I've been thinking lately of the conundrum of charities that actually benefit communities (like wells) versus the kind that can draw in donaters (like Save the Children).

As MacCormack puts it, “An awful lot of people who sign on to a personal
human being will not sign on to a well.”

I can see Save the Children having several merits, especially if you have children yourself. As a child I can remember being puzzled by my parents writing checks to faraway institutions who did god knows what with the money. And besides, didn't our family need the money? I couldn't help but wonder if I was getting short-changed on holiday presents just so my parents could write bigger and bigger checks to these so-called charities. But then they started doing something different - they sponsored a child and for two years we received pictures and notes about a specific child - and suddenly it clicked. Our money was going to help this child obtain food and clothes, and that seemed a worthwhile use of our family's money. I don't know why they stopped, perhaps they realized how very little of their donation actually went to the child, but I can remember feeling disappointed about it. Long story short - child sponsorship is a deserving charity, even if half your donation goes to administrative costs, because it MODELS to your children what giving is all about.

But then you hear so many negative stories about such charities, like they will keep collecting money on a child's behalf even after they are dead, that the aid the children receive (when they receive anything) is in the form of used clothes and shoes that rarely fit, that letters from the children are often forged, etc.

Why does giving have to be so darn complicated?

This is an interesting discussion on how kiva really works and the parallels it has with save the children.

The other dilemma I have is this. Am I doing good by offering a microcredit loan (knowing the person on the receiving end will likely be forced to pay back $138 for every $100 they borrow)? But if I didn't offer the loan, perhaps the person would be forced to pay $150 for each $100 instead? So my money is thereby reducing their interest rate, which is a good thing. But what if that person would instead decide not to take the loan and continue earning a daily wage as a field laborer instead of taking the chance of starting a chicken operation? And thereby save themselves the heartache of having to sell their youngest child when a fox sneaks in at night and kills the chickens leaving them with no other means to pay back their loan??

Argh! Why does it have to be so darn complicated?