Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour 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. 

Your idea amounts to us paying the salaries and pensions of their leaders with nothing in return. So that's a no go.

Us acquiring the Kirtland Temple is part of the redemption (repurchasing) of Zion as was prophecied (sp?).

Edited March 22, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[smac97]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

The Presiding Bishopric has repeatedly indicated this is an issue.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The Church has dozens of trusted and vetted organizations and partners that they work with.   

Yes.  But the Church also has potentially some billions of dollars it could spend every year in perpetuity.  Are these "dozens of trusted and vetted organizations" situated to facilitate meaningful and responsible utilization of such huge amounts of money?  

I have previously commented on this here:

Quote

Prudence in Charitable Giving: There seems to be, in the minds of some, the notion that solving most or all social ills involves just mindlessly throwing money at them, typically money forcibly taken by the government and diverted to politically-connected and -privileged programs and groups, and regardless of the actual effectiveness of such programs/groups. 

I recently saw this video clip of Joe Rogan in which he raises some pretty interesting points:

A transcript:

I have a friend, Colion Noir, who was a lawyer.  He was in San Francisco, and his perspective was 'Oh, they're not spending enough to fix this homeless problem.'  And then he talked to someone who was actually deeply embedded in that situation, who said 'No, no.  That's not the problem.  They are spending a lot money on it.  But the money is going to these people that get high salaries that work on the homeless problem.  And he showed us a spreadsheet of all these people, and it's six-figure salaries, some of them $250,000 a year.  And it's a lot of them that are handling the homeless situation.  In Los Angeles, in San Francisco.  And there's no incentive to fix it.  The budget goes up every year.  The homeless problem goes up every year.  There's no accountability.  There's no 'Hey, we've spent all this money, and {yet} the problem is bigger.'  And {these} guys keep getting raises.  Like, what the $#%^ is going on here?  It becomes an industry.  And then fixing the homeless {problem}.  Pull up the budget for dealing with the homeless in Los Angeles in 2022.  Because it's bonkers.  When you see the sheer amount of money that's being spent ineffectively.  And all anybody seems to care about is 'We're working hard to mitigate the homeless situation, and we have upped our budget.'  Oh, they have upped their budget.  This is great.  And you think, 'That must be effective, we're gonna fix this.'  But nothing gets done.  $7.2 billion.  Just for {dealing with} homelessness {in California}. ... $3.3 billion general fund in 2021-2022 to almost thirty homelessness-related programs across the state.  That is so much money.  And yet the problem gets bigger and bigger every year.

I suspect the concerns reflected the foregoing comments are . . . warranted.  If anything, I think Joe was incorrect when he said "there's no incentive to fix" homelessness in CA.  There are, instead, very strong incentives for some of the Powers-that-Be to perpetuate homelessness, as it is the Golden Goose that keeps laying eggs to pay for those quarter-million-a-year-salaries.

I raise this in light of this comment from the 2020 D-News article quoted above:

Quote

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

“We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

I think that makes a lot of sense.  The Church's funds are sacred, and ought not to be thrown around willy-nilly like the huge-and-hugely-wasteful "Hey, let's just throw more money at it" approach taken in California.

 “The members of the church have a right to trust that {their tithes and offerings are} going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

Yep.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

Right.  And the NGOs in California "still need more money" for their missions, yet the graft and corruption and incompetence in that state's "homelessness" efforts are staggering and persistent.  So need is not the sole factor here.

My sense is that the Church has more money to spend on humanitarian/philanthropic causes than it has vetted and competent partner organizations situated to meaningfully and responsibly and effectively spend such funds.  I think the Church values its mandates.  And I think it's trying very hard to fulfill them, including those pertaining to philanthropic and humanitarian service to people worldwide. The effectiveness of the Church's humanitarian efforts is, I submit, a vastly more important consideration than whether the Church hits a "spend an arbitrary percentage of its accumulated principal, regardless of whether such spending is efficient and effective" benchmark. 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

There is so much more room to donate to these organizations to improve their infrastructure and programs to grow and improve their services.

I don't know what you mean by this.  It's a far-from-established proposition, and one that does not seem to jibe with the various statements from the Presiding Bishopric.  From this 2020 Deseret News article:

Quote

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

The Church could just give money away and not give much attention to whether or not such expenditures are effectively and competently utilized, but then it would not be a wise steward.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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.

Honestly, I don't think this is quite correct.  I think the Church has pretty good reasons for managing its philanthropic expenditures in the ways it does.  

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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?

I could see all sorts of problems arising with NGOs being fully subsidized by the Church.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

What a blessing that would be for an organization!

What a crutch, too.

And what a huge risk it is for the Church to end up causing more harm than good by contributing to irresponsible and/or unintentionally harmful humanitarian efforts (see below).

And what a temptation for the functionaries at these organizations to start thinking of the Church's largesse as a convenient personal piggy bank for themselves.

We are, or should be, aware of widespread corruption and malfeasance in non-profit entities focusing on humanitarian efforts, which is one of the reasons I believe the Church is fairly cautious in this sector.  We discussed this last year:

Quote

Quote

We only have a 4 fold mission.  It is one of them.  It is also one of the primary purposes of tithing stated in the D&C. 

"It" being the Church having a primary function, as an institution, of financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross?

No, that is not "one of" the Church's missions.  "Caring for the poor and needy" is the mission.  You seem to equate that with the Church having a primary role, as an institution, of financially bankrolling efforts in ways similar to the Gates Foundation, or even the Red Cross.  I don't.  Again, from this 2020 article:

Quote

Bishop Caussé said caring for those in need across the globe is at the heart of the mission of the Church. It is not “an appendage to the mission,” but instead is intermingled in everything the Church does. “We are all sons and daughters of God upon the earth, and we are committed to take care of one another,” he said. “And this is one of the ways that, as disciples of Lord Jesus Christ, we care for those in need.”

I really like this.

Quote

In addition to responding to disasters across the globe, Church humanitarian funds have been used to provide food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees.

However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.

The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

This is, I think, where you and I differ. 

 

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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? 

Because their need for money is not our concern.  Their ability to competently and efficiently use it to help our fellow man is our concern.

From the above article: "{R}eaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor,' he said.  The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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 

That's not the way tithing works.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

and I feel like my money is being put to better use) -

That's not the way tithing works, either.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

they are still in desperate need of funds and donations to meet their goals to end world hunger:

Hmm.  Where to begin.

UN agency suspends food aid to Ethiopia’s Tigray amid theft

Quote

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The United Nations food relief agency has suspended aid deliveries to Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region amid an internal investigation into the theft of food meant for hungry people, according to four humanitarian workers.

The World Food Program is responsible for delivering food from the U.N. and other partners to Tigray, the center of a devastating two-year civil war that ended with a ceasefire in November.

More than 5 million of the region’s 6 million people rely on aid.

WFP informed its humanitarian partners on April 20 that it was temporarily suspending deliveries of food to Tigray amid reports of food misappropriation, one of the four humanitarian workers told AP. Three other aid workers confirmed this information. They all insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to a journalist on this matter.

Last month, AP reported that the WFP was investigating cases of food misappropriation and diversion in Ethiopia, where a total of 20 million people need humanitarian help due to drought and conflict.

Does this affect your assessment about your money "being put to better use"?

If a program as well-heeled as the WFP is having problems like this, perhaps the Church's caution is justified?

From 2010: How Corrupt Is the World Food Program?

Quote

How pervasive are the problems at the World Food Program, the largest hunger relief agency in the world and the United Nations agency responsible for food aid? It’s a $2.9 billion question—the amount of direct aid disbursed by the WFP. A significant part of its budget comes from U.S. contributors, and USAID coordinates some of its work through the WFP.

It’s been a month since the leaking of a scathing evaluation of WFP’s Somalian relief program written by the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia. The body, created by the UN Security Council, alleges that three Somali businessmen who held about $160 million in WFP transport contracts were involved in arms trading while diverting the agency’s food aid away from the hungry. A New York Times report also claimed food was being siphoned off by radical Islamic militants and local UN workers.

Huh.  Misappropriation and corruption involving the WFP.  Perhaps the Church's caution is warranted.

From 2019: Popular U.N. Food Agency Roiled by Internal Problems, Survey Finds

Quote

The senior leadership of the World Food Program—once one of the most highly regarded United Nations agencies—have abused their authority, committed or enabled harassment, discriminated against women and ethnic minorities, and retaliated against those who spoke up in protest, according to a confidential draft survey of staff attitudes.

The survey of more than 8,000 WFP staffers, which was commissioned by the agency’s executive director, David Beasley, did not identify the names of the food agency’s leaders responsible for misconduct. But its findings portrayed work-life at the U.N.’s premier food agency as demoralizing, with some staffers characterizing their bosses as “repressive, authoritarian,” and self-dealing.

Perhaps the most disturbing finding is that 28 WFP staffers said they had experienced an act of “rape, attempted rape or other sexual assault or rape” while working at the food agency.

The survey’s findings represent a blow to a U.N. agency that has long been in favor in Washington, providing a lifeline to hundreds of millions of the world’s hungriest, as well as massive contracts to American farmers and shipping companies.

Internal misconduct at the WFP.  

From 2023: The World Food Program’s Boss Faces Backlash for Attending an Event Honoring Israel

Quote

A new letter circulating among World Food Program employees is questioning the ethics of Cindy McCain, the program’s executive director, after she attended a forum honoring the people of Israel recently.

Politicking by WFP employees.

This next one, though, is a real eye-opener.  From 2020: Food Crimes: Why WFP Doesn’t Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

Quote

OPINION

Food Crimes: Why WFP Doesn’t Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

The UN’s food assistance agency has neither improved conditions for peace in conflict-affected countries nor prevented the use of hunger as a weapon of war. On the contrary, it is responsible for prolonging conflict in some countries and suppressing local food production in others.

Those who believe that food aid does more harm than good were probably flabbergasted by the decision by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the World Food Programme (WFP) for “its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict”.
...
Apart from the fact that WFP’s raison d’être is to deliver food to vulnerable populations, and its staff are paid generously to deliver food aid, critics who know the food aid business have in the past pointed out that food aid is, in fact, detrimental in the long run because it suppresses local food production, making it harder for poor or conflict-ridden countries to feed themselves. In fact, studies have found that direct cash transfers are a much more efficient and effective method to alleviate hardship and improve the overall welfare of beneficiary communities.

WFP staff are "paid generously."

"{F}ood aid is, in fact, detrimental in the long run because it suppresses local food production, making it harder for poor or conflict-ridden countries to feed themselves."

"{S}tudies have found that direct cash transfers are a much more efficient and effective method to alleviate hardship and improve the overall welfare of beneficiary communities."

Quote

A few years ago, none other than the European Union (EU)’s representative to Somalia, Georges-Marc André (now retired), admitted this to me when I was researching for my book War Crimes, which explores how foreign aid has negatively affected Somalia. He told me that United Nations agencies such as WFP might have actually “slowed down” Somalia’s recovery by focusing exclusively on food aid instead of supporting local farmers and markets. “The EU is against food aid that substitutes local food production,” he said.

Food aid may be doing more harm than good.

Quote

His views are also shared by Michael Maren, a former food aid monitor for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Somalia, whose book, The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity, chronicles how aid became a political tool in Somalia that was manipulated by both the donors and the recipient country. Maren, who lived and worked in Somalia in the 1980s, believes that food aid to Somalia may have actually prolonged the civil war in the country. “I had learned to view development aid with skepticism, a skill I had hoped to put to good use to help ensure that aid projects, at worst, didn’t hurt people. But Somalia added a whole new dimension to my view of the aid business. My experience there made me see that aid could be worse than incompetent and inadvertently destructive. It could be positively evil,” he wrote.

"{A}id became a political tool in Somalia that was manipulated by both the donors and the recipient country."

"{F}ood aid to Somalia may have actually prolonged the civil war in the country."

"'{A}id could be worse than incompetent and inadvertently destructive. It could be positively evil.'"

Quote

In his book, Maren quotes a former civil servant working for Somalia’s National Refugee Commission during President Siad Barre’s regime who told him that traditionally, Somalis never relied on food aid, even during droughts. There was a credit system; pastoralists would come to urban areas where they would take out loans that they would repay when things returned to normal. Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship.

"{T}raditionally, Somalis never relied on food aid, even during droughts."

"Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship."

Quote

Food aid hurts local farmers

Food aid also suppresses local food production. Many Somali farmers have reported that NGOs working with WFP are notorious for bringing in food aid just before the harvest, which brings down the price of local food. They have also complained that the food aid is imported, rather than bought locally. At the height of the famine in Somalia in 2011 (which many believe was exaggerated by the UN), for example, WFP bought food worth £50 million from Glencore, a London-listed commodities trader, despite a pledge by the UN’s food agency that it would buy food from “very poor farmers who suffer because they are not connected to local markets”.

"Food aid also suppresses local food production. Many Somali farmers have reported that NGOs working with WFP are notorious for bringing in food aid just before the harvest, which brings down the price of local food."

Quote

Let us be clear about one thing – food aid is big business and extremely beneficial to those donating it. (“Somebody always gets rich off a famine”, Maren told Might Magazine in 1997.) Under current United States law, for instance, almost all US food aid (worth billions of dollars) must be purchased in the US and at least half of it must be transported on US-flagged vessels.

Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship.

Most of this food aid is actually surplus food that Americans can’t consume domestically. Under the US government’s Food for Peace programme (formerly known as Public Law 480), the US government is allowed to sell or donate US food surpluses in order to alleviate hunger in other countries. Famines in other countries are, therefore, very profitable to the US government and to highly subsidised American farmers, who benefit from federal government commodity price guarantees. (Interestingly, since 1992, all WFP Executive Directors have been US citizens. This could be because the US is the largest contributor to WFP, but it could also be that the Executive Director of the UN’s food agency is expected to promote US policies regarding food aid.)

"{F}ood aid is big business and extremely beneficial to those donating it."

Quote

In a 1988 paper titled “How American Food Aid Keeps the Third World Hungry”, Juliana Geran described Food for Peace as “the most harmful programs of aid to Third World countries”, and urged the US government to discontinue it. She noted that US food aid often distorts local markets and disrupts agricultural activity in recipient countries.

For example, massive dumping of wheat in India in the 1950s and ‘60s disrupted India’s agriculture. In 1982, Peru “begged” the US Department of Agriculture not to send any more rice to the country as it was feared that the rice would glut the local market and drive down food prices for farmers who were already struggling. “But the US rice lobby turned up the heat on Washington and the Peruvian government was told that it could either take the rice or receive no food at all,” wrote Geran.

But what happened in Guatemala was truly catastrophic, as Geran narrates: “In 1976, an earthquake hit Guatemala, killing 23,000 people and leaving over a million homeless. Just prior to the disaster, the country had harvested one of the largest wheat crops on record, and food was plentiful. As earthquake relief, the US rushed 27,000 metric tons of wheat to Guatemala. The US gift knocked the bottom out of the local grain markets and depressed food prices so much that it was harder for villagers to recover. The Guatemalan government ultimately barred the import of more basic grains.”

"US food aid often distorts local markets and disrupts agricultural activity in recipient countries."

"As earthquake relief, the US rushed 27,000 metric tons of wheat to Guatemala. The US gift knocked the bottom out of the local grain markets and depressed food prices so much that it was harder for villagers to recover."

Quote

Stealing food to aid militias

One of the most evident distortions caused by food aid (apart from the fact that farmers have no incentive to grow food when the market is flooded with free food) is the temptation to steal it. There have been reports of blatant theft of food aid under the not-so-watchful eyes of WFP. UN monitors have routinely reported the theft of food aid to Somalia, for example, but to no avail. In its 2010 report, for instance, the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea reported that local NGOs (known in development circles as “implementing partners”), WFP personnel and armed groups that controlled areas where food aid was being distributed were diverting up to half of the food. WFP vehemently denied these allegations, even though an Associated Press report the following year showed American, Japanese and Kuwaiti food aid being openly sold in Mogadishu’s markets.

"One of the most evident distortions caused by food aid (apart from the fact that farmers have no incentive to grow food when the market is flooded with free food) is the temptation to steal it."

Quote

It is also important to remember that WFP’s international staff usually do not distribute food directly in conflict or disaster zones; instead they hire local NGOs to do the work. Many of these NGOs are not vetted; in fact, in Somalia, some of them have even been linked to militias who act as “gatekeepers”, deciding who gets the aid and who doesn’t.

"WFP’s international staff usually do not distribute food directly in conflict or disaster zones; instead they hire local NGOs to do the work. Many of these NGOs are not vetted."

Quote

When Maren was in charge of monitoring food aid donated by the US government to refugees fleeing the Ogaden war of 1977-78, he found that about two-thirds of the food went missing. Trucks would arrive at the Mogadishu port, collect the food and disappear, never to be found again. Even when food arrived at the refugee camps, much of it would be stolen.

Aid thus became a profitable source of income for criminal elements within Somalia. And Siad Barre learned to exploit this well. In fact, Maren believes that international aid not only sustained the dictator’s regime but also facilitated the unravelling of Somali society.

The looting of aid continued even after Barre was ousted in 1991. Battles between warlords were won or lost depending on how much aid each warlord had access to. However, it was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted. Because many parts of Somalia were considered a no-go-zone by international humanitarian agencies, and therefore rendered inaccessible, enterprising Somalis formed NGOs that liaised with these agencies to provide humanitarian assistance and services on the ground. These businesses-cum-NGOs signed lucrative contracts with aid agencies; some controlled entire sectors of the aid industry, from transport to distribution. Others were run by warlords, who often diverted food aid, which was then sold openly in markets to fund their militias.

“By engaging with the warlords to ensure the delivery of aid, the United Nations and other actors only encouraged the spread of the conflict and the establishment of a thriving aid-based and black market economy,” wrote political scientist Kate Seaman in Globalizing Somalia: Multilateral, International and Transactional Repercussions of Conflicts. “In essence they became a party to the conflict, losing their neutrality and only serving to perpetuate the conflict by providing resources which were then manipulated by the multitude of armed groups operating within Somalia.”

Battles between warlords were won or lost depending on how much aid each warlord had access to. However, it was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted.

"{A}bout two-thirds of the food went missing."

"Aid thus became a profitable source of income for criminal elements within Somalia."

"Maren believes that international aid not only sustained the dictator’s regime but also facilitated the unravelling of Somali society."

"{I}t was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted."

Quote

When an international humanitarian agency comes in to provide food to starving people, bad governments are let off the hook, and are allowed to continue with their bad policies that can lead to more famines in the future. Internationalising the responsibility of food security to UN institutions, international NGOs and foreign governments makes practically everyone across the globe a stakeholder in famine relief. “The process of internationalisation is the key to the appropriation of power by international institutions and the retreat from domestic accountability in famine-vulnerable countries,” wrote Alex de Waal in his book Famine Crimes: Politics and the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa.

"When an international humanitarian agency comes in to provide food to starving people, bad governments are let off the hook, and are allowed to continue with their bad policies that can lead to more famines in the future."

Quote

Bad management practices at WFP

If the Norwegian Nobel Committee had bothered to find out how WFP staff view the organisation they work for, it might not have been so quick to award WFP the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. Like at many UN agencies, senior staff at WFP have been accused of abusing their authority, an allegation that has tarnished this Rome-based agency’s reputation. A confidential internal WFP survey of staff attitudes (whose findings were first leaked to the Italian Insider, and then to other news organisations, such as Foreign Policy in October last year) found that 35 per cent of the more than 8,000 WFP employees surveyed reported experiencing or witnessing some form of abuse of authority, the most typical being the granting of “preferential treatment” for recruitment to close associates.

“The senior leadership of the World Food Program – once one of the most highly regarded United Nations agencies – have abused their authority, committed or enabled harassment, discriminated against women and ethnic minorities, and retaliated against those who spoke up in protest,” wrote Colum Lynch in Foreign Policy on 8 October 2019.

What was evident in the survey was that WFP, like the rest of the UN, is extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. Respondents admitted that senior managers “aimed to further their own self-interest rather than the mission of WFP, and abuse their power to further themselves and their favorites”.

Moreover, 29 per cent of those surveyed said they had witnessed some form of harassment, while 23 per cent said they had encountered discrimination. Some 12 per cent of staff said they had experienced some form of retaliation for speaking up about abusive practices (which is fairly common in the UN, where protection for whistleblowers is virtually non-existent, as I have illustrated here). An even more alarming finding was that 28 of the WFP employees interviewed had experienced “rape, attempted rape or other sexual assault” while working at the agency.

What was evident in the survey was that WFP, like the rest of the UN, is extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. Respondents admitted that senior managers “aimed to further their own self-interest rather than the mission of WFP, and abuse their power to further themselves and their favorites”.

The results of the WFP survey (which was conducted by an independent management consultancy) are consistent with other UN surveys on staff attitudes and experiences. Results from a UN Staff Union survey conducted in 2018 in response to the #MeToo movement showed that sexual harassment made up about 16 per cent of all forms of harassment at the UN; 44 per cent of those surveyed said that they had experienced abuse of authority and 20 per cent felt that they had experienced retaliation after reporting misconduct. The survey also found that a large number of staff members’ complaints were never investigated.

It is, therefore, difficult to understand why the Norwegian Nobel Committee found it fit to award WFP the Nobel Peace Prize, given that the UN’s food agency has failed to adhere to almost all best practices in human resources management, and has not done enough to protect those who report internal abuse or wrongdoing. Nor has WFP improved conditions for peace in conflict-affected countries or prevented the use of hunger as a weapon of war, as I have illustrated above.

What then could have motivated the Committee to award WFP the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize – apart from some misguided notion that what the world needs most right now is food hand-outs? In a world that is being ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, increasing xenophobia, racism and sexism, a global recession and climate change (all of which threaten peace and security), couldn’t the Committee have picked a more worthy candidate?

"In a world that is being ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, increasing xenophobia, racism and sexism, a global recession and climate change (all of which threaten peace and security), couldn’t the Committee have picked a more worthy candidate?"

As you note, the Church is already donating money to the WFP, and this is despite the WFP's various defects and flaws.  Might it be that the Church has reasonable grounds for not giving the WFP unlimited money?  The foregoing articles describe a variety of detrimental effects that humanitarian aid can have.  I suspect the Church works with WFP programs that have a substantial "self-reliance" component.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

To mark 10 years of service together, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and World Food Program USA are jointly funding an emergency response hub in Barbados.

The project, which will enable more agile disaster response by WFP and others throughout the Caribbean, is made possible by a contribution of US$4.3 million — $2 million from the Church and an additional $2.3 million from World Food Program USA. The hub will be completed this summer.
...
“We couldn’t imagine a better way to mark our 10th anniversary with the Church than to do what we do best — build on our powerful relationship to help communities in need,” said Barron Segar, World Food Program USA President and CEO. “We are truly humbled and grateful for the Church’s profound generosity and steadfast commitment during the past decade to help us end global hunger. The Church’s support has helped transform millions of lives, helping at-risk communities to become self-reliant and build food security against incredible odds.”
...
The Church and WFP have locked arms in service since 2014. We recently showcased how this collaboration is reducing food insecurity in Liberia — a country still trying to overcome a 14-year civil war (1989–2003) that destroyed national infrastructure and basic social services.

About the World Food Programme

The United Nations World Food Programme is the world’s largest humanitarian organization, saving lives in emergencies and using food assistance to build a pathway to peace, stability and prosperity for people recovering from conflict, disasters and the impact of climate change.

World Food Program USA, a 501(c)(3) organization based in Washington, D.C., proudly supports the mission of the United Nations World Food Programme by mobilizing American policymakers, businesses and individuals to advance the global movement to end hunger. Our leadership and support help to bolster an enduring American legacy of feeding families in need around the world. Learn more about World Food Program USA’s mission at wfpusa.org.

About Humanitarian Services of the Church of Jesus Christ

The Church’s 2022 annual report on caring for those in need shows that the faith’s efforts to care for those in need included more than $1 billion in expenditures, 6.3 million hours volunteered and 3,692 humanitarian projects in 190 countries and territories.

The humanitarian efforts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relieve suffering, foster self-reliance and provide opportunities for service. The Church follows the admonition of Jesus Christ to feed the hungry and care for those in need.

This humanitarian outreach is made possible by the generous donations and volunteerism of Latter-day Saints and friends of the faith. The Church gives assistance without regard to race, religious affiliation or nationality. Aid is based on the core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability.

You are the steward of your own charitable donations.  The Church is steward of the charitable donations of millions of people, so it makes sense that it pays attention to how cuh funds are spent.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

I do.

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

In their ability to competently and efficiently use donated funds.

In their objectives and methods coinciding with the Church's "core principles {pertaining to charitable giving} of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

I think the Church has more money available to spend than it has vetted partners to spend it with and effective programs to spend it on.  I think the bottleneck issue is real.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 22, 2024 by smac97

[Doctor Steuss]

39 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Your idea amounts to us paying the salaries and pensions of their leaders with nothing in return.

Charity never faileth...

...except when it is entirely transactional.

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Charity never faileth...

...except when it is entirely transactional.

Why exactly should we pay the salaries and pensions of a Church formed specifically to counter our claims to authority????

[Doctor Steuss]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why exactly should we pay the salaries and pensions of a Church formed specifically to counter our claims to authority????

Why would disciples of Christ help fellow disciples of Christ devote their lives and all of their energy to their divine mandate to bring people to Jesus?

I dunno.  I imagine someone might be able to find some reason to.  Maybe.  If they tried really hard, and squinted a little bit.

[manol]

8 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Why would disciples of Christ help fellow disciples of Christ devote their lives and all of their energy to their divine mandate to bring people to Jesus?

I dunno.  I imagine someone might be able to find some reason to.  Maybe.  If they tried really hard, and squinted a little bit.

Yes.  I think we're supposed to draw a big and inclusive circle, instead of a small and exclusive one. 

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind"  - Jesus Christ (emphasis mine)

Edited March 22, 2024 by manol

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

That is true. Some institutions are still just crawling even.

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.

Knowing how to use the money or identifying needs isn't the bottleneck. I think most philanthropic organizations have a small amount of unused capacity and a clear prioritization of program needs such that they can handle a marginal increase in donation levels.

But I doubt that many of them can handle a doubling or tripling in donations. That sort of systemic increase requires systemic operational changes in procurement, contracts, vendors, and capital equipment. All of which will require new personnel hired and trained to handle it all. These personnel costs are an investment that will not be easily scaled back during leaner times. 

An organization that is only utilizing half or a third of their operating capacity is an organization that is over-extended. Expanding that capacity before there was a way to make that additional capacity sustainable was likely an unwise investment decision on the part of the organization.

I would hope that a partnership with the Church not only gives philanthropic organizations the resources they need to deliver on their services and programs, but also the confidence that such a long-term partnership will warrant the investments to dramatically ramp up their capacity.

Everyone wins in that case: the organization wins by expanding the reach and impact of their mission, the Church wins by getting more and more money out of their accounts and into the world to do some good, and the world wins by becoming a better place for all. I guess the perpetual complainers lose out, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to shrug off.

 

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

That is true. The Church endeavors to vet the programs they participate in rather closely as being worthwhile. The Church could duplicate efforts and perhaps do so more efficiently than some (e.g. we don't need the 28¢ raising the next $), but the duplication wouldn't necessarily be efficient use of man hours, expertise, or resources. Additionally, by donating directly to the organization, they need to spend less on raising their next $1. In the aggregate (and for additional reasons not stated) the Church judged this was the better approach. We still have plenty of LDS Philanthropies too.

 

PS: edit to add Stormin' Mormon's good point. Not all organizations are equipped to handle a truly large influx of donations and so moderate dispersal seems prudent.

Edited March 22, 2024 by Nofear

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Presiding Bishopric has repeatedly indicated this is an issue.

Yes.  But the Church also has potentially some billions of dollars it could spend every year in perpetuity.  Are these "dozens of trusted and vetted organizations" situated to facilitate meaningful and responsible utilization of such huge amounts of money?  

I have previously commented on this here:

 “The members of the church have a right to trust that {their tithes and offerings are} going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

Yep.  

Right.  And the NGOs in California "still need more money" for their missions, yet the graft and corruption and incompetence in that state's "homelessness" efforts are staggering and persistent.  So need is not the sole factor here.

My sense is that the Church has more money to spend on humanitarian/philanthropic causes than it has vetted and competent partner organizations situated to meaningfully and responsibly and effectively spend such funds.  I think the Church values its mandates.  And I think it's trying very hard to fulfill them, including those pertaining to philanthropic and humanitarian service to people worldwide. The effectiveness of the Church's humanitarian efforts is, I submit, a vastly more important consideration than whether the Church hits a "spend an arbitrary percentage of its accumulated principal, regardless of whether such spending is efficient and effective" benchmark. 

I don't know what you mean by this.  It's a far-from-established proposition, and one that does not seem to jibe with the various statements from the Presiding Bishopric.  From this 2020 Deseret News article:

The Church could just give money away and not give much attention to whether or not such expenditures are effectively and competently utilized, but then it would not be a wise steward.

Honestly, I don't think this is quite correct.  I think the Church has pretty good reasons for managing its philanthropic expenditures in the ways it does.  

I could see all sorts of problems arising with NGOs being fully subsidized by the Church.

What a crutch, too.

And what a huge risk it is for the Church to end up causing more harm than good by contributing to irresponsible and/or unintentionally harmful humanitarian efforts (see below).

And what a temptation for the functionaries at these organizations to start thinking of the Church's largesse as a convenient personal piggy bank for themselves.

We are, or should be, aware of widespread corruption and malfeasance in non-profit entities focusing on humanitarian efforts, which is one of the reasons I believe the Church is fairly cautious in this sector.  We discussed this last year:

 

Because their need for money is not our concern.  Their ability to competently and efficiently use it to help our fellow man is our concern.

From the above article: "{R}eaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor,' he said.  The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"

That's not the way tithing works.

That's not the way tithing works, either.

Hmm.  Where to begin.

UN agency suspends food aid to Ethiopia’s Tigray amid theft

Does this affect your assessment about your money "being put to better use"?

If a program as well-heeled as the WFP is having problems like this, perhaps the Church's caution is justified?

From 2010: How Corrupt Is the World Food Program?

Huh.  Misappropriation and corruption involving the WFP.  Perhaps the Church's caution is warranted.

From 2019: Popular U.N. Food Agency Roiled by Internal Problems, Survey Finds

Internal misconduct at the WFP.  

From 2023: The World Food Program’s Boss Faces Backlash for Attending an Event Honoring Israel

Politicking by WFP employees.

This next one, though, is a real eye-opener.  From 2020: Food Crimes: Why WFP Doesn’t Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize

WFP staff are "paid generously."

"{F}ood aid is, in fact, detrimental in the long run because it suppresses local food production, making it harder for poor or conflict-ridden countries to feed themselves."

"{S}tudies have found that direct cash transfers are a much more efficient and effective method to alleviate hardship and improve the overall welfare of beneficiary communities."

Food aid may be doing more harm than good.

"{A}id became a political tool in Somalia that was manipulated by both the donors and the recipient country."

"{F}ood aid to Somalia may have actually prolonged the civil war in the country."

"'{A}id could be worse than incompetent and inadvertently destructive. It could be positively evil.'"

"{T}raditionally, Somalis never relied on food aid, even during droughts."

"Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship."

"Food aid also suppresses local food production. Many Somali farmers have reported that NGOs working with WFP are notorious for bringing in food aid just before the harvest, which brings down the price of local food."

"{F}ood aid is big business and extremely beneficial to those donating it."

"US food aid often distorts local markets and disrupts agricultural activity in recipient countries."

"As earthquake relief, the US rushed 27,000 metric tons of wheat to Guatemala. The US gift knocked the bottom out of the local grain markets and depressed food prices so much that it was harder for villagers to recover."

"One of the most evident distortions caused by food aid (apart from the fact that farmers have no incentive to grow food when the market is flooded with free food) is the temptation to steal it."

"WFP’s international staff usually do not distribute food directly in conflict or disaster zones; instead they hire local NGOs to do the work. Many of these NGOs are not vetted."

"{A}bout two-thirds of the food went missing."

"Aid thus became a profitable source of income for criminal elements within Somalia."

"Maren believes that international aid not only sustained the dictator’s regime but also facilitated the unravelling of Somali society."

"{I}t was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted."

"When an international humanitarian agency comes in to provide food to starving people, bad governments are let off the hook, and are allowed to continue with their bad policies that can lead to more famines in the future."

"In a world that is being ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, increasing xenophobia, racism and sexism, a global recession and climate change (all of which threaten peace and security), couldn’t the Committee have picked a more worthy candidate?"

As you note, the Church is already donating money to the WFP, and this is despite the WFP's various defects and flaws.  Might it be that the Church has reasonable grounds for not giving the WFP unlimited money?  The foregoing articles describe a variety of detrimental effects that humanitarian aid can have.  I suspect the Church works with WFP programs that have a substantial "self-reliance" component.  See, e.g., here:

You are the steward of your own charitable donations.  The Church is steward of the charitable donations of millions of people, so it makes sense that it pays attention to how cuh funds are spent.

I do.

In their ability to competently and efficiently use donated funds.

In their objectives and methods coinciding with the Church's "core principles {pertaining to charitable giving} of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

I think the Church has more money available to spend than it has vetted partners to spend it with and effective programs to spend it on.  I think the bottleneck issue is real.

Thanks,

-Smac

Geez!  Why would anyone donate to the WFP after reading your spin on them?  What is the church thinking!?  Yet the Church has vetted them and donates to the program.  Why?  Because the benefits (which you completely neglected to account for) outweigh the risks (which you pretty heavily are biased towards).   There is no way to prevent all corruption (even within the church), but that doesn't mean that more money can't be used to improve good and improve infrastructure to reduce corruption. 

It all boils down to this - I trust that my money is being put to better use in the WFP then in the church's hands, even if some of it is going to waste or into the wrong hands.  I know that a MUCH larger percentage of my money is being used for good in the hands of the WFP then in the hands of the church where probably less then 1% is being used for charity and where they have gone to dishonest lengths to hide money in shell companies, etc.  I don't see the WFP having that problem.  They aren't hording and hiding their money.  They are using it, and the vast majority is being used for good.   And as you point out, the money that the church does donate, some of it goes to corruption via the corrupt (as you like to frame them) WFP - so I can't even imagine how miniscule of a fraction my tithing in the hands of the church is being used for purposes that I support.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Presiding Bishopric has repeatedly indicated this is an issue.

And yet the WFP indicates that they are still falling short of what they could use for good. Hmmm...  Who to trust. 

If I had to bet, based on how the church has used their finances so far - I don't believe that there is a bottleneck whatsoever.  I feel confident that they all sit down together to discuss their annual budgets and that their budget for charity is preset and that their donations are not limited only by what can be vetted.  I believe that the church has a set amount that they have pre-figured to donate to charity annually and that they intend to grow that figure little by little every year so to increase praise and decrease scrutiny that might come if they all the suden increased donations 20-fold in a single year after being caught red-handed hording and hiding vast amounts of moneys.   That is what my gut tells me.   I don't believe them if they are saying they are limited by what they can vet.  I don't believe them.  They have lost my trust.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What a crutch, too.

Better to have a crutch to walk with than to die from hunger.  Sounds like a fortune cookie, something Confucius would say. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because their need for money is not our concern. 

It should be.  Are we not our brother's keeper?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 Their ability to competently and efficiently use it to help our fellow man is our concern.

That too should be our concern.  Some loss is expected, and the benefits seem to outweigh the risks in the efforts of the WFP.  And it seems that they are ever learning from mistakes and improving their efforts to combat corruption and waste.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's not the way tithing works, either.

That's the way my tithing works.  That's the way my conscience works.  That's what the Spirit whispers to me. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  Where to begin.

I begin and end with my conscience. 

Edited March 22, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

PS: edit to add Stormin' Mormon's good point. Not all organizations are equipped to handle a truly large influx of donations and so moderate dispersal seems prudent.

I don’t have any reason to believe that they couldn’t handle more donations when they are spending 28% on trying to get more donations to meet their goals.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Your idea amounts to us paying the salaries and pensions of their leaders with nothing in return. So that's a no go.

Us acquiring the Kirtland Temple is part of the redemption (repurchasing) of Zion as was prophecied (sp?).

Charity reasons?

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Charity reasons?

Since when does assuming the salaries for another organization constitute charity? Would this ever be suggested for any other organization? Should Coke assume the budget of all Pepsi employees? Should Microsoft start paying the salaries of Apple employees?

Only in the bizarro world of irrational bias against the Church is this even a suggestion.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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...)

The world as a whole.

[smac97]

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

Geez!  Why would anyone donate to the WFP after reading your spin on them? 

Well, you tell me.  You are the one holding up WFP as the exemplar of competent and effective humanitarian efforts (while also disparaging the Church's efforts).

I am trying to illustrate just one facet of the complexities the Church faces in its humanitarian efforts. 

You denied that the Church faces a "bottleneck" in terms of having partners who can efficiently and competently utilize donated funds by suggesting that the Church could just send untold millions or billions to the WFP. 

I am suggesting that the Church has likely vetted the WFP and has sought to work with it - despite its various flaws - on humanitarian projects that coincide with the Church's "core principles {pertaining to charitable giving} of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability." 

I am also suggesting that the Church is cognizant of the challenges inherent in providing humanitarian aid (many of which were explained in the articles I linked to and quoted), and that these challenges are part of the "bottleneck" that the Church faces.

I am also suggesting that the Church may have more money to spend on humanitarian/philanthropic causes than it has vetted and competent partner organizations situated to meaningfully and responsibly and effectively spend such funds.

Regarding the Church's humanitarian expenditures and efforts, I have previously characterized the position of, IIRC, Analytics and Teancum, and perhaps you, as being essentially a "Just Throw Money At It!"-style approach.  Analytics things the Church should give away a fixed percentage of its principal every year, apparently with no regard for whether such expenditures are sensible.  Similarly, I think your proposal for the Church to fully bankroll this or that NGO or other types of groups is a similarly unwise course of action.  

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

What is the church thinking!?  Yet the Church has vetted them and donates to the program, knowing that some of it will go to corruption.  Why?  Because the benefits (which you completely neglected to account for) outweigh the risks (which you pretty heavily are biased towards).

I suspect you are correct.  As regarding the programs the Church participates in, the benefits outweigh the risks.  And this is happening because the Church is cautious and circumspect in its efforts, and vets both partner NGOs and the projects to be funded.

Your proposal, though, seems to be that the Church should just write a blank check to the WFP.  I can't go along with that.  I think the Church is not being freewheeling or cavalier or indifferent in determining which humanitarian projects it assists through funding and other means.  I think the Church is, instead, taking into account the tradeoffs you describe above, and then proceeded with caution and circumspection.  This caution and circumspection creates a bottleneck.  The "Just Throw Money At It!" approach is neither wise nor helpful in the long run.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

There is no way to prevent all corruption (even within the church), but that doesn't mean that more money can't be used to improve good and improve infrastructure to reduce corruption. 

I do not know what you mean here.  The Church ought not use sacred funds to try to reform or rehabilitate NGOs or their programs in the interests of "reduc{ing} corruption."  I don't even understand how that would work.

One good way to reduce corruption in humanitarian efforts is to work hard to avoid funding it.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”

“We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”

Moreover, corruption amongst NGOs is only part of the problem.  I previously quoted this article at length and its various statements regarding the unintended harmful effects humanitarian efforts can have.  Some excerpts:

• "{F}ood aid is, in fact, detrimental in the long run because it suppresses local food production, making it harder for poor or conflict-ridden countries to feed themselves."
• "{S}tudies have found that direct cash transfers are a much more efficient and effective method to alleviate hardship and improve the overall welfare of beneficiary communities."
• "{A}id became a political tool in Somalia that was manipulated by both the donors and the recipient country."
• "{F}ood aid to Somalia may have actually prolonged the civil war in the country."
• "'{A}id could be worse than incompetent and inadvertently destructive. It could be positively evil.'"
• "{T}raditionally, Somalis never relied on food aid, even during droughts."
• "Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship."
• "Food aid also suppresses local food production. Many Somali farmers have reported that NGOs working with WFP are notorious for bringing in food aid just before the harvest, which brings down the price of local food."
• "{F}ood aid is big business and extremely beneficial to those donating it."
• "US food aid often distorts local markets and disrupts agricultural activity in recipient countries."
• "As earthquake relief, the US rushed 27,000 metric tons of wheat to Guatemala. The US gift knocked the bottom out of the local grain markets and depressed food prices so much that it was harder for villagers to recover."
• "One of the most evident distortions caused by food aid (apart from the fact that farmers have no incentive to grow food when the market is flooded with free food) is the temptation to steal it."
• "WFP’s international staff usually do not distribute food directly in conflict or disaster zones; instead they hire local NGOs to do the work. Many of these NGOs are not vetted."
• "{A}bout two-thirds of the food went missing."
• "Aid thus became a profitable source of income for criminal elements within Somalia."
• "Maren believes that international aid not only sustained the dictator’s regime but also facilitated the unravelling of Somali society."
• "{I}t was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted."
• "When an international humanitarian agency comes in to provide food to starving people, bad governments are let off the hook, and are allowed to continue with their bad policies that can lead to more famines in the future."
• "In a world that is being ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, increasing xenophobia, racism and sexism, a global recession and climate change (all of which threaten peace and security), couldn’t the Committee have picked a more worthy candidate?"

Don't you think we should be taking these things into account when discussing humanitarian efforts?

Isn't it possible that people like you and I are essentially bystanders, and therefore not nearly as conversant about challenges involved in administering international humanitarian work (as compared to people who work on such issues on a regular/daily basis)?

Isn't is possible that the Presiding Bishopric, those who work with them, the Church's "missionaries and area staff on the ground," etc. might be a part of this more-conversant-than-you-and-I cohort?

Isn't it possible that the Presiding Bishopric et al, being considerably more conversant on these matters than we are, are better situated to manage the Church's humanitarian efforts?

Isn't it possible that those efforts are better of being predicated on the Church's cautious approach as compared to a "Just Throw Money At It!" approach?

Isn't it possible that the Church's cautious approach necessarily creates some constraints - a "bottleneck" - on what the Church can actually and practicably do in the humanitarian field?

In any event, what you are describing seems to be quite akin to what the Church is already doing.  These days the Church is being hectored for not donating enough of its wealth to such causes, yet here we see the need for the Church to carefully evaluate and "vet" any such organization prior to working with or donating to them.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

In addition to responding to disasters across the globe, Church humanitarian funds have been used to provide food programs, vision care, maternal and newborn care, clean water and sanitation, immunizations, wheelchairs, and help for refugees.

However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.

The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. “We are very careful with the widow’s mite,” referring to the biblical parable by the Savior.

“We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church,” said Bishop Davies.

Leaders often ask themselves “what else can we do, where else can we go, who else can we work with,” said Bishop Waddell.  

Every time the Church reaches out, the objective is to bless both the giver and the receiver, added Bishop Caussé. So in addition to selecting good humanitarian projects, Church leaders are always mindful of providing service opportunities for Church members. “It’s not just a matter of money,” he said. It’s also done as members “devote time and resources and efforts to help others.”
...
As to the question, is the Church doing enough, Bishop Caussé said, “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”

• "Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. 'The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,' Bishop Davies said. 'So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.'"
• "Reaching out and helping those in need is 'a very complex endeavor.'"
• "The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. 'It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.'"
• "Bishop Davies said the Church is careful to select humanitarian projects and partners that will make the best use of the Church’s funds. 'We are very careful with the widow’s mite.'"
• "We recognize that this comes from the faith of Church members and we want to make certain that they have the trust and confidence that their donations are being managed in a careful and thoughtful and very safe way for them and for the Church."
• “We hope we can do more and more in the future, and as the Church grows, there will be more opportunities for doing good.”

I think this stuff needs to be addressed.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

It all boils down to this - I trust that my money is being put to better use in the WFP then in the church's hands, even if some of it is going to waste or into the wrong hands.

I did not mean to push you into a corner, but it looks like I did.  

I have nothing particular to say about how you spend your own money.  The Law of Tithing is, in the end, left to each of us as individuals to obey or not.  But the topic here is not you and your money, but the Lord's Church and its money.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

I know that a MUCH larger percentage of my money is being used for good in the hands of the WFP then in the hands of the church where probably less then 1% is being used for charity and where they have gone to dishonest lengths to hide money in shell companies, etc. 

First, the topic here is not your money, but the Lord's money.

Second, I think the Church's track record is really good in terms of fiscal management.  Nobody is getting rich by working for the Church or being in a leadership position.  The corruption and malfeasance at the WFP, meanwhile, is pretty extensive.

Third, I don't know what you mean by "used for good."  You were apparently not previously aware of the various problems with the WFP.  I did not mean to surprise you, as I figured that since you were the one that introduced WFP into this discussion, you would have been familiar with those issues.

Fourth, I think the Church has found that it can work with WFP on projects that have a substantial "self-reliance" component, and hopefully not contributing to the "doing more harm than good" issues described above.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

I don't see the WFP having that problem. 

I think you are idealizing WFP.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

They aren't hording and hiding their money.

Nor is the Church.  This is just an ugly characterization on your part.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

They are using it, and the vast majority is being used for good. 

I think an apples-to-apples comparison is in order.  Humanitarian work is the WFP's raison d'être.  That is its sole and entire function.  The Church, however, is not primarily a humanitarian organization.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The following address was given {By Elder David Bednar} at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, May 26, 2022. 

...

I have highlighted many aspects of our humanitarian outreach efforts around the world. Please remember, however, that we are not primarily a humanitarian organization. We are the Church of Jesus Christ, reestablished or restored upon the earth in the latter days in preparation for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. We do all of these things because as His disciples we love Him and want to follow His example in our lives.

I conclude by returning to where I began. The basic purpose of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to help people learn about the nature and attributes of God, to love God, to become disciples of His Son Jesus Christ, and to love and serve our brothers and sisters. We believe God can change our hearts and make more of us from the inside out than we can ever make of ourselves. And we also believe that change many times is required from the outside in.

I don't know if this upsets you, or if you think the Church should be "primarily a humanitarian organization."  

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

If I had to bet, based on how the church has used their finances so far - I don't believe that there is a bottleneck whatsoever. 

For advocates of the "Just Throw Money At It!" approach, there is no bottleneck. 

However, for those who think the Church needs to be cautious and circumspect in its stewardship of sacred funds, and who are willing to place more faith in statements from the Presiding Bishopric than in hostile speculation, the "bottleneck" issue sure seems to be a thing.

• “We have an obligation to the members of the church who pay their tithes and offerings to make sure that is going to organizations or areas that will actually meet a need,” Bishop Waddell said. “The members of the church have a right to trust that it’s going to be managed and handled well and not just thrown at issues.”
• Increases in humanitarian and welfare spending are driven first by the contributions and volunteerism of church members, the bishops said. The other major factor is how quickly the church can ensure new avenues for precise giving. For example, Latter-day Saint Charities carefully and thoroughly assesses each partner. “The last thing you want to do is just give them money and then you really don’t know where it goes,” Bishop Davies said. “So we have both missionaries and area staff on the ground, feet on the ground, who actually are there, they can see that food’s being distributed, or equipment, or schools are being built as part of our program.”
• However, reaching out and helping those in need is “a very complex endeavor,” he said.  The Church can’t just send out cash and checks to people, he said. “It has to be done in an organized way, and with follow up, with training, a lot of expertise and good partners. Otherwise, you just don’t get any results.”

Do you not lend any credence to statements like these?

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

I believe that the church has a set amount that they have pre-figured to donate to charity annually and that they intend to grow that figure little by little every year so that it doesn't appear that they all the sudden increase their donations 10-fold after being caught red-handed hording and hiding vast amounts of moneys.

Pogi: "I believe that the church has a set amount that they have pre-figured to donate to charity annually and that they intend to grow that figure little by little every year..."

Bishop Waddell in 2020:

Quote

The three bishops challenged some of what they’ve seen in previous reports.

“The people who say we’re not doing our part, that is just not true,” Bishop Waddell said. “We’re talking close to $1 billion in that welfare/humanitarian area on an annual basis. Yes, we are using our resources to bless the poor and the needy as well as all of the other responsibilities we have as a church.”

The figure includes all humanitarian and welfare expenditures, including fast offering aid.

The budget for humanitarian work “has gone up dramatically,” Bishop Waddell said.

In fact, Bishop Caussé added, humanitarian expenditures have doubled in the past five years.

“And we believe they are going to increase fast,” he said.

As between your hostile speculation and the foregoing statements from the Presiding Bishopric, I'll go with the latter.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

That is what my gut tells me.   I don't believe them if they are saying they are limited by what they can vet.  I don't believe them.  They have lost my trust.

No evidence of malfeasance, incompetence or dishonesty, but you do not trust the Presiding Bishopric.

Extensive evidence of WFP's malfeasance, incompetence and dishonesty, but you trust them anyway.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

Better to have a crutch to walk than to die from hungry. 

The Church's humanitarian efforts are based on "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

I think you vastly underestimate the corrosive effects of the dole, including in the humanitarian sphere.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

Quote

Quote

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? 

Because their need for money is not our concern. 

It should be.  Are we not our brother's keeper?

Yes.  But we are not NGOs' keeper.

Surely you see the difference.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

Quote

Their ability to competently and efficiently use it to help our fellow man is our concern.

That too should be our concern. 

And yet you sure seem to not care much about it.  "Just Throw Money At It!" is the order of the day.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

Some loss is expected, and the benefits seem to outweigh the risks in the efforts of the WFP.

And the Church is working with the WFP on some projects.  However, the Church still needs to be a good steward of its funds.  I don't think you are giving this sufficient consideration.

On 3/22/2024 at 4:33 PM, pogi said:

That's the way my tithing works.  That's the way my conscience works.  That's what the Spirit whispers to me. 

Tithing is the Lord's money, not yours.

As for what your conscience or "the Spirit" is telling you regarding obedience to the Law of Tithing, I don't really have anything to say.  Such matters are between you and the Lord (and, to a lesser extent, your local ecclesiastical leaders).  The topic here, though, is how the Church should spend the Lord's sacred funds.  And I think it should be cautious and circumspect in those efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Knowing how to use the money or identifying needs isn't the bottleneck. I think most philanthropic organizations have a small amount of unused capacity and a clear prioritization of program needs such that they can handle a marginal increase in donation levels.

But I doubt that many of them can handle a doubling or tripling in donations. That sort of systemic increase requires systemic operational changes in procurement, contracts, vendors, and capital equipment. All of which will require new personnel hired and trained to handle it all. These personnel costs are an investment that will not be easily scaled back during leaner times. 

Good points, these. 

I have repeatedly pointed to California's feckless "Just Throw Money At It!" approach to homelessness as a cautionary tale for the Church.  California has created perverse incentives for NGOs, whose existence will be obviated if they make inroads in reducing homelessness.  NGOs are organizations made up of flesh-and-blood people, people who can start with noble intentions but end up having their decisions being governed by greed, with helping their fellow man as a nice virtue-signaling pretext.

International humanitarian aid is likewise riddled with such perverse incentives, and corruptions, and incompetencies, and unintended harmful consequences.  The Church is wise to insist that its humanitarian efforts be predicated on "core principles of personal responsibility, community support, self-reliance and sustainability."

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

An organization that is only utilizing half or a third of their operating capacity is an organization that is over-extended. Expanding that capacity before there was a way to make that additional capacity sustainable was likely an unwise investment decision on the part of the organization.

I would hope that a partnership with the Church not only gives philanthropic organizations the resources they need to deliver on their services and programs, but also the confidence that such a long-term partnership will warrant the investments to dramatically ramp up their capacity.

I would hope that, too.  But this is a painstaking process, and one heavily reliant on the character of individual flesh-and-blood actors.  An NGO might have a stellar track record, but then the old director retires and a new guy comes in and messes the whole thing up.  It's not an intractable issue, just a time-and-resource-consuming one.  The Church will need to constantly vet and re-vet NGOs and individual projects, and monitor them afterwards.

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Everyone wins in that case: the organization wins by expanding the reach and impact of their mission, the Church wins by getting more and more money out of their accounts and into the world to do some good, and the world wins by becoming a better place for all. I guess the perpetual complainers lose out, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to shrug off.

I would happily cheer on competent and efficient NGOs move forward in this way.  But the overarching track record of these folks does little to create confidence that this will happen in large scale measures.  So I think we may be stuck with what we've got, which is the Church trying hard to partner with competent and efficient NGOs on worthwhile humanitarian projects, but with such partnerships being limited by the necessity of substantial vetting and oversight.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t have any reason to believe that they couldn’t handle more donations when they are spending 28% on trying to get more donations to meet their goals.

Oh, I'm not talking any specific example. But, if an organization suddenly got 1000× what they are used to, that may pose a logistics problem for some. Not really worrying about the this thread though.

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet you sure seem to not care much about it.  "Just Throw Money At It!" is the order of the day.

There is a LOT that I would like to respond to in your post, but I am not going to waste another breath until you promise to quit with the belligerent and relentless mischaracterization of me and others who deny your characterizations of our views.

Why speak with someone who refuses to listen and respectfully dialogue in good faith?

I, and others, have repeatedly denied this characterization and have in fact stated that care and caution needs to be used in vetting charities and donation giving.

Edited March 23, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Oh, I'm not talking any specific example. But, if an organization suddenly got 1000× what they are used to, that may pose a logistics problem for some. Not really worrying about the this thread though.

I agree with that, but clearly they (and likely the many, many other vetted charities they donate to) can handle more than we are giving them. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would hope that, too.  But this is a painstaking process, and one heavily reliant on the character of individual flesh-and-blood actors.  An NGO might have a stellar track record, but then the old director retires and a new guy comes in and messes the whole thing up.  It's not an intractable issue, just a time-and-resource-consuming one.  The Church will need to constantly vet and re-vet NGOs and individual projects, and monitor them afterwards.

This is an interesting point and causes me to reconsider a related issue. 

It may not be in the best interest of either the Church or its partnering organizations for the Church to donate so much to a single entity that it becomes the predominant donor. If the partner cannot survive without ongoing support from the LDS church, then the church is left with no graceful exit strategy and the partner is held captive to the policy preferences of its majority patron.

If thats a valid concern, then it may be best for all parties concerned if church donations to its charitable partners scale with donations from other donors.

Edited March 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Knowing how to use the money or identifying needs isn't the bottleneck. I think most philanthropic organizations have a small amount of unused capacity and a clear prioritization of program needs such that they can handle a marginal increase in donation levels.

But I doubt that many of them can handle a doubling or tripling in donations. That sort of systemic increase requires systemic operational changes in procurement, contracts, vendors, and capital equipment. All of which will require new personnel hired and trained to handle it all. These personnel costs are an investment that will not be easily scaled back during leaner times. 

The particular organization I was talking about would have none of these problems. 

I realize you said "many", but when I replied to you I specifically talked about how some (and I'm quite aware of many of those) would not be ready, but some are.  So if the church chose to there WOULD be some who are ready. 

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

An organization that is only utilizing half or a third of their operating capacity is an organization that is over-extended. Expanding that capacity before there was a way to make that additional capacity sustainable was likely an unwise investment decision on the part of the organization.

I would hope that a partnership with the Church not only gives philanthropic organizations the resources they need to deliver on their services and programs, but also the confidence that such a long-term partnership will warrant the investments to dramatically ramp up their capacity.

Everyone wins in that case: the organization wins by expanding the reach and impact of their mission, the Church wins by getting more and more money out of their accounts and into the world to do some good, and the world wins by becoming a better place for all. I guess the perpetual complainers lose out, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to shrug off.

 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Smac's reasoned, sourced, smart response might be the best response to criticisms of what the church does with it's means, but it's hardly the only response.  I'm still partial to my overall response.

Get bent.  Mind your own business.  Your criticisms about how my church needs to do more x and less y, mean absolutely squat to us.  Just another useless pile of armchair quarterbacks telling other people how to run their affairs.  Ya bunch of green-eyed jealous covetous spenders of other's money.  You see a pile of cash and think your opinions on what should be done with it is somehow relevant.  It isn't.  Your opinion and five bucks is worth five bucks.  You wanna do things differently, go start your own church.  Leave us alone, we're mormoning.

I mean, rude sarcasm is usually not effective.  But the perspective expressed by my rude sarcasm is, I assure you, heartfelt.  No really, we don't answer to you.  We don't need to defend our actions.  I'm so utterly unimpressed by your secular reasonings and never ending criticisms, words just fail me.  Go find some other deep pocket to criticize. 

(Not thinking of any particular poster, just replying to the critical perspectives.)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Get bent.  Mind your own business.  Your criticisms about how my church needs to do more x and less y, mean absolutely squat to us.  Just another useless pile of armchair quarterbacks telling other people how to run their affairs.  Ya bunch of green-eyed jealous covetous spenders of other's money.  You see a pile of cash and think your opinions on what should be done with it is somehow relevant.  It isn't.  Your opinion and five bucks is worth five bucks.  You wanna do things differently, go start your own church.  Leave us alone, we're mormoning.

I might be inclined to listen to you if 1)I can get the portion of the reserve fund payed for unwittingly by me without my consent and 2) The church starts paying taxes. Deal? (FWIW, I continued with a generous fast offering for two years after I left, right up until the organization that claims to be “as transparent as they know how” was revealed to have hid over a hundred billion dollars from its members and donors).

BTW, I think your church should be applauded for expanding their humanitarian efforts. Someone said 30%!? The report is written vaguely enough to be pretty much worthless when comparing efforts now to say a decade ago, but that is good progress. I hope you all keep it up. 

[Smiley McGee]

31 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Smac's reasoned, sourced, smart response might be the best response to criticisms of what the church does with it's means, but it's hardly the only response.  I'm still partial to my overall response.

Get bent.  Mind your own business.  Your criticisms about how my church needs to do more x and less y, mean absolutely squat to us.  Just another useless pile of armchair quarterbacks telling other people how to run their affairs.  Ya bunch of green-eyed jealous covetous spenders of other's money.  You see a pile of cash and think your opinions on what should be done with it is somehow relevant.  It isn't.  Your opinion and five bucks is worth five bucks.  You wanna do things differently, go start your own church.  Leave us alone, we're mormoning.

I mean, rude sarcasm is usually not effective.  But the perspective expressed by my rude sarcasm is, I assure you, heartfelt.  No really, we don't answer to you.  We don't need to defend our actions.  I'm so utterly unimpressed by your secular reasonings and never ending criticisms, words just fail me.  Go find some other deep pocket to criticize. 

(Not thinking of any particular poster, just replying to the critical perspectives.)

That’s big talk from a guy whose church doesn’t trust him enough to provide him adequate financial disclosure.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Since when does assuming the salaries for another organization constitute charity? Would this ever be suggested for any other organization? Should Coke assume the budget of all Pepsi employees? Should Microsoft start paying the salaries of Apple employees?

Only in the bizarro world of irrational bias against the Church is this even a suggestion.

Because they have been the caretakers for so long? Emma Smith's son was the first president at one time? If I cared to I could list a host of reasons. One that is personal to me and many others is how they did the tours for people. It was all about the history and they didn't hide things. It wasn't for missionary efforts, or they didn't have missionaries giving the tours. I'm just sad for how it will change so much. I love church historical sites, particularly LDS ones. I remember the tours we had in Nauvoo, and the particular ones with the CoC were excellent. I will never get to go to the Kirtland Temple one with the CoC people now. But I did see a youtube of it, so I may need to watch it. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

"The kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan will always remain two kingdoms; and so long as they are, you will find from time to time that the citizens of Satan's kingdom will be telling you of cats that are ready to leap out of the bag, of something that is wonderful and alarming in its nature…" (Pres. Brigham Young)