Help for help

Why should a charity have to be “professional”? To me, it would be more cost-effective if a charity was amateur in the original meaning of being an activity done for no monetary reward, just out of sheer love.

There can always be the belief that ‘a little is better than nothing’ to justify high administrative costs, but this undermines the very purpose of giving; to direct as much money as possible to those who need it.

The charity business makes me wonder what the outcome would be if we, the donors, decided to take just sixteen cents of each of our available dollars, but place that directly in the hands of the disadvantaged. It would go bust, and its members would then have to find employment other than that funded by our generosity.

I hope that someone among you can suggest a more effective way of converting our big-heartedness into benefit. I think that we all would like to see our entire donations end up achieving their purpose. How?

Could it be by a small number of large, expensive organisations dealing in millions of dollars; by a large number of entirely voluntary organisations distributing lesser amounts; by even larger numbers of small ‘community chest’ style groups operating at grass roots levels within poor populations; by a strong one-on-one culture which gives directly yet preserves the anonymity of the donor if that is desired; by strongly-bonded volunteer organisations such as rural fire services, lifesaving clubs, sporting clubs and the like rallying around people in their communities as they usually do: by strengthening social expectations of philanthropy on the part of the wealthy (Dick Smith is a fine example of this practice); or by giving up entirely and asking whether it is really better to give than to receive?

Could it be a blend of any or all of the above? I don’t know – that’s why I’m asking for your On Line Opinions.