Giving Machines

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

100 % of all donations go to help those in need. No administrative costs are deducted by LDS Philanthropies or affiliated charities.  LDS Charities (Humanitarian Services) / LDS Philanthropies are under the direction of the Presiding Bishop of the LDS Church. 

Thanks, I know that is what they state up front, just wondering if there is any verification mechanism.  

Nothing that would satisfy you. A lot of these machines are connected with local charities in the city they are located in and it is up to those local charities as to how the donations are specifically used.
You would have to go and ask each local charity separately to verify what the funds are used for and ask for proof.

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This thread is a wonderful way to distract me from having to grade final exam essays. Now if I had assigned the essays on absurdism, things would have dovetailed nicely...

Imagine Vladimir and Estragon waiting next to one of these giving machines. Their dialogue might resemble this thread  

Hello MiserereNobis,

Always good to have your comments....even when we disagree.  I am sure you have seen similar types of complete and utter stupidity and absurdity among critics of the Catholic Church. It really takes a giant leap, but they seem to do it with a straight face regardless of what answers are provided.

What does the Church do with the money?  Well, little Johnny, this process takes your money and provides it to your choice among the charities offered.

You mean they steal the money and use it however they want? No, little Johnny, the charity will use it for the stated purpose UNLESS the charity decides if there is a greater need elsewhere.

Oh, you mean the Church forces these poor charities to give back the money to be used for nefarious purposes?  Johnny, please think about what you are saying. The charity, which you have chosen, will use all the funds. The Church's only role is to provide administrative services in an attempt to make sure that 100% of your contribution is being used.

Yeah, I see how evil you are! Why don't you give an accounting for the money provided? Johnny, the Church is not using the money donated; the individual charities are. In accounting, the Church only is a steward for its own funds and not those donated to other charities or organizations. Think of it like like the Democrat Party only accounts for their own funds and not those of the Republican party. 

That evil church; they always lie, steal and cheat people. Cannot trust them to do anything. 

Yup, gotta love a critic with an intellect. 

[HappyJackWagon]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

And if it isn't about ability to fulfill the need, but uncertainty about what the need will be because a lot can change from moment to moment when living at survival mode?  Should they be required to go out and canvas villages prior to the campaign to get a specific commitment on needs, spending a great deal of money to do so and then rigidly follow that plan no matter what has happened to those in need in the intervening time or should they depend on rough estimates of need upfront and put more of their resources into figuring out what is needed in the moment they are there with those in need?

Like Bluebell you seem to think the church is incapable of knowing what the general need is. Sure, there can be some variation, but if they've done any homework at all, they're not going to collect for 5000 goats when realistically they only need 1000. If the church can't assess the need accurately, like you and Bluebell seem to be suggesting, maybe they shouldn't be trying to meet those needs. If the church doesn't have a handle on what is needed they probably shouldn't collecting to fulfill that need.

I'm seriously amazed by the level of ineptitude people assign to the church and are seemingly ok with. Maybe the church shouldn't be in the charity business if they are truly as incapable as you guys think.

I think the giving machines are a great idea. I simply want them to follow through with the concept by allowing people to choose where to donate, and then have the church actually follow through with that.

When people walk up to one of these machines this is essentially what they see. I wonder how many search for the disclaimer prior to donating, as if they would actually expect a need to find and read a disclaimer

Edited December 19, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the giving machines are a great idea. I simply want them to follow through with the concept by allowing people to choose where to donate, and then have the church actually follow through with that.

I've worked closely with our local Red Cross the past two years to coordinate a community collection for refugee families. They've discussed with me numerous issues and difficulties. People like you are one of their worst nightmares.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Because it turns donating from a relatively boring, unconnected to a person or thing obligation to a fun, eyecatching, story creating moment that helps givers connect in a more concrete way with those they give to by giving them something tangible to focus on.

It definitely seems to be an effective marketing strategy.  I think it becomes a little problematic if the donations in kind don't match what the people donating expected.  Thats my only point.  If this only happens a very small % of the time, then I don't see much of a conundrum, but if say 50% of the donations are changed from what the person thought they were donating, I think that this becomes a problem ethically.  

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know how you can say this is not transparent:

That is 100% full disclosure.  If you don't like that there may be a chance that the charity may decide what services would be most beneficial, then don't donate...but in no way can you claim this is not transparent. 

Because it isn't verifiable to my knowledge.  If there is some kind of verification mechanism that someone is aware of, please let me know.  As far as I know the books of the church are closed to outside scrutiny.  If their process were transparent, we would be able to verify that the funds donated are actually used for the purpose that the church marketing message claims that they will be.  

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Nothing that would satisfy you. A lot of these machines are connected with local charities in the city they are located in and it is up to those local charities as to how the donations are specifically used.
You would have to go and ask each local charity separately to verify what the funds are used for and ask for proof.

Not true.  I would be satisfied with the kind of transparency that many other charities have today, or that other countries require of religious organizations.  I think transparency is just fine in those scenarios and would absolutely satisfy me. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've worked closely with our local Red Cross the past two years to coordinate a community collection for refugee families. They've discussed with me numerous issues and difficulties. People like you are one of their worst nightmares.

HappyJW you are an evil person.  Such a nightmare for these charities to work with.  Who do you think you are!  

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've worked closely with our local Red Cross the past two years to coordinate a community collection for refugee families. They've discussed with me numerous issues and difficulties. People like you are one of their worst nightmares.

That's sweet of you to say.

Can you explain why I'm their worst nightmare? Is it that people like me expect the charity to do what they say? Is it that people like me expect accountability from the charity to which they donate? Please explain why I'm a nightmare instead of just dropping insults.

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It definitely seems to be an effective marketing strategy.  I think it becomes a little problematic if the donations in kind don't match what the people donating expected.  Thats my only point.  If this only happens a very small % of the time, then I don't see much of a conundrum, but if say 50% of the donations are changed from what the person thought they were donating, I think that this becomes a problem ethically.  

But when it comes down to it what you are really donating in those vending machines is money. Why should anyone care what it goes for specifically as long as it helps someone with something? I have no idea what my tithing specifically pays for; a door knob on a temple? a pew in a local church? A bed in a missionary training center?  Doesn't matter to me, as long as 100% of my donation helps the overall cause and is tax deductible.  The money donated helps someone somewhere with something. I am completely OK with that. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Like Bluebell you seem to think the church is incapable of knowing what the general need is. Sure, there can be some variation, but if they've done any homework at all, they're not going to collect for 5000 goats when realistically they only need 1000. If the church can't assess the need accurately, like you and Bluebell seem to be suggesting, maybe they shouldn't be trying to meet those needs. If the church doesn't have a handle on what is needed they probably shouldn't collecting to fulfill that need.

Of course the Church is capable of finding out the needs.  It is whether or not that is a better use of money than spending it on the actual needs to put it in the hands of the needy.  The Church saves a huge amount of money by often choosing the best established charity to work with in an area rather than going in and redoing the work already done by others.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Calm said:

Of course the Church is capable of finding out the needs.  It is whether or not that is a better use of money than spending it on the actual needs to put it in the hands of the needy.  The Church saves a huge amount of money by often choosing the best established charity to work with in an area rather than going in and redoing the work already done by others.

Then that is even easier, no?

"Hey, Catholic Charities. I see you provide goats to needy families. How many goats do you need? 1000? Cool. We got you covered."

Piece of cake.

The church then proceeds to collect for 1000 goats and then gives Catholic Charities the funds for the goats. What the church doesn't/shouldn't do is collect for 5000 goats, realize they have all this extra donated money for goats that they don't need, and then send it to some other organization.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's sweet of you to say.

Can you explain why I'm their worst nightmare? Is it that people like me expect the charity to do what they say? Is it that people like me expect accountability from the charity to which they donate? Please explain why I'm a nightmare instead of just dropping insults.

'Unnecessary to the ultimate general goal of helping the needy' hoops to jump through to keep inventory, to track specific donations to specific targets are often quite expensive and time consuming, resources agencies that are sincere in helping the needy probably prefer investing in actual necessities.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Then that is even easier, no?

"Hey, Catholic Charities. I see you provide goats to needy families. How many goats do you need? 1000? Cool. We got you covered."

Piece of cake.

The church then proceeds to collect for 1000 goats and then gives Catholic Charities the funds for the goats. What the church doesn't/shouldn't do is collect for 5000 goats, realize they have all this extra donated money for goats that they don't need, and then send it to some other organization.

How much work have you done with charitable organizations?  Have you ever been 'on the ground ' involved in figuring out what was needed and the best way to get it to people?  Or are you extrapolating how things work based off of other experience, such as a business?

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But when it comes down to it what you are really donating in those vending machines is money. Why should anyone care what it goes for specifically as long as it helps someone with something? I have no idea what my tithing specifically pays for; a door knob on a temple? a pew in a local church? A bed in a missionary training center?  Doesn't matter to me, as long as 100% of my donation helps the overall cause and is tax deductible.  The money donated helps someone somewhere with something. I am completely OK with that. 

I would think some people care about this and it makes sense to me that they would care.  Others don't and that is fine as well.  

[Calm]

I don't really get the insistence that a charitable organization, whether the Church or the organization it turns the money over to, spend significant time and money on ensuring someone gets exactly what they choose when they probably spent less than a minute on making their choice.  It is a vending machine donation, not a trust fund being set up.  It is a fun way to add a little meaning to one's outing and help others while enjoying oneself.

If someone needs to have intimate control over their donations to charity, they need to get intimately involved with one, not drop their money in a vending machine.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would think some people care about this and it makes sense to me that they would care.  Others don't and that is fine as well.  

But to complain about what and how others choose to donate doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If they are unhappy about the process, don't use it.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But when it comes down to it what you are really donating in those vending machines is money. Why should anyone care what it goes for specifically as long as it helps someone with something? I have no idea what my tithing specifically pays for; a door knob on a temple? a pew in a local church? A bed in a missionary training center?  Doesn't matter to me, as long as 100% of my donation helps the overall cause and is tax deductible.  The money donated helps someone somewhere with something. I am completely OK with that. 

Even if you don't care, can you appreciate that some people might?

Let's say you donate to a charity with the mission of ending poverty. Good mission. Would it bother you at all if those charitable funds went towards contraceptive services and planned parenthood style services in other countries? If you still say you don't care, that's cool. You're being consistent. The money is going to help some person, somewhere, somehow.

If you do care how the donate money is spent in this case, then you aren't being consistent because even though it doesn't matter to you how the money is spent in one case, it does matter in another.

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's sweet of you to say.

Can you explain why I'm their worst nightmare?

After two pages of this already, you still can't see it. What makes you think I can get through to you in a single post?

But yes, people who make the giving all about themselves and therefore demand that their donation go exactly where they want it to instead of to where the need is greatest (or where the possibilities are best) moment to moment and who then demand 'transparency' surrounding their contributions bog up the entire system and force workers into positions of awkward diplomatic responses. In many cases, it would cost more to provide the information you're demanding than what people like you actually donate.

Our local Red Cross, by the way, follows the exact same policy as the Church. When they collect for refugee families, for example, some of those donations might go to other people in need who are not refugees. And I've heard horror stories of people who show up with a box labelled 'For a lovely refugee family from Afghanistan' and then ask the Red Cross staff to make sure that the box all ends up going to a family from Afghanistan because the donors researched what people from Afghanistan like and included just that.

The staff have learnt to keep their eye rolls to themselves and say something like, 'We'll do our absolute best' and 'We guarantee this donation will bless people who need it most' -- knowing full well that the box is going to be opened and its contents divided up to meet needs in the best possible ways. And then they hope the family/person doesn't come back and ask for a blow-by-blow reporting of how excited the Afghan family was to open their special box and find all their favourite and most missed items.

And this is just one example. As I've been told, this pattern repeats itself across all levels of charitable collecting and requires either enormous diplomacy or a huge waste of resources. It is, at core, selfish in the purest sense of that word -- a fact fully acknowledged in a sector that knows if often relies on people's selfish instincts to have sufficient means to keep helping the most needy.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

If someone needs to have intimate control over their donations to charity, they need to get intimately involved with one, not drop their money in a vending machine.

If someone needs to have intimate control over their donations, they need to buy the damn goat themselves and deliver it in person.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

How much work have you done with charitable organizations?  Have you ever been 'on the ground ' involved in figuring out what was needed and the best way to get it to people?  Or are you extrapolating how things work based off of other experience, such as a business?

 

Yes, I've helped assess community needs and develop plans for how to address them. I've never done anything on a global level, but so what?

Yes, through business I am very aware of the software and products businesses (including charities) have available to them for stocking, ordering, tracking sales, etc. LDS Philanthropies is not some small-scale, primitive operation without access to this kind of software. The method of collection (Giving "Machines") proves this. If someone can provide me with info showing that the church's philanthropic efforts are much more primitive than I suggest I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion. But the church isn't primitive in its finances and communication. I still think I'm giving the church far more credit than others on this thread because I truly believe they have access to, and utilize technology well. I don't know why their philanthropies would be any different.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When people walk up to one of these machines this is essentially what they see. I wonder how many search for the disclaimer prior to donating, as if they would actually expect a need to find and read a disclaimer

I would suggest that almost all people would want to verify a few things before giving their credit card information and/or money to a machine without knowing who the charity is and what your money will be used for, and what percentage of your money will be used for the charity.

Here are a few better, close up views of other machines where it seems almost impossible to miss .  Again, who wouldn't read what it was all about first?  

Edited December 19, 2018 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

But to complain about what and how others choose to donate doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  If they are unhappy about the process, don't use it.

But I don't know if the family and friends of mine who donate are even aware of this possible conundrum in the first place.  They may have every reason to trust the process, Mormons are good at trusting things without a whole lot of critical thinking especially when it comes to their church.  

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

After two pages of this already, you still can't see it. What makes you think I can get through to you in a single post?

But yes, people who make the giving all about themselves and therefore demand that their donation go exactly where they want it to instead of to where the need is greatest (or where the possibilities are best) moment to moment and who then demand 'transparency' surrounding their contributions bog up the entire system and force workers into positions of awkward diplomatic responses. In many cases, it would cost more to provide the information you're demanding than what people like you actually donate.

Our local Red Cross, by the way, follows the exact same policy as the Church. When they collect for refugee families, for example, some of those donations might go to other people in need who are not refugees. And I've heard horror stories of people who show up with a box labelled 'For a lovely refugee family from Afghanistan' and then ask the Red Cross staff to make sure that the box all ends up going to a family from Afghanistan because the donors researched what people from Afghanistan like and included just that.

The staff have learnt to keep their eye rolls to themselves and say something like, 'We'll do our absolute best' and 'We guarantee this donation will bless people who need it most' -- knowing full well that the box is going to be opened and its contents divided up to meet needs in the best possible ways. And then they hope the family/person doesn't come back and ask for a blow-by-blow reporting of how excited the Afghan family was to open their special box and find all their favourite and most missed items.

And this is just one example. As I've been told, this pattern repeats itself across all levels of charitable collecting and requires either enormous diplomacy or a huge waste of resources. It is, at core, selfish in the purest sense of that word -- a fact fully acknowledged in a sector that knows they often rely on people's selfish instincts to have sufficient means to keep helping the most needy.

Yeah, the difference is this...

If you say, "would you like to donate a box "for a lovely refugee family from Afghanistan" and I say, "Yes, I would. Here you go." It is reasonable to think that the box will go to a lovely refugee family from Afghanistan.

If you don't want to allow that much specificity in donations, that's fine. Don't solicit it. It is reasonable to expect the charity to do what it says it will do...and then provide some transparency.

"People like me" are so difficult. We want the charity to do what they say. I am not "demanding" they do anything. I'm expecting them to do what they say and I think they should be open to criticism if they don't.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would suggest that almost all people would want to verify a few things before giving their credit card information and/or money to a machine without knowing who the charity is and what your money will be used for, and what percentage of your money will be used for the charity.

Here are a few better, close up views of other machines where it seems almost impossible to miss .  Again, who wouldn't read what it was all about first?  

Thanks for the pictures. 

Who wouldn't read the fine print?  Possibly Mormons who never question a word out of their leaders mouths because they have a testimony that God is in charge of everything that the church does.  Why question God?