I'll vote for the former as I know I am more likely to go beyond just a cheque for something I can get a clear bead on.

For example, I can go out and pick up tools and do work on a new Habitat home.

I know what the money is going for and I can also donate time and skills. Same with a local mission that I can give money to and donate homemade pasta sauce and soup to.

Here are two others things I like because I can see the results and interact with folks and know I am really doing something.

I'll vote for the latter. If everyone only had one charity to give to, then there will be a skew in contributions towards headliner charities. If everyone has to spread that over ten or so charities, then there's a possibility that some of the smaller charities will see money.

The more charities that see money, then the bigger difference will be seen.

I say everyone gives $1000 to one charity... whose ongoing purpose is to raise money via various means, including investments, for all other qualifying (as in bona fide, audited) charities.

United Way has a history of financial scandals and mismanagement in various local and regional offices, which have made many people, including myself, very skeptical of collaborative community fund raising. Where there is a lot of money, and layers of management in the collection and distribution of that money, an attractive target for con artists and hucksters is generally created. And frankly, a lot of people who became involved in United Way out of charitable impulses, didn't have the financial experience or acumen to be running non-profit operations.

Another problem I have with the broad brush approach, is that I've come to think that many so called "charitable" organizations aren't charitable at all. The whole concept of "charity" has gone badly off the rails in America in my lifetime, and now, in many peoples minds, is defined by 501(c)(3) non-profit filing status. But more and more, issue political organizations hide a lot of nefarious financial activity behind this status, and it takes years for the IRS to investigate and revoke such status.

Finally, the performance and efficiency of some large so called "charitable" organizations has been so incredibly bad, for so long, that, in my estimation, they not only no longer deserve charitable support, but that their continued existence prevents their replacement by better alternatives. The American Red Cross is the prime example of this, but because it is now so deeply rooted in government planning, it's unlikely that there is any good way of tearing it out, and starting over. But just their monopolistic and highly commercial stranglehold on human blood collection and processing is enough to make a reasonable person put down their checkbook. If you'd have seen what many people in the American South saw Red Cross officials in cities adjacent to Katrina ravaged areas doing and failing to do, in the days following that debacle, as I did, you'd still be mindful of their callous "me first" attitude towards "disaster response." Only weeks after thousands of truck and van loads of food, water, clothing, and other supplies had been collected here in Jacksonville, and driven west towards Mobile and New Orleans by churches and other small scale private efforts, did the Red Cross really even try to move any material from my community to people west of here, who badly needed it. But they were buying local TV advertisements in this market, 4 days after Katrina hit New Orleans, asking for money, and discouraging people from offering support through other organizations. And it just rang hollow, here, as those same opportunistic techniques came to sound, after 9/11.

So my charity dollars go to a few, very "flat," efficient organizations, that I know, whose results I can see and be proud to know I help. And not another dime I have will ever go to the Red Cross, or the United Way.

paulsc: It's all about Charity Navigator. I don't give a dime to anyone until I've checked them out on that site.

I especially hate Children International, because they hire people to harass pedestrians on the street where I work (a very busy, touristy main street in downtown Chicago). They pester *everyone* and are relentless.

There is a bit of mixing of apples and oranges when the word 'charity' is used indiscriminately.

There are four basic types of foundations: Independent foundation(making grants to other organizations or individuals to achieve social, educational, or religious purposes); company foundation (charitable arm of a corporation), Operating foundation (uses donations to provide a direct service, such as Deborah hospitals), and community foundations (about which more later).

Foundations exist to raise money and redistribute it. When you give your money to a foundation, you are indeed pooling it with many other contributions and entrusting it to the organization to apply it most strategically, using the expertise and information. For instance, they generally employ people to study demographics and economic projections, and do community needs assessments, and to stay up on the latest research (for instance, in the case of a disease fund or environmental foundation). The time and expertise foundations invest in this research and planning results in the higher administrative cost that people are often uncomfortable with. But it is that research and planning which makes them so effective.

But if you are uncomfortable with foundation-based giving, you can also choose to give to programs funding operations directly. More of your dollars will be applied directly to the cause, so choosing a cause that you believe in, a responsible organization, and a viable program is all the more important. They won't have the resources for studying the broader field that the big foundations do. They are more vulnerable to individual quirks and idioscyncrasies in leadership. They are more vulnerable to the whims of the marketplace, as well. They can't take advantage of economies of scale such as group ordering or shared facility maintenance - everything's contract by contract and deal by deal. There is some waste there.

Though the Red Cross has seen some shitty behavior, they are an example industry-wide of an excellent percentage of funds raised spent on program: 94%. They can blanket an area with resources and respond on a dime as no one else can. Small-scale programs are plagued by dishonesty and bad employees in just about the same proportion that large-scale foundations and programs are (or for that matter, the private sector is. In fact, management researchers generally think that management in the nonprofit field is far better than in the profit world. It's far leaner and more efficient. The private sector tolerates a lot more waste than a publicly funded program ever can). In my career, I've seen a few bad eggs. But for the most part, I've seen very smart, dedicated people with excellent backgrounds and life experience who work very hard to deliver their organizations' mission. They're generally motivated by personal passion and a desire to make positive change. Though it is indeed sad that some large public scandals have led people to assume that all large charities are skimming the cream, it's just not the case that charities are generally irresponsibly run.

Of the 1.8 million nonprofits in the US today, about 1 million are 501(c)3s. Ultimately, eligibility to become a 501(c)3 is granted not by the IRS, but by state charter. The state has to approve the organization as a charitable trust or public trust before it can apply for the IRS status. So when there are concerns about the health of the trust, citizens can approach their state government representation. Meanwhile, private foundations are not eligible for 501(c)3 status.

One avenue for pooling donations that many people don't know about is the community foundation. This is nothing more than a group of people united to administer charitable funds within a small geographic region - your own state, county, or city. There are more than 700 of these currently operating in the U.S. Because they are smaller and operate within a close local network, problems of the scandal type associated with some of the national and global charities are far less frequent. They know the needs and characters of their communities intimately, and can monitor the effect of the services provided right there at ground level rather than from a home office in another state. NHCF is the one we are lucky to have in our area, and they have funded a number of our programs for local youth who otherwise wouldn't be taking part in museum activities. Their impact is very important.

When you look into the world of philanthropy in the US today, the numbers are actually staggering. Astounding. In recently took part in a seminar led by the IUPUI Center on Philanthropy (that is where most of the info in this comment is drawn from, my seminar notes), and the body of research presented blew my mind. Do check out the link to read some of the research, especially the "Giving USA" study. Almost everyone gives. Something. To someone.

By far the largest recipient of charitable funds - the 300-pound gorilla - is religion. Religions organizations receive 32.8% of all donated funds in the US, well more than double the funds given to the next highest recipient: education (which includes colleges, schools, museums, etc.), at 13.9%. Everything else - health, arts, environment, animals, - comes in at less. Giving to foundations is only at about 10% of all funds donated.

Personally, my giving has generally not been to foundations but to small programs I'm personally involved with: my Quaker summer camp (which is much more a social-justice program but definitely falls under the 'giving to religion' tag, which is somewhat humorous to me), my own museum and a couple others, two community food banks, the local radio station, and Slow Food. The only foundations I have given anything noticeable to are ones I have been impacted by: to the American Lung Association, because they helped me quit smoking, and to the Leukemia and Lymphoma foundation, because within the last two years, bizarrely, I have known four people personally who have developed these conditions and want to see the research progress.

Giving is an investment. When you give money, you should gather information and study the organizations just as carefully as you would if you were buying stock or contributing to a mutual fund. Instead of investing in future financial reward, you are investing in an intangible reward: that of seeing the world improve in the way you care about. The dollars people donate amount to a huge, huge portion of the U.S. economy. Those dollars make change and also pay salaries, impact the sale of goods and services needed to deliver mission, and create community value that translates directly to things like assessed property value. It's no small thing to give money, and it pays to give your donations a lot of thought and do your homework.

In the end, also, a lot of it comes down to personal voodoo - gut feelings, pet causes. But if you're going to give somebody money in hopes that it will be applied to improve the world, definitely take it seriously.