Commentary in Inside Stratford/Perth that was published on May 11, 2007
It refers to the article mentioned here earlier.
One of the most striking details of the story we ran last week on Doug MacDougald and Sleeping Children Around the World (SCAW) didn't actually get much mention in the piece.
The structure of the charity is designed to make sure absolutely every penny in donations towards bed-kits goes towards bed-kits. When a volunteer at SCAW's head office – a brown brick bungalow in Toronto – goes out to buy stamps, the money for those stamps comes from a completely segregated revenue stream.
Operating expenses (stamps, phone bills, that sort of thing) are 95% paid for out of investment income. When you send a cheque to SCAW, it either goes into the the operating account or the bed-kit account, and never the twain shall meet.
It's an interesting model because it's so austere. Everybody buys his or her own plane ticket, and if there isn't enough money to buy toner for the photocopier this month, there simply isn't any way to get it from the bed-kit account.
Knowing that it's easy to spend (and waste) other people's money, the Dryden family, of Toronto, have built a group that does the most possible good with the least possible opportunity for graft.
The disadvantage of this model lies in the independence of the organization. Non-profits that don't take government money, don't pool resources, don't broadcast their message with costly, sophisticated ad campaigns, and don't hire specialized administrative staff are very little fish, indeed.
Given the demands on the average donor's attention, the constant hectoring of disease lobbies and foreign aid groups and environmental advocates and so on, it's hard to imagine any kind of fair distribution of money to the best causes. When charities "raise awareness", they are really trying to raise awareness of their cause higher than awareness of other causes; otherwise, they won't get your support.
This leads to a kind of shouting match. Hardly the best way to choose how we allocate our "greater good" resources.
The alternative, of course, is to pass off responsibility for prioritizing charitable spending to someone who we believe is an expert, a professional. Just give the money to the government or the United Way and let them sort it out. They do this stuff all day, after all.
And the downside here is bloat, waste, petty corruption, and loss of control on the part of the individual donor. So pick your poison, I suppose. Still, the Drydens have done something pretty special, it seems to me, and it is hard to imagine a way to give money that would provide more good per dollar.
Here is a link to the original article.
