Differences in effectiveness and impact is just as varied in the non-profit world. We can help so much more by donating to lean, evidence-backed organisations aiming to do the most good.
Our World in Data strike again with amazing insights.
Historian, author and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
When resources are limited, as is the case in even the wealthiest communities, investing in evidence-based interventions and ensuring strong monitoring and evaluation pay off!
This article is insightful. However, the analysis, as shown in the graph, is a bit simplistic in that it considers case treatment more cost-effective than broader public health interventions. This is usually a challenge for economic evaluation of public health interventions, which are broad, long term, usually indirect, and definitely more difficult to measure their impact and effectiveness in a direct causative way compared to individual case treatment.
Unfortunately, this same argument is what makes public health sectors in many countries a less priority for policymakers!
The field of health economics is still growing, and there is more and more evidence for such interventions.
Historian, author and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
Once again Rutger Bregman shining a spotlight on some great work. At the Happier Lives Institute we carry out similar work to this but use WELLBYS per $1000 as supposed to DALYs per $1000 to measure cost effectiveness.
Why is this important?
Because DALYs rely on asking people not suffering from illnesses how bad they think it would be to suffer from them (and get them to trade off living longer vs living healthier) where as WELLBYs gathers data from the people actually experiencing the suffering.
Where does this produce noticeable differences?
One of the key areas this helps us evaluate more effectively is mental health. DALY estimates suggest that many people think that having depression would be about as bad as walking with a slight limp and they would trade off similar amounts of time to avoid either situation. However, data from people who actually live with these conditions shows that the effect of ‘moderate anxiety or depression’ is associated with a ten times greater change in subjective wellbeing than ‘some mobility issues’ (Dolan and Metcalfe, 2012).
For our version of the analysis below (using WELLBYs) check out the Happier Lives Institute website for our top charity recommendations. https://lnkd.in/eXm2kTa9
Oh and vive la wellbeing révolution!!!
Historian, author and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
Effective Altruism's singular outlook allows West's influential, affluential such as Oxbridge Grads to virtue signal, increase their public social clout.
If they only held a passport of a ''3rd world' 'country like Pakistan, Myanmar, were stuck living here, they would think about social development in much more complex, multidimensional terms.
My Netherlands friends are very good at perceiving their own city, society's issues like affordable housing crunch in Amsterdam (cost disease phenomenon in general) in more nuanced, complex ways. Its what makes the Dutch such genius urban planning, water management system engineering, highly technically Agriculture thinkers, real life applied practitioners. Yet, the developing world like a Rwanda, a Kenya, Pakistan's issues are just a mathematical, data driven exercise for them.
Singapore's founding father, great leader Lee Kuan Yew made it his mission to transform his country's housing.
And with it, achieved multiple positive end social outcomes simultaneously such as public health improvement when slums dwellers at high risk of disease outbreak vulnerability were resettled to modern, dense apartments, and at the same time excellent social cohesion, the kind crucial to unite, bind a multicultural, pluralistic society under positive civic nationalism where a headscarf wearing Muslim woman with one parent of Malay origin and an another of Indian heritage became its President.
What frustrated me the most about effective altruism during my time in Western liberal democracies is how it is used to moralize decent, considerate souls and make them feel unnecessarily shitty to the point of creating total disillusionment, alienation.
If some well off woman, in a USA, UK, wants to donate to a local rape crisis charity, due to her own experiences as a victim of sexual abuse, we of the 3rd world don't want white debater boys of a Harvard, Cambridge to give her a whole sermon on donating instead to malaria nets in Africa.
Instead of trying to personally feel, look good, we of the 3rd world want you to grapple with more serious, harder questions.
Like Pakistan, India's massive populations need cheap, reliable electricity. Even more so in the context of our wet bulb temperature (murderous heat waves) summer spells.
Europe once addicted to Russia's energy, post USA led sanctions ate up entire long term LNG supplies of poor countries like Pakistan. Would a European effective altruist, whose singular goal is to save as many human lives as possible, accept Pakistan using its local natural resources such as lignite Thar Coal to produce affordable, reliable electricity, like Germany of past did to industrialise? Would you be ok with us drawing 70% of our electricity from Nuclear Power Plants like France? African countries with highest birth rates will also need energy, farmland that eat into forests like Brazil's shrinking Amazon ecosystem. Are West's Effective Altruists prepared to discuss these topics candidly?
Historian, author and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
Saving lives are a moral good because death is a moral bad.
Death is a moral bad because it permanently deprives the individual from life.
Being able to save more lives with the same amount of resources is more effective.
This text explains with impressive clarity and thoroughness how you can use your own resources more effectively to help you save more lives to be a more moral person.
In Sweden I donate through Ge Effektivt.
"Many of us can save a child’s life, if we rely on the best data
There are many ways to improve the world, but their cost-effectiveness varies immensely. You can achieve a lot more if you rely on the best data on where to donate.
Giving money to a charity is one of the best things you can do for others. As we will see, your donation can make a huge difference.
But whether or not your donation makes a difference greatly depends on where you donate. If you give your money to the least cost-effective charities, it will not do much. If you give it to an exceptionally effective charity, the same amount of money can save someone’s life.
...
We all feel that some charities are more effective than others, but, as we will see, we tend to underestimate just how large the differences are. I will present the data on these differences and make the point that once you know them, the question of where to donate becomes morally crucial.
...
You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period.
Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this."
And the link to the source text:
https://lnkd.in/dPU5ZZAa
Historian, author and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
#costeffectiveness of healthcare interventions.
DALYs measure years of life lost due to early death and poor health (Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) per $1000 spent)
The chart shows how investment in healthcare delivers per intervention.
Top Interventions:
- Treating severe malaria with artesunate is the most cost-effective intervention, averting 200 DALYs per $1000 spent.
- AIDS syphilis screen for HIV prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and preventive chemotherapy for onchocerciasis are also highly cost-effective, each averting 111.1 DALYs per $1000.
- Several malaria and tuberculosis treatments in Sub-Saharan Africa are ranked highly.
- Interventions like cataract surgery, insecticide-treated bed nets, and heart attack care with aspirin also show substantial effectiveness.
Every healthcare authority should have data like this available to help in investment decisions
Historian, author and co-founder of The School for Moral Ambition
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
Brilliant article (and graph) bij Max Roser: the founder of one of my favorite places on the entire internet (Our World in Data).
Everyone understands that some organizations and charities are more effective than others, but people underestimate just how large the differences are. People *think* that the best charities are about 1.5 times as effective as the average charity. But according to experts in, for example, the domain of global health the difference is a 100-fold!
To put it bluntly: a good charity can save 2 lives with a million dollars.
An extraordinary charity could save 200 lives with a million dollars.
And this is not just true for global health. As Roser writes: 'Whether it is about social policy, educational interventions, or measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — dataset after dataset, we see very large differences across the various available options."
The good news is that we have rigorous charity evaluators (like GiveWell for example) that help us find the best charities in the world.
Roser: "This field saw a revolution in recent years, and I think it has been one of the most important trends in global development research. Before this revolution, there was a fierce debate about aid effectiveness, with some people strongly opposing it and others strongly supporting it. In the last decade, this heated debate has made space for a more clear-eyed approach that acknowledges that many charities are not effective at all while others are extraordinarily effective."
GiveWell has found four charities (such as The Against Malaria Foundation) that can save a child’s life for about $5,000 in donations. I think this simple fact has enormous personal and ethical implications for most of us who live in rich countries. Remember: with a median wage in a country like The Netherlands (where I'm from) you're already part of the richest 3.5% in the world (find out where you are in the global income distribution here: https://lnkd.in/d24jz-VD).
In the words of Max Roser: 'You have a great opportunity right in front of you. Many people in high-income countries have the chance to give away $5,000. Perhaps not in one moment, but it is possible for many over a longer period. Saving a child’s life is certainly something that everybody can be extremely proud of. Guided by research on differences in cost-effectiveness, many people can do this.'
Here's Max Roser's article on Our World in Data: https://lnkd.in/e9GgPcBA
CEO, Purpose-Driven Leader, Keynote Speaker, Investor and Author. Focused on growth strategies, ESG, sustainability, social Impact and communications. Board member. Forbes 50 over 50
⚡ American volunteering and charitable giving have been on the decline in recent years -- But helping others may set up a positive feedback loop: Because doing good feels good, altruism can beget more altruism and better well-being.
🤔 Something to think about on this of all days, Giving Tuesday. Will never forget a dinner event in Rio Janeiro where I was attending Rio+20, the major climate summit where Aaron Sherinian and Henry Timms drew their plans for an annual day of giving on a napkin and asked my opinion whether it would fly!
🩵 Well, here we are today and wow has GivingTuesday taken off. More than $3b was raised in 2023 alone and over 90 countries participated. Not bad for a movement that started on a tiny piece of paper!
As you think about where to give or volunteer today (and quite frankly every day), this article helps make the case for why you should. Doing good is actually healthy for us all. If financial donations are not an option, sharing on social media, volunteering or passing along info to friends can all be a substitute.
Who are you supporting today on Giving Tuesday? Share below, I'd LOVE to learn more.
https://lnkd.in/eeD-pb3F#charity#GivingTuesday#philanthropy#socialimpact#socialgood
It's five whole years since we released the hard-hitting Future Charity research which told the sector that if it *really* wants to transform it's gotta, well
Change...
First off, we've got to stop
🚫 fighting with each other for visibility and reach.
🚫 putting profit before the people we are here to serve.
🚫 pretending we don't have the wisdom and talent we need to drive change.
🚫 encouraging internal competition and conflict.
🚫 obsessing over growth and proof.
And we've got to start
🌱 Redefining purpose so that you are clear on cause and direction.
🌱 Building confidence and courage amongst our communities.
🌱 Investing in the right people not just the same old thinkers.
🌱 Collaborating internally, across and beyond the sector to change systems.
🌱 Looking beyond the sector at better ways of being.
Well.... Five years on.
A lot has changed.
But
(Sorry)
Not for the better.
I mean no judgement. We've lived through a pandemic and now we're slap bank in the middle of a live-streamed genocide which has been the deadliest for humanitarian workers ever, yet
The silence is deadly. Literally.
If I were to go back to this research I'd be braver and bolder around the r*cist and classist undertones across the charities.
Listen. I know how hard many of you are working and I see you. This is for you, not against you.
Perhaps behind the scenes the charities are coming together to strategise on how and when to come out with a massive campaign against the government-supported western colonisation and systemic racism right here.
Well. We can't wait any longer.
Call me naÏve. It won't be the first time. The more you challenge the status quo the more "naÏve" you are. I mean, what kind of an idiot would think things could change around here, hey?
*This kind of idiot*
Charities can and will break out of the cultural inertia and find the courage to do things properly differently. And I don't mean finding new ways to present their brand in a better light.
I mean finding new ways to change the bloody world TOGETHER.
So, in a growing list of *what next* for me, I'd like to collaborate with people in and around the sector to explore a future that takes charity *out* of the grappling and controlling arms of the status quo it's here to change
And back into the hands of the people.
(See comments for report.)
________
🌙 I’m a wild soul, mindful activist and coach helping us to remember why we're here in a world that wants us to forget.
🌎 I only work with those who want to make the world a safer place for everyone.
✍️ My writing explores how we can use mindfulness, compassion and courage to deconstruct the deadly status quo.
🍉 I am a pro-Palestine anti-racist in training and I will not tolerate comments or discourse that harms others.
🔔 Tap the bell on my profile to see more of me.
___
🌍 How to choose your cause areas wisely? 🔍
When it comes to giving back, many of us gravitate towards causes that resonate personally or opt for straightforward initiatives like donating books or clothes. While these efforts are commendable, it’s time to think bigger!
The world is filled with challenges, and with limited resources, we need to ensure our contributions are making the biggest difference possible, supporting those most in need.
At Impactful Giving, we embrace a strategic approach to prioritise our focus areas. Utilising the SSN framework—which assesses problems based on Scale, Solvability, and Neglectedness—we identify the most pressing issues where our resources can create the greatest change💡
Let’s break down the SSN framework:
🌍 Scale: Imagine tackling a problem that impacts millions. That’s the power of addressing large-scale issues. Bigger problems mean bigger impacts when solved - for e.g. those such as those affecting health and development or climate change. To gauge the scale of a problem, evaluate its size and severity by considering how many people are impacted and the extent of the harm caused.
🧪 Solvability: Think of solvable problems as “low-hanging fruit”—the easier they are to fix, the quicker we see results. For example, diseases with existing treatments offer clear pathways to progress. A solvable area is one where there are proven, evidence-based or promising ways to make progress, indicating a reasonable chance of success.
🎯 Neglectedness: Where are others not looking? Focusing on underfunded causes means your donations could have an outsized impact. To assess neglectedness, determine how well-funded the problem is and whether additional contributions of money or other resources could drive substantial improvements.
By focusing on causes that are large in scale, solvable, and neglected, you maximise every rupee’s potential. At Impactful Giving, we collaborate with our research partners to utilise this framework, allowing us to identify high-impact giving opportunities.
⭐ Impactful Giving helps you maximise the impact of your donations by guiding you to high-impact programs and non-profits in India.
➡ Sign up to join our community and receive research insights and updates in our bi-monthly newsletter: https://lnkd.in/eeQWJ_KA
Community Impact Manager at City Harvest London | Award Winning Photographer | Lived Experience Homelessness Advocate | Trying to understand and do something about poverty.
If you've ever used charity before, you'll be familiar with these...
Whenever I go and see a charity, it is an indicator of how busy the charity is to see how many of these are lying around before it's open. It is usually like a placeholder for guests who use the charity - telling people, this is my trolley, this is where I am in the queue. I've seen places where I have seen literally hundreds of these lined up. It is a damning symbol of something that was created to help carry things. Instead, it is so much more. It is a symbol of need.
It's not just used by the elderly as was once popular. Sometimes people will use buggies as placeholders too. But as the need in London grows, so, too, does the competition for the scarce resources available.
That is the strange thing. Poverty has always been around, but it's not always been as blatant. Now we are thrust into a world where it is difficult NOT to see poverty. It is difficult to not see the indicators of it. And many charities keep popping up to meet the need - but how do we create a sustainable case for reducing the need entirely?
Poverty is going UP by all indicators, not down. Some of that might have to do with inflation, house prices, stagnant wage growth etc - but others are more insidious. For example, the need for all producers to 'over produce'. Or for investments to go into things that do not prevent poverty, like offshore investments etc. Or to promote housing growth but without help for those at the bottom of that ladder to find a way to invest. To not invest in social care services, privatisation etc etc - you probably already know all this.
How can we do something about it?
We can't always do big things, but we definitely can do small things.
- Buy one or two extra things at the supermarket - donate them to the foodbank.
- Subscribe to charity newsletters - they'll tell you what they need for donations etc - so the next time you are thinking of decluttering yo can donate instead of chuck.
- Volunteer your time. Investigate what is in your area and find out how you can help. This DOESN'T always mean coming & giving out food. It could be, coming in early to pack and then go - it could mean providing specialist support like IT help, sourcing equipment, fundraising, phone support, whatever they need really. Sourcing it and making it happen.
- Set up a direct debit - doesn't have to be more than the price of your daily coffee - to whatever charity appeals to you, but check the charity commissions website to see what they spend their money on so you can invest wisely as not all charities are equal.
- Research. Find out what is on offer for people. Maybe put it into a word document, send it to your friends and work colleagues so they know what charity is in their area and what might be worth investing in. Carry a list of local foodbanks and soup kitchens on you so you can give them to those less fortunate on the street (if it is of use).
#charityhelp
