Too Many Charities?

With the number of US charities now past one million -- and counting -- I'm hearing more and more pundits and self-appointed watchdogs saying that there are too many of them.  "We've got 700 breast cancer related organizations in this country" said Trent Stamp of Charity Navigator to the New York Times recently.  "If there were less there might be more money for a cure."

Really?

Personally, I think that those who believe there are "too many" charities are mistaken.  Individal acts of charity are manifestations of "the better angels of our nature," as Lincoln put it.  But charitable organizations exist not only to organize our angels but also to experiment with them to determine which of the myraid possible combinations of organized good work work best.  That's work better done by thousands, not hundreds.  And a byproduct of all that activity is that it "pollinates" society's collective conciousness on the possibilities of doing good.  In other words, organized charities' most important contribution is not as "service providers" (though that's a nice side benefit) but rather as "incubators."  In fact, once they have raised our conciousness about an issue, and demonstrated a model successful enough to address that issue that a majority of us agree on, then it is probably time for them to dissolve and let the government run the model.   I'm serious. That's how alms houses morphed into Social Security and how charity hospitals morphed into Medicare. 

Too many charities?  That's like saying there are too many businesses, too many entreprueneers, too many dreamers.  Charities are not like factory-farmed vegetables, best planted uniformly and thus harvested "efficiently."  No.  Charities are more like wildflowers -- unruly, opportunistic, cross-pollinated, and mostly short-lived.  And beautiful.  Let millions bloom.

Comments

[Lane]

Quoting Patrick: "In fact, once they have raised our conciousness about an issue, and demonstrated a model successful enough to address that issue that a majority of us agree on, then it is probably time for them to dissolve and let the government run the model. I'm serious. That's how alms houses morphed into Social Security and how charity hospitals morphed into Medicare."

My comment: I CAN'T BELIEVE you said this. Do you really think that a government agency can do a better job of caring for people than individuals who are motivated by their faith or their love of people? I suspect you made this post to stir people up and generate lots of comments!

As one who's spent a few years living in a socialist society, (which is what you are advocating here IMO,) I can tell you that there is NO comparison between the efficacy of caring, self-motivated individuals banding together to do good works and the efficacy of government "service providers" who are merely copying what works for their own security and bureaucracy-building.

I would much prefer to see fewer government agencies co-opting the good works that charities do. It's not "morphing," it's government co-opting good ideas and success that individuals have, and bringing it to a broader audience by means of a lower standard of performance while creating bureaucracies where there were none.

OK, now I must breathe and get back to work.

[Patrick]

Your point is well-taken, Lane. But I didn't say, and did not mean to imply, that government would do a better job than dedicated, passionate non-profits. And I set the bar for government taking over pretty high -- "a model successful enough the majority of us agree on." But sometimes government does have the advantage of being able to bring a solution to scale, and sometimes the tradeoff of lower quality may be worth that benefit.

[John C McGee]

Too many charities can also mean something other than simply numbers. Frequently, you have nonprofit organizations whose mission is so closely align that merger makes sense, minimizing administrative cost (an item that is becoming increasing difficult to find resources for) and improving efficiency but turf and ego interferes with good management.
It is difficult to criticize government for inefficiency when there are a significant number of nonprofits that resemble the same level of efficiency and they have the ability to remedy the problem but choose not to. This is where I see too many nonprofits.

[Hirut]

Nice.
Although, in the context of developing countries too many charities and ngos can make a mess of things.

Why? Because development is an act of social hubiris. It's about deliberately trying to change societies to be a certain way, achieve a certain something.

If there is no coordinated action how can you assure a particular result?
Too many ngos could contribute to the mess we have now. In nations that are that poor and that disorganized lets not complicate matters.

[Patrick Maguire]

Point taken, Hirut. I have seen the downside of development efforts in Africa, for example. But society change seems to be more of an objective for governmental foreign aid than it is for NGOs. In my personal experience with the NGO member charities of Independent Charities of America, I've observed that their objective is less to change societies than it is to lift up individuals. Feed the hungry. Shelter the refugees. Heal the sick. These people have their hearts in the right place. They work person-to-person, and I can't find fault with that.

[Cindy B.]

Generalizing such an emotional topic as charities, often makes for less than effective talk.
Let us focus on tax-exempt hospitals:they no longer give charity but offer efforts for community good.Their function is like any other for-profit corporate hospital business. Here is a specific charity effort that has morphed into a monster and should start paying its fair share of taxes.

[B.T. Kimbrough]

Let millions bloom. Indeed! The last thing we need is to have some curmudgeon designate him or herself as the "charity police" and try to tell the world which charities are dispensable. Thanks for the stimulating thoughts. Keep the energy flowing!