Charity is a selfish act

Quite the title? A bit controversial, but I've felt this way for some time now. People give their money to charity with a feeling of altruism, but I suggest that very few agencies that receive these funds actually use a majority of them to do good.

Last night, I read through Jon Krakauer's "The Cups of Deceit", his personal endictment of Greg Mortinson, the co-author of "Three Cups of Tea", and the author (sort of - read the article by Krakauer) of "Stones Into Schools". The books are best sellers, and have contributed millions to Mortinson's cauffers.

The problem that Krakauer reveals (scratch that - proves), is that much of both stories are false. I can see some embellishment of a tale to make it more readable and easier to follow, but many of his adventures never happened, and he has manipulated his charity to a point where nobody is accountable for all the money they've raised. Children all over the world have contributed to "Pennies For Peace" in the knowledge that most (all?) of their money ends up helping the poor and destitute in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most of it ends up unaccounted for.

It's a sad tale of a charity that starts out with the best of intentions, but through the power of a confusing leader, becomes a shell game. Most of the Board of the charity have resigned because much of what happens is illegal. Only a very small percentage of contributions actually end up in Asia. Mostly you're helping Mortinson with his speaking engagements, trips on chartered jets, promotion of his books, and other such nonsense.

This is just the most recent example of what I call "unintended consequences" of charitable giving. Let's see a couple of other examples:

• The "pink ribbon" program for breast cancer research, screening and detection. It's pretty controversial, and it's widely seen as an opportunity for corporations to slap a pink ribbon on a product and watch the cash roll in (they would donate a small portion of proceeds to the campaign, most often capped at some figure). Then, the administrative costs of the campaign itself are huge. Take a look at this 2009 Financial Summary for the "Run For The Cure" (it's Japanese - the only one I could find). 53M yen of income, 40.7M yen of expenses. Enough said.
• Mother Theresa is another figure that's now held is some contempt by the way that millions of dollars were donated in her name, but little of it ever saw the lives of the poor in Calcutta improve. The condition those same poor were kept in was often seen as deplorable. It's easy to find lots of information about how the world came to help Mother Theresa, but the poor of India were not treated as we all thought they would be.
• The earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Japan is a first world country that can absorb the tragedy it experienced. While I think it's good that the rest of the world has participated in critical parts of the early response (like search and rescue, clean-up, expertise on nuclear power, etc), I don't think it's likely that money donated by people like me and you will ever end up actually helping someone. Western Governments, on behalf of their people, can donate time, energy and expertise. Where I get lost is, if I was to donate to "Japan Relief Inc., where would the money go. I contend it goes to make you feel good. 

Actually, the only charity that comes to mind that has true transparency, and where the actual donations end up in the hands of researchers, is the Terry Fox Foundation. In their 2009 Financial Report it shows $27.3M in donations, and $3.7M in expenses. Again, enough said.

So there's my premise. Very few charities, although well intentioned from the outset, actually deliver what they claim. We donate to them to make ourselves feel important. If you want to do something with a real impact, investigate first. Don't blindly send your money someplace so you can feel good. It doesn't work that way.