special time of year has passed, where the good vibes of Thanksgiving and the magical spirit of Christmas put us in the mood to spread the cheer. That time when the guilt of everything good we have in our lives gets to us and we want to alleviate that until January first, when we can go back to shucking responsibility for any problems in the world. And that’s not to say we shouldn’t donate to charities—we should. We should help people in need in anyway we can, and many charities do great work and help a lot of people. But next time you see a Santa ringing a bell next to a collection bucket on the street corner, consider the following: there are many charities that do not always live up to their charitable ideals, and they don’t come with that warning label. Figuring that out is up to you.
Take those bell-ringing Santas, for example. The Salvation Army seems like an easy way to drop a few bucks off to a good cause. Nice and convenient. But the Salvation Army has a long history of not being the most progressive organization. Ideologically, they maintain firm stances against abortion, suicide, and homosexuality. Not only that, but they have been involved in a multitude of sexual abuse scandals, usually of underage girls. Maybe not the best place to send your money to.
The Salvation Army isn’t alone, they’re just the easiest to identify. Like many organizations, they have a strong religious affiliations which guide their mission. For several religiously-guided charities, discrimination stems from this affiliation, and affects how they allocate funds and who they deem worth helping (such as Christian Charities, based in Illinois). This is a huge problem in homeless charities or shelters, which can often exclude members of the LGBT community. For example, in 2008, Jennifer Gale, a transgender woman, was refused housing in a homeless shelter run by the Salvation Army and died from the bitter cold outside as a result. This kind of blatant discrimination is, disgustingly, incredibly common, which is ridiculous given that a huge population of the homeless in America are members of the LGBT community, and all the danger and risks the homeless are susceptible to is multiplied for them. They are among those most in need, yet are constantly excluded and mistreated for the very reasons they need help.
Not to say a religious affiliation is a clear sign of evil practices. There are many charities that have strong religious affiliations that do fantastic, non-discriminatory work. Covenant House, a national charity for homeless youth based in New York is one of the leading charities, with high rates of transparency and honesty, as well as success with their mission.
The problem is that many religious organizations have to answer to other, more conservative members of the religion, making it hard to break away from traditional practices. For instance, World Vision International, which focuses on humanitarian aid, recently came out stating a change in discriminatory policies against LGBT people and instead welcoming one and all with open arms. This statement was almost immediately rescinded after strong backlash by the conservative Christian right.
And secular corruption is also a common thread in many different kinds of charities, even high profile organizations. Plenty of charities siphon donations away from the needy to inflate the salaries of CEOs or to funnel money to solicitors they’ve hired (such as Kids Wish Network, Cancer Fund of America, and the American Breast Cancer Foundation). And this isn’t a couple thousand dollars—it’s millions, sometimes even billions, of donors’ money. The general idea is that a good charity spends roughly 35% of the money raised on further fund-raising expenses, at the most.
What’s more, even though we often view charities as a cure to poverty, or at least one kind of cure, the two are more intertwined than that. Aid through international charities to help poverty-stricken areas in developing countries is often used to fuel a continuous cycle of graft and corruption amongst government officials, which in turn perpetuates the very poverty the aid was intended to alleviate, keeping a parasitic government in place. All the government has to do is accept the free money and put on a show to keep the donors happy—a few pictures of cheerful schoolchildren here, a few photo ops of smiling faces around a new clean water source there, and they’re all set.
What this all comes down to is many charities, despite initial good intentions and being classified as nonprofits, are often run like a business. In some ways, this can be a positive aspect, where a clear mission and directive is focused on and achieved through systematic pursuit and the use of logic and data. Results are demanded, and achieved. But the thing to remember about businesses is that they have one ultimate goal—to make money. And even businesses who look squeaky clean always have a few skeletons.
Think of donors like financial investors, emotional shareholders. They have a stake in what happens as a result of their interest and funding of a charity, which means they have to be taken into consideration when it comes to the marketing or promotion of the work that charity is doing. Charity, even the work of good charities, is complicated and doesn’t always work out. But you can’t tell prospective donors that their money might build a school for underprivileged kids, but it also might be used on something entirely different, whether that helps the children or not. That’s not a good marketing strategy, which means charities, whether it’s a lie or not, have to promote this image of themselves as a perfect, loving charity that welcomes all with open arms.
I wish I could say that if you give your money to a reputable charity with good intentions, it will make a difference in someone’s life. But charity is complicated, both domestic and abroad, and the reality is not that simple or streamlined. Your money might go into a CEO’s pocket, it might build a school designed solely for photo ops, it might enter a vicious cycle of dictatorships and rigged elections, it might fund discrimination, and even death. But all of this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t donate to charities. We absolutely have a civic and moral duty to help those we can, and legitimate charities can be an excellent way to make a difference. But making sure you know where you’re sending your money is not optional. When you donate to a charity, you are, whether you want to or not, funding that charity’s actions and ideological agenda, which could include paying CEOs with exorbitant salaries, funding corrupt government officials, or murdering members of the LGBT community through negligence. Money matters in this world, and when you give it to someone, it has power. Wield your power responsibly and do your research.
Madeline Poage is a Writing, Literature, and Publishing major from New Jersey. She’s a recent convert to tea drinking and enjoys Disney movies, punk rock, and realistic portrayals of women in the media.
Take those bell-ringing Santas, for example. The Salvation Army seems like an easy way to drop a few bucks off to a good cause. Nice and convenient. But the Salvation Army has a long history of not being the most progressive organization. Ideologically, they maintain firm stances against abortion, suicide, and homosexuality. Not only that, but they have been involved in a multitude of sexual abuse scandals, usually of underage girls. Maybe not the best place to send your money to.
The Salvation Army isn’t alone, they’re just the easiest to identify. Like many organizations, they have a strong religious affiliations which guide their mission. For several religiously-guided charities, discrimination stems from this affiliation, and affects how they allocate funds and who they deem worth helping (such as Christian Charities, based in Illinois). This is a huge problem in homeless charities or shelters, which can often exclude members of the LGBT community. For example, in 2008, Jennifer Gale, a transgender woman, was refused housing in a homeless shelter run by the Salvation Army and died from the bitter cold outside as a result. This kind of blatant discrimination is, disgustingly, incredibly common, which is ridiculous given that a huge population of the homeless in America are members of the LGBT community, and all the danger and risks the homeless are susceptible to is multiplied for them. They are among those most in need, yet are constantly excluded and mistreated for the very reasons they need help.
Not to say a religious affiliation is a clear sign of evil practices. There are many charities that have strong religious affiliations that do fantastic, non-discriminatory work. Covenant House, a national charity for homeless youth based in New York is one of the leading charities, with high rates of transparency and honesty, as well as success with their mission.
The problem is that many religious organizations have to answer to other, more conservative members of the religion, making it hard to break away from traditional practices. For instance, World Vision International, which focuses on humanitarian aid, recently came out stating a change in discriminatory policies against LGBT people and instead welcoming one and all with open arms. This statement was almost immediately rescinded after strong backlash by the conservative Christian right.
And secular corruption is also a common thread in many different kinds of charities, even high profile organizations. Plenty of charities siphon donations away from the needy to inflate the salaries of CEOs or to funnel money to solicitors they’ve hired (such as Kids Wish Network, Cancer Fund of America, and the American Breast Cancer Foundation). And this isn’t a couple thousand dollars—it’s millions, sometimes even billions, of donors’ money. The general idea is that a good charity spends roughly 35% of the money raised on further fund-raising expenses, at the most.
What’s more, even though we often view charities as a cure to poverty, or at least one kind of cure, the two are more intertwined than that. Aid through international charities to help poverty-stricken areas in developing countries is often used to fuel a continuous cycle of graft and corruption amongst government officials, which in turn perpetuates the very poverty the aid was intended to alleviate, keeping a parasitic government in place. All the government has to do is accept the free money and put on a show to keep the donors happy—a few pictures of cheerful schoolchildren here, a few photo ops of smiling faces around a new clean water source there, and they’re all set.
What this all comes down to is many charities, despite initial good intentions and being classified as nonprofits, are often run like a business. In some ways, this can be a positive aspect, where a clear mission and directive is focused on and achieved through systematic pursuit and the use of logic and data. Results are demanded, and achieved. But the thing to remember about businesses is that they have one ultimate goal—to make money. And even businesses who look squeaky clean always have a few skeletons.
Think of donors like financial investors, emotional shareholders. They have a stake in what happens as a result of their interest and funding of a charity, which means they have to be taken into consideration when it comes to the marketing or promotion of the work that charity is doing. Charity, even the work of good charities, is complicated and doesn’t always work out. But you can’t tell prospective donors that their money might build a school for underprivileged kids, but it also might be used on something entirely different, whether that helps the children or not. That’s not a good marketing strategy, which means charities, whether it’s a lie or not, have to promote this image of themselves as a perfect, loving charity that welcomes all with open arms.
I wish I could say that if you give your money to a reputable charity with good intentions, it will make a difference in someone’s life. But charity is complicated, both domestic and abroad, and the reality is not that simple or streamlined. Your money might go into a CEO’s pocket, it might build a school designed solely for photo ops, it might enter a vicious cycle of dictatorships and rigged elections, it might fund discrimination, and even death. But all of this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t donate to charities. We absolutely have a civic and moral duty to help those we can, and legitimate charities can be an excellent way to make a difference. But making sure you know where you’re sending your money is not optional. When you donate to a charity, you are, whether you want to or not, funding that charity’s actions and ideological agenda, which could include paying CEOs with exorbitant salaries, funding corrupt government officials, or murdering members of the LGBT community through negligence. Money matters in this world, and when you give it to someone, it has power. Wield your power responsibly and do your research.
Madeline Poage is a Writing, Literature, and Publishing major from New Jersey. She’s a recent convert to tea drinking and enjoys Disney movies, punk rock, and realistic portrayals of women in the media.