Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

[smac97]

From the Tribune: How much the LDS Church spent on humanitarian aid last year

Quote

For the second straight year, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doled out more than a billion dollars in aid for its 17 million-plus members and millions more around the globe.

The $1.3 billion the church spent in 2023, according to the faith’s annual “Caring for Those in Need” report released Thursday, went to welfare and self-reliance assistance for members, and wider relief efforts throughout the word without regard to religious affiliation. The contributions come as the church continues to amass wealth (estimated by outside analysts at $265 billion) and faces increasing pressure from insiders and outsiders to give more to humanitarian causes.

Very cool.

Quote

“As followers of Jesus Christ, we consider this to be both a duty and a joyful privilege,” church President Russell M. Nelson and his counselors, Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring, in the governing First Presidency, said in a joint statement. “We gratefully acknowledge the selfless contributions of time and means from church members, friends and other trusted organizations that enable this work to progress and expand.”

"{F}riends and other trusted organizations that enable this work to progress and expand."

But for these entities, the Church could not do nearly as much.  And I suspect this continues to be something of a bottleneck in terms of what the Church can meaningfully and responsibly do in terms of philanthropic/humanitarian relief.  I hope the Church can continue to cultivate relationships with more such friends and organizations.

Quote

Here’s a snapshot of how the church provided aid last year:

• $1.36 billion in total.

• 6.2 million volunteer hours.

• 4,119 individual projects.

• 191 countries and territories served.

• 11,368 welfare and self-reliance missionaries.

• 5,538 job placements supplied.

“[These] figures are, of course, an incomplete report of our giving and helping. They do not include the personal services our members give individually as they minister to one another in called positions and voluntary member-to-member service,” Oaks said. “And our [summary] makes no mention of what our members do individually through innumerable charitable organizations not formally connected with our church.”

Of the projects the church tackled last year:

• 601 provided health care.

• 530 addressed food insecurity.

• 415 supplied emergency relief.

• 206 helped secure clean water and sanitation.

“The church’s partnership is ... transforming lives,” Evelyn Mere, program director for WaterAid Nigeria, said in the report, “and ensuring no one is left behind.”

Again, very cool.

Quote

Serving women and children was a major goal for the faith during the past year. According to the report, the church prioritized child nutrition globally, mostly by donating to international nongovernmental organizations such as Save the Children and the World Food Program. The Utah-based faith also worked to boost maternal health care, especially through a collaboration with UNICEF in countries like the Central African Republic and Mozambique.
...
The faith also provided help in the latest Israel-Hamas war. Through coordination with other relief agencies, the report noted, it gave “significant” funding for critical physical and mental health care in Israel and Gaza.
...
On the environmental front, the church provided 140,000 trees in Mongolia, installed solar panels on many of its meetinghouses and began switching to 100%-recycled cups for use in its sacrament, or Communion.

Closer to home, Utah’s predominant religion also donated 5,700 water shares — or about 20,000 acre-feet of water — to help preserve the Great Salt Lake.

“We have an obligation to be good stewards,” said L. Todd Budge, second counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, which oversees the church’s vast real estate, financial, investment and charitable operations, “to pass to future generations an Earth better than we found it.”

I am happy to see environmental efforts amongst the Church's endeavors.

Quote

The report highlighted the church’s JustServe program that allows members to set up their own, smaller volunteer projects, including one from a 10-year-old named Evan who ran a donation drive that netted 702 jars of jam for a food bank.

I think the Church's efforts to facilitate individuals in pursuing their own acts of service is a wonderful thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 6.2 million volunteer hours.

It's so cool to be a part of something so much bigger than myself.  Yay - I'm .0004% of that total!

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

• 11,368 welfare and self-reliance missionaries.

Yay self-reliance!  To some folks, it ain't charity if it asks something of the person receiving it.  I think that mindset is fatally flawed when it comes to helping folks who need help.  When helping people (or receiving help from people), a negative risk is the possibility of creating a situation where the person being helped (or you the receiver) become dependent on the aid.  

I've gathered a lot of stories and experiences over the years in the finance clerk's office and talking about such things online.  I'll never cease to be amazed at how many outraged folks tell a variation of an angry story: "I went to the bishop for help, but he [demanded we use our own resources first/forced us to call my mom for help/required us to work for it]!"  They're mad.  They figure they've been treated unjustly.  It's like any amount of personal responsibility, any amount of personal effort, to deal with their problems is somehow a crime against humanity.  Yeah, there's dehumanizing notions at work, but it ain't coming from the bishop.  People take the true notion "not everyone can do x for themselves", and magnify it into "how dare someone ask me to do x for myself".  

Glad to see the church continues to be so big on self-reliance, even to the point of having missionaries teaching it to folks.

[ZealouslyStriving]

For all those who questioned the Church for the $192 million purchase of the Kirtland Temple, etc... asking, "Couldn't that money have been spent to help people?" :

😝

Apparently there's enough and to spare.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{F}riends and other trusted organizations that enable this work to progress and expand."

But for these entities, the Church could not do nearly as much.  And I suspect this continues to be something of a bottleneck in terms of what the Church can meaningfully and responsibly do in terms of philanthropic/humanitarian relief.  I hope the Church can continue to cultivate relationships with more such friends and organizations.

I don't think this is as big as a bottleneck as you suggest.  

The Church has dozens of trusted and vetted organizations and partners that they work with.   All of these organizations still need more money to fulfill their missions.  There is so much more room to donate to these organizations to improve their infrastructure and programs to grow and improve their services.  

All of these organizations are expending incredible resources and energy in soliciting donations.  If the church gave more, that would reduce the energy and expense needed to solicit donations and could more efficiently use those funds and resources to meet their goals.   Imagine if the Church partnered with one organization and was able to supply them with all of the resources needed to where they didn't need to invest any time or money into advertising and soliciting donations?  What a blessing that would be for an organization!  It seems like half of the work of these organizations is trying to find money.  Why can't we solve that problem, or at least significantly reduce that problem, for many of them? 

For example, if we look at just one of the organizations the Church partners with and donates to - the World Food Program (a program that my wife and I donate to, instead of the church, because they need it more than the church does and I feel like my money is being put to better use) - they are still in desperate need of funds and donations to meet their goals to end world hunger:

Quote

Can We End World Hunger? 
Yes, the U.N. World Food Programme has a plan to end world hunger, and here are the numbers:

There are 828 million people on the planet who are hungry. That’s 1 in 10 people. 
Of those, 50 million are on the brink of famine and desperately need help. 
The U.N. World Food Programme feeds over 100 million of the hungriest people each year. 
We need $7 billion dollars to deliver food the millions of people facing famine this year. 
We need $40 billion dollars per year to feed all of the world’s hungry people and end global hunger by 2030. 

How Much Would It Cost to End World Hunger? (wfpusa.org)

The Church can do SO MUCH more to help in this cause.  I don't see any bottleneck there. 

If all of these organizations they are already donating to are still in need of funding, then where exactly is the bottleneck?

I applaud the Church for what they do, but I don't buy the bottleneck excuse as to why they can't do more.  

 

Edited March 22 by pogi

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

For all those who questioned the Church for the $192 million purchase of the Kirtland Temple, etc... asking, "Couldn't that money have been spent to help people?" :

😝

Apparently there's enough and to spare.

Well um yea.  Plenty.  probably more than $100 billion plenty.

[blackstrap]

One bottleneck is that in some countries the hunger comes because of internal conflict  where armed groups will not allow humanitarian aid in to possibly feed opponents. In other places food aid will rot on the docks for lack of ability to distribute it. Throwing money at the problem will just increase corruption and have unintended consequences. 

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

One bottleneck is that in some countries the hunger comes because of internal conflict  where armed groups will not allow humanitarian aid in to possibly feed opponents. In other places food aid will rot on the docks for lack of ability to distribute it. Throwing money at the problem will just increase corruption and have unintended consequences. 

Is somebody advocating throwing money at the problem?

[blackstrap]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Is somebody advocating throwing money at the problem

 

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well um yea.  Plenty.  probably more than $100 billion plenty.

??

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

One bottleneck is that in some countries the hunger comes because of internal conflict  where armed groups will not allow humanitarian aid in to possibly feed opponents. In other places food aid will rot on the docks for lack of ability to distribute it. Throwing money at the problem will just increase corruption and have unintended consequences. 

That is not how that works.

In general relief organizations in such areas eat a cost in corruption as local government/bullies/police/gangs take their cut. It doesn’t increase corruption. The corruption is already there.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

One bottleneck is that in some countries the hunger comes because of internal conflict  where armed groups will not allow humanitarian aid in to possibly feed opponents. In other places food aid will rot on the docks for lack of ability to distribute it. Throwing money at the problem will just increase corruption and have unintended consequences. 

Do you think the World Food Program is wrong in thinking they can feed more hungry and starving people with more financial resources?   Donating any more than what the church donated would be wasteful?

[blackstrap]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

local government/bullies/police/gangs take their cut.

It's almost as if corruption breeds corruption. IIRC there was recently a scandal involving a UN agency and corruption , hmmm

[MrShorty]

That represents a 30+% increase over the previous year! If I assume that the church's income (from all sources) did not likewise increase by 30+% (lack of transparency means I have no way of knowing if that is true or not), then this 30+% increase represents a net increase in humanitarian expenditures. That's good!

In our extensive discussions about the propriety of a church having a sizable reserve fund, the point has been made that, due to the shear volume of money involved, it would take time and effort in order for the church to change it's fiscal philosophy and practices. I'm going to put my rose colored glasses on to view this, and tell myself that this 30+% increase hopefully represents real shifts in the church's financial philosophy. I don't expect the church to ever officially admit to such a change, but I'm wanting to believe in such a change, so that's what I'm going to do.

[Teancum]

15 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

 

??

Yes?  My comment was simply that the church has plenty of money. 

Edited March 22 by Teancum

[blackstrap]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Donating any more than what the church donated would be wasteful?

Depends on the country. Yes, more resources can be needed and  well used in some areas. In others it just goes to line the pockets of corrupt leaders and fuel further conflict. 

Years ago in Central America, bags of grain were seen of the local markets. These bags were part of humanitarian aid and were clearly label in several languages not to be sold. This aid was stolen by local thieves . 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

All of these organizations still need more money to fulfill their missions.

Challenging truth - this statement will remain true, even if the entire sum total of GNP of the entire world is permanently handed to charitable organizations.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

For all those who questioned the Church for the $192 million purchase of the Kirtland Temple, etc... asking, "Couldn't that money have been spent to help people?" :

😝

Apparently there's enough and to spare.

Yep, agree 💯. Maybe we as a church should have just helped the CoC with funding and let them keep it. Because 192 million is nothing to the church. 

Edited March 22 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

It's almost as if corruption breeds corruption. IIRC there was recently a scandal involving a UN agency and corruption , hmmm

We like to think humanitarian aid is the most perfectly clean and wonderful thing that can be done. It is not always clean. I would argue it is still worth it. Saying you are going to let people suffer or die unless there is a way to make sure no local warlord takes a cut isn’t a highly principled stance.

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Challenging truth - this statement will remain true, even if the entire sum total of GNP of the entire world is permanently handed to charitable organizations.

Challenging truth - We aren’t anywhere near the point where it would stop being effective.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yep, agree 💯. Maybe we as a church should have just helped the CoC with funding and let them keep it. Because 192 million is nothing to the church. 

Unless we established an endowment or kept funding them year over year they would probably end up in the same place a few years later

[Stormin' Mormon]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you think the World Food Program is wrong in thinking they can feed more hungry and starving people with more financial resources?   Donating any more than what the church donated would be wasteful?

Having or identifying a need is not the same thing as being prepared to address that need.

I work in local government, and I am currently in the process of preparing a number of applications for some federal grant programs.  Our organization has done a swell job of identifying the needs that these federal programs could fill, but in about half of these cases, we are still a year or two away from actually being ready to use those funds.  

There really is a network of institutional infrastructure that needs to be built in order to efficiently transfer, process, and utilize large donations of capital.  That infrastructure can take a number of years to build.  And even if that infrastructure could be built overnight,  it would still be best to build it out incrementally.  In that way, an organization can build institutional knowledge and experience among their work force and identify vulnerabilities in their process chains which can then be solved before those processes are carrying much higher stakes. 

In other words, institutions, like people, have to walk before they can run.   

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Challenging truth - We aren’t anywhere near the point where it would stop being effective.

Who's "We"?  You got a tithe payer in your pocket?  Or are you talking about humanity in general.   

(We gotta be careful, what with the ban on politics here...)

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Challenging truth - this statement will remain true, even if the entire sum total of GNP of the entire world is permanently handed to charitable organizations.

I am speaking specifically about the vetted and trusted organizations that the church does partner with and donate to, but you are right that there is no real bottleneck there. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

One bottleneck is that in some countries the hunger comes because of internal conflict  where armed groups will not allow humanitarian aid in to possibly feed opponents. In other places food aid will rot on the docks for lack of ability to distribute it. Throwing money at the problem will just increase corruption and have unintended consequences. 

It depends on where you "throw" it.  We've found than when organizations outside of some of those countries get the funding they need that they are better able to help refugees from those countries.  As those refugees become self sufficient then the organizations and counties is able to take in more refugees. 

So yes, there are places where you can't "throw" money, but there are other places where you just need to find a different way of "throwing" it.

Edited March 22 by Rain

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Having or identifying a need is not the same thing as being prepared to address that need.

I work in local government, and I am currently in the process of preparing a number of applications for some federal grant programs.  Our organization has done a swell job of identifying the needs that these federal programs could fill, but in about half of these cases, we are still a year or two away from actually being ready to use those funds.  

There really is a network of institutional infrastructure that needs to be built in order to efficiently transfer, process, and utilize large donations of capital.  That infrastructure can take a number of years to build.  And even if that infrastructure could be built overnight,  it would still be best to build it out incrementally.  In that way, an organization can build institutional knowledge and experience among their work force and identify vulnerabilities in their process chains which can then be solved before those processes are carrying much higher stakes. 

In other words, institutions, like people, have to walk before they can run.   

I don't disagree.  But are we to assume that these organizations that the Church is donating to have maxed out their resources /infrastructure and cannot effectively utilize more donations to further their causes?   I don't think that is the case.  Looking at where their resources are going, it tells me they could use more money to maximize their resources:

There is a LOT of money being spent on soliciting more money!   Imagine if they didn't need to do that?  That would increase the percentage that goes to feeding the hungry by 28 cents for every dollar. 

If the projected annual expenses needed to run the WFP programs and maximize current resources/infrastructure was met every year, there would not be any need for fundraising expenses.  Then there is also the cost of improving and adding more efficient infrastructure.   I have no reason to believe that we have reached that bottle neck because exactly $0 of their donations are going into savings.  Now imagine if they had a rainy-day fund too.  How great would that be?  We are nowhere close to reaching that bottleneck spoken of.  

And that is just one program.  Surely all the programs the church donate to are not fully maximizing their resources and infrastructure and/or couldn't use more money to either maximize or improve and grow infrastructure. 

 

 

Edited March 22 by pogi

[Rain]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Challenging truth - this statement will remain true, even if the entire sum total of GNP of the entire world is permanently handed to charitable organizations.

"Despite our every effort, you and I won't heal everyone, but each of us can be the one who can make a difference for good in the life of someone.”

- Elder Ian S. Ardern

 

 

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Having or identifying a need is not the same thing as being prepared to address that need.

I work in local government, and I am currently in the process of preparing a number of applications for some federal grant programs.  Our organization has done a swell job of identifying the needs that these federal programs could fill, but in about half of these cases, we are still a year or two away from actually being ready to use those funds.  

There really is a network of institutional infrastructure that needs to be built in order to efficiently transfer, process, and utilize large donations of capital.  That infrastructure can take a number of years to build.  And even if that infrastructure could be built overnight,  it would still be best to build it out incrementally.  In that way, an organization can build institutional knowledge and experience among their work force and identify vulnerabilities in their process chains which can then be solved before those processes are carrying much higher stakes. 

In other words, institutions, like people, have to walk before they can run.   

That is true. Some institutions are still just crawling.

But there are some who are running full out and have been for some time. I know one organization who definitely knows how to use funds given them.  This year donations are down and needs are higher than ever. 

Luckily the church is helping them, but they could definitely handle more help.

That isn't to say that I know what the church should do with its money. I don't know their plans (because they don't share them) so I'm not going to say they should give more.  I'm saying just because some organizations aren't ready it doesn't mean that all are there.

Edited March 23 by Rain