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.to
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 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 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...to
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.
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:
- from the point of view of the recipient - “fish or a rod“
- from the point of view of a blagodatel - depending on competence degree, “a soul contribution“
- from the point of view of a resource - from the point of view of efficiency and system decisions.
1. The addressless whip-roundis a lot of
of Examples: bracelets in McDonald`s, boxes for donations in supermarkets, a handout on the street...
- Usually “fish“.
- the soul Contribution if is, then from organizers. Public control minimum.
- of efficiency: sometimes just nonsense (toys in orphanage), most often - “the zatykaniye of holes“ (pampers, collecting in favor of the victims of accidents), is rare - something more essential (game rooms in hospitals, children nurses, etc.) .
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.
- “Fish“: next time it is necessary to collect again. the Contribution of soul is slightly more than
- , than in the first case: there is information about the child, sometimes the whip-round is followed by specific actions - transfer of medicine, for example.
- Putting result of treatment (here concept efficiency is not applicable) outside brackets, in general, the efficiency is rather high: rudiments of self-organization, use of social networks, a network of trust, reputation are created. Level of public control quite high.
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.
- Most often “fish“ - for establishments: once the stream runs low - everything will return into place. For specific recipients quite often “rod“.
- the Contribution of soul of organizers - very big, usually they become professionals. The contribution of those who support them by money is significantly less.
- of efficiency at reasonable approach quite high: not only primary help is carried out, but also the infrastructure, the websites, system of regular actions etc. is created. Unfortunately, at the system level of a problem are most often preserved: time is funds, pampers can be not included in budgets. Level of public control is low - it is assigned to the state. >
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.
- At first sight - pure “fish“, however communication with people “from the big world“ for many categories of recipients - the only way to get though a little “rod“.
- the Contribution - big. In it - both force, and weakness: people emotionally burn out, partly and therefore what words of approval they hear seldom, and here something it seems “to you that - it is necessary most?“ - pretty often. externally not really impresses
- of efficiency. But at big distribution has cumulative effect: problems of recipients become part of public life, discuss them, think of them, and experience shows that if society seriously thinks of something, it with it yes will make something. There are many unevident components of efficiency: for example, if the child communicates with constant volunteers, to him always is to whom to complain, so his security from violence repeatedly increases. From weak places: it is a lot of organizational difficulties connected both with the limiting legislation and with absence in the country of such specialty as social management.
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.
- “Rod“, and in it the main complexity: as the act “entertainments“ is not shown by fish, is very reluctantly supported by sponsors. From outside it is not clear at all why “to feed funds“.
- the Contribution - big. Participants professionalizirutsya and do not want to distribute “fish“ any more (quite often it occurs after an acute crisis of disappointment in the “simple“ help).
- of efficiency - different, from very big to not really. Often low efficiency is connected with a lack of professionalism and understanding that and it is not always good to do not all on the volunteer beginnings (and it is necessary because to find money for it very difficult). Well and the state complicates everyone and everything. Very important part of efficiency - formation of the third sector in itself which in the country practically did not exist at the USSR in
1990 - ewe observed its chaotic growth - and the period of a heavy survival at Putin board. But someone nevertheless strongly got on feet and already learned to overcome everything.
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.
- It is even not “rod“, but a workshop on their production.
- the Contribution - big. And not only souls, but also mind, and experience. And it is always not enough of it how many enclose because the scale of tasks is very big. And here monetary investments usually are required quite modest, but they cannot almost be got.
- of efficiency potentially the highest. When Boulbi (Edward Boulbi,
1907 - 1990 -the English psychoanalyst, the expert in the field of psychology of children`s development, a family), managed to inform consciousness of members of the English government and the public, cht ó happens to small children in the conditions of a deprivation, children`s homes in England were replaced with the professional family device during few years. In Ukraine a number of changes in the legislation and total retraining of experts on the basis of other system of values made what hundreds of funds and thousands of volunteers would not cope with: reduced by half orphan establishments. Unfortunately, at us all this very hard goes, and the risk is very high that everything acquired will be destroyed.
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.