Live data from Hacker News

Donate Unrestricted

paulgraham.com

41–50 of 301 posts

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#41
I like to donate when I know a person involved. I find it hard to trust an organization or title. I donate cash to the local food bank, which is run by neighbors. I donate to my son's college student organization, run by folks he knows. I donate to a guy I see on the street frequently, who has been camping since he became homeless in 1985.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#42

The article mentioned the Gates foundation which has terrible records in education initiatives: - The big failure in small schools initiative: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/th... - The big failure in teacher evaluation initiative: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio... - The big failure in Common Core initiative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/…

Successful schooling involves a parental component. We probably need a way to pay parents to help their kids with school.

The other thing I noticed with the pandemic and distance learning is that kids do really well in small groups (2-4 kids) and extremely well 1:1. This is a tutelage model. I felt that the classes that went best for my kids incorporated the small group style. In this model, the general education itself can be recorded and the small groups live which work really well.

I think this is the future but there's a lot of push back on that.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#43
> If restricted donations do less good than unrestricted ones, why do donors so often make them? Partly because doing good isn't donors' only motive. They often have other motives as well — to make a mark, or to generate good publicity

Bottom line is this: It's a net loss for non-profits if there is a stigma that is attached to people who donate for in part 'the wrong reasons'.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#44

And yet a constant theme I keep hearing on HN and other places is that “I would only donate if I could support X initiative at Y foundation” Mozilla comes to mind here. People often claiming they would donate if they could support only specific parts of the organization. This article shows there is much more nuance to think about here than just supporting a specific part of an organization

With Mozilla it's more that there is no way to donate money in a way where any of it will ever help the initiative (Firefox) you care about. Mozilla the foundation does not work on Firefox, Mozilla the corporation works on Firefox. Money flows from corp to foundation, not the other way around. So it's more of an issue of there being no non-profit that supports Firefox development. Or another way of saying it is that people don't like the current Mozilla mission statement and if it were different then they'd donate.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#45
"If a nonprofit doesn't understand better than its donors where money needs to be spent, then it's incompetent and you shouldn't be donating to it at all."

Years ago, I had a startup that was building software for non-profits. We spent a lot of time around them, talking to them, etc.

This problem of incompetence that PG briefly touches on is rampant to a degree that most would never realize. Most large NPs are more inefficient than you could possibly imagine with their money (if you don't believe me, go look at how much of their money goes to administration and how much the people at the top are paying themselves). The SMB NPs (the group my startup served) were typically run either by narcissists who's real goal was to look good to other people, or they were very non-business/money savvy and driven by passion (in a negative way). Both of these lead to poor decision making, one way or the other.

The narcissists tended to do everything they could to look good while doing almost nothing (think: hosting galas to raise "awareness" or finding ways to be involved with big important people, without actually furthering their mission). They looked great in the public eye most of the time and could flaunt their "goodness" while secretly treating their employees like trash behind closed doors.

Example: the director/founder of one NP I know of that had a mission of helping pregnant women in crisis forced her 8 months pregnant employee to walk for miles through DC and do manual labor for her. She chewed her out in front of the whole team for saying she wasn't physically capable and made her cry, demanding that she do something that was technically her (the director's) responsibility.

The non-business/money savvy person who is driven by passion at least has good intentions, but they let that passion run wild without tempering it. This leads to knee-jerk reactions and doing things just to do them, without taking the time to play the long game or even determine if the action they're taking is helping or hurting. It's the classic "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish" problem, where they don't slow down to look closer, and so find themselves perpetually addressing the crisis instead of the underlying issue, or creating sustainable solutions.

The NPs that manage to avoid these are so exceedingly rare in my experience that it has turned me into a cynic. I just assume that there's incompetence at play, and even outright abuse.

Anyway, I agree with PG, I just had to expand on that point because it almost felt like a footnote when IMO it is a huge part of the problem: finding good NPs to donate to unrestricted. Otherwise, you have to settle for incompetence and restrict that incompetence.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#46
post #42

The article mentioned the Gates foundation which has terrible records in education initiatives: - The big failure in small schools initiative: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/th... - The big failure in teacher evaluation initiative: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio... - The big failure in Common Core initiative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/…

Successful schooling involves a parental component. We probably need a way to pay parents to help their kids with school. The other thing I noticed with the pandemic and distance learning is that kids do really well in small groups (2-4 kids) and extremely well 1:1. This is a tutelage model. I felt that the classes that went best for my kids incorporated the small group style. In this model, the general education its…

> The other thing I noticed with the pandemic and distance learning is that kids do really well in small groups (2-4 kids) and extremely well 1:1.

Small group learning has been a standard part of education for a few decades.

It is way too early to make claim that the pandemic version of this has improved things. Anecdotes thus far have pointed to some kids doing well in pandemic small groups and 1:1 while others are doing terribly, but data about the effects has not even been collected yet, much less analyzed or conclusions drawn.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#47
post #42

The article mentioned the Gates foundation which has terrible records in education initiatives: - The big failure in small schools initiative: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/th... - The big failure in teacher evaluation initiative: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio... - The big failure in Common Core initiative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/…

Successful schooling involves a parental component. We probably need a way to pay parents to help their kids with school. The other thing I noticed with the pandemic and distance learning is that kids do really well in small groups (2-4 kids) and extremely well 1:1. This is a tutelage model. I felt that the classes that went best for my kids incorporated the small group style. In this model, the general education its…

> We probably need a way to pay parents to help their kids with school.

Check this great interview: Glenn Loury & Roland Fryer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL1peNBAnns

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#48
Having spent many years volunteering for various nonprofit, and having been deeply involved in fundraising and budgeting, I cannot upvote this enough!

Restricted donations add overhead while making it harder to fund important things like bookkeeping, rent for an office, and staff salaries. If you believe in the nonprofit's mission, just let them figure out what to do with the money!

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#49

The article mentioned the Gates foundation which has terrible records in education initiatives: - The big failure in small schools initiative: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/th... - The big failure in teacher evaluation initiative: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio... - The big failure in Common Core initiative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/…

Interestingly, its still their money, and still their choice where to use it.

It is money made by shitty business practices, and now that the great Gates has realised that there is indeed an upper limit to personal hedonism they’ve elected to do the voyeuristic hedonism - now with the intermediates of poor people everywhere; or as similar to how Morty put it, “just sounds like masturbation with extra steps.”

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#50
As a board member of two nonprofits, I STRONGLY agree with pg. Restricted donations are not only an administerial headache, they strain the donor/recipient relationship and lead to suboptimal spending.
Post reply on HN