Rus Articles Journal

Charity: as it is better to help

in process of the development the subject of charity begins to acquire difficult questions. How to distinguish rather effective help from daydreaming or, it is worse than that, fraud? About it is Lyudmila Petranovskaya, the family psychologist, the specialist in the family device.

about ten years ago charity was estimated by society as the phenomenon unambiguously positive, is enough also the sceptics arguing in a paradigm “today to feed the homeless - to produce poverty“, and simply undeceived - those who are glad to help, but trusts nobody.

the Problem of an objective assessment of charity consists that criteria of judgment are difficult and quite often unevident here.

When the need in charity arises? When there is someone to whom it is bad, at the same time it for one reason or another cannot help itself(himself), and steady mechanisms of the help (a family, a community, the state) too why - or do not cope. Perhaps, case difficult and rare. Perhaps mechanisms are in crisis (so, when changing the residence the social network and partially a family is lost). Perhaps the necessary mechanisms have no enough resources (the state has no money; there are no technologies of the help in such cases - or not understanding that these people need the help). Then people or the organizations which have resources give help.


Thus, in the course of charity it is possible to allocate three components: the recipient (the one who needs the help), a blagodatel (the one who shares a resource) and actually a resource. Let`s consider all three one after another.

the Recipient

the Help to the recipient can be single. To translate the old woman through the street. To take a blood test. To give money for medicine. There are situations in which such type of the help to the neighbor - the most reasonable.

But happens and so that the problem is not solved by the single help. Illness serious and long. Old women should be translated in this place constantly because there is no traffic light, and on other party policlinic... It is clear, that the help to that will be more qualitative, than more stoutly she will solve the recipient`s problem in general. It is better to give money not on packing of medicine, and to pay all course. And it is even better to collect on operation which will make unnecessary drug intake. And it is even better - to achieve that such operations did to all to whom it is necessary, without any charity. The best result from the point of view of the recipient will be the fact that it will cease to need the help. Or the problem will be solved completely, or he will begin to cope by means of traditional mechanisms (the immediate environment and the state).


Is the point of view according to which the blagodatel has to be present at process minimum: gave money by the principle “that the left hand did not know that it does right“ and left. It - only means. And if there are slightest suspicions that he wants something too, means to him the public relations, self-affirmation, absolution and all its activity - from the evil is necessary even if it already saved thousands of children from death.

Me this approach is not close to

at all. Blagodatel is the significant subject of process. It is normal that he does not wish to be used. It is normal that he wants to be convinced of efficiency of investments. It is normal that he receives reputation, authority and respect - and self-esteem including. It is normal that for someone the help becomes work over time.

On my belief, than the contribution of a blagodatel is “thinner“ than

, than more he penetrates into details, establishes the direct relations with the recipient, uses in process not only the money, but also the knowledge - finally, it is better for those. That the probability is higher that it will go further, from the single help to a constant, and from it - to the system solution of problems, including at the level of the state. That the recipient becomes closer to it, so there is a probability that the last will pass into “a near circle“ of a blagodatel over time: the child will be taken in a family, the old woman will begin to be sponsored regularly - and charity per se will not become necessary.

the Resource

the Resource in charity - piece artful. First it seems that the resource is more (the more, for example, money), the better. In actual fact harder and harder. For example, thanks to inoculations at the expense of the charitable organizations child mortality decreases - and through generation mortality for hunger increases. We give gifts to orphans - thereby it is formed in them the consumer relation...


It is clear that is optimum when the resource is used with the maximum efficiency, but to here count this efficiency happens not easy. And very often from outside it is not obvious that it is more important from the point of view of efficiency.

For example, quite difficult happens to explain to the average sponsor that it is much more important to conduct for tutors of a shelter the course “As the Children`s Grief Proceeds“ (and in a shelter all children in a condition of a sharp grief - just lost parents or separated from them), than to take out children to circus. They want to help children, but not to teach and to some unclear psychologists to pay “aunts“ it is unknown for what. So usually children in this state obediently go to circus: you will not get out, the bus is paid and tickets are bought. And sponsors, as a rule, are quite sensible managers who in the business are capable to estimate efficiency of investments sensibly. But as soon as it is about charity - all. In circus - and a point.

At the same time many problems in charity are solved by non-material resources: they depend on qualification of experts, on their system of values, on legislative base, system of decision-making.

Three criteria

How competently to estimate charity? All for certain know a parable about fish and a rod: its essence that it is possible to help hungry, every day sharing with it fish who is caught by you, - and it will be good - but it is much better to present it a rod and to teach to catch fish. In an assessment of efficiency of different charitable schemes this parable can become a peculiar reference meter.

So, we will consider various charitable schemes from three different foreshortenings:

1. The addressless whip-round

is a lot of

of Examples: bracelets in McDonald`s, boxes for donations in supermarkets, a handout on the street...

On something difficult and system is so collected seldom, however the method quite is suitable for the single help - if there is a trust to the collecting organization and sufficient confidence that it will spend a resource efficiently.

2. Address financial support

Whip-round for operation to the child, support of a concrete family, establishment.

the Choice is put by

here: collect much on what, and, choosing one, inevitably you leave without the aid of another. I for myself solve a problem through conscious trust. There are several people and the organizations which I know: I know their corrosiveness, honesty, attentiveness to people. If they ask, I whenever possible participate.

Here also: someone helps children, someone the adult, someone the heaviest, someone - to those to whom nobody helps. Any of the called schemes has full authority for existence.

3. Creation of the mechanism of continued support

Funds which regularly solve problems of establishment or a certain category of recipients: acquire the equipment, are engaged in training of experts, the edition of literature, creation of conditions for training and work of physically disabled people, etc. Support can be not only material.

It makes sense to support by

li in every possible way teams and funds which you know as honest and effective. For example, on mine literally eyes from group of girls - students “The old age in pleasure“ - very quickly turned into powerful team. I trust them absolutely, little girls know that they do. Or Here and now fund - an example very competent strategists of support of establishments. There is a lot of small, but reasonably and diligent working regional funds with which it is possible to be sure that your resource will be used efficiently.

4. The concrete direct help

to Become the volunteer in hospital, the child`s chief from children`s home, to correspond with the grandmother from nursing home, to help a familiar needy family, etc.

If the resource is - to participate if is not present - to support. Catastrophically there is not enough infrastructure of support of volunteers, superviziya, groups on prevention of burning out, conferences on exchange of experience, awards and other symbols of public recognition.

5. Development of infrastructure of social activity

Creation of the websites, mass media, the centers, places of meetings, systems of grants and fundraising, systems of training of volunteers, etc.

If those who are capable to estimate importance of creation of infrastructure supported by

first of all this level, it would be healthy: for sponsors - corporations money which is necessary on support are small, and effect of it big. But sponsors want to feed with fish so far.

6. New technologies of social activity

Creation and dissemination of new technologies of social activity, the recipients systemically solving problems: experimental platforms, analytical groups on preparation of changes in the legislation, programs of retraining of experts of the social sphere, research, etc.

we Will hope, such “guide to charity“ will help to make own choice by that who reflects now how it is better to dispose of these or those resources how to make so that the given help became rather effective and effective.