HEART BEAT: Faith, Hope, In Charities

I’m a moderately reclusive shopper who is also a little independent. My quirks manifest themselves in various ways. For example, I tend to avoid crowds, although I will go into large stores, hermetically sealed in my own psychological bubble unless I’m in a familiar place. When I’m in a new store and somebody asks if I need help, or tries to show me things I should want, I give a response I’ve learned to give to avoid seeming rude: “Thanks! I’ll let you know if I need help.” Once upon a time, I might have just turned and left the store. I just don’t like anybody to tell me what to want. I’m the same way with charitable giving. While I support the local United Way, I find other charities via the Internet, which helps me to match particular interests with charitable organizations. This method, combined with attention to charities named in newspaper obituaries of family and friends, seems to work for me. One down side is that some charities sell their customer lists, so I end up with unsolicited mail from other charities. I don’t like the paper waste symbolized by pleas sent by charities appealing to some soft spot. I feel guilty throwing the stuff away. True, some people need glitzy, glossy brochures to be convinced of terrific need, when it would be nice if just the facts would suffice. But I can make my own mailing labels. I can also do the research that I need to do to see how a charity budgets its money. Reputable charities work hard to balance the demands of public relations and solicitation. They know that some people just need more advertising to convince them to give, and they are competing for dollars so they do what they have to do without wasting resources. One rule of thumb is that responsible charities strive to put 85% into programs and use the remaining 15% to function. Some charities tip the scales, though, and become downright sleazy. I’ve been watching, horrified, the news about Coalition to Support American Heroes, a “charity” under fire for spending the vast majority of its takings on frivolous, even unrelated, things, giving only about a quarter to veterans. That scandal invites all kinds of reflection on how we can’t be too careful. It must have been easy for people to be swayed by General Tommy Franks appearing on behalf of this charity. Not everybody knew then what we know now: he was paid $100,000 to make his appeal. To his credit, I guess, he withdrew support when he discovered that the charity didn’t use the 85% ratio. Charity Navigator (www.charitynavigator.org  ) is a good resource for charitable givers. It provides information about charities, from how much a CEO makes to how efficient fundraising is. “Excellent charities succeed because their resources are not tied up in fundraising,” one blurb states. “They find creative ways to spend less to raise more, thereby maximizing the resources they can devote to their programs.”

Felicia Mitchell is an English professors at Emory & Henry College.