At the end of the year, many people focus on charitable giving. But how can you know which organizations are worth giving to? Dr. Froswa’ Booker-Drew, a PhD in Leadership and Change, Founder and CEO of Soulstice Consultancy, and a passionate philanthropist who co-founded the HERitage Giving Circle, has some ideas.

First, she says, determine your approach to philanthropy. Which of the five main giving philosophies fits you best?

• Compassion: Giving to a cause you personally care about, regardless of other considerations.
• Need: Giving where greatest need exists, with the goal of relieving the most suffering possible.
• Effective Altruism: Giving to organizations who most efficiently utilize resources to maximize the value of your contribution.
• Giving as Reparation: Giving to redistribute undeserved advantages to reduce societal inequity.
• Fighting Unjust Policies: Giving to support groups working to enact societal change.

Once you’ve determined how you like to give, evaluate organizations to make sure they are legitimate and effective. You can use one of several online tools, such as Charity Navigator, GiveWell, CharityWatch, or others, or do your own research using Dr. Booker-Drew’s guidelines:

• Be sure the organization is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit. Check IRS documents directly; don’t just take the organization’s word for it. All 501(c)(3)s must file a Form 990 (or 990-N for those with less than $50,000 gross receipts) with the IRS yearly. These forms are public.
• Be sure the organization’s goals and values align with yours.
• Determine whether the goals are reasonable and attainable. “Save the World!” is a great slogan, but doesn’t mean much in practical terms. What, exactly, will the charity do with your money?
• Look at annual reports for information on accomplishments, revenue, expenses, contributors, and strategic plans. If no reports are available, this can be a red flag.
• See how transparent the organization is. Tax documents, annual reports, goals, plans, etc., should all be readily accessible. The less information available, the more it’s a red flag.
• Who is involved with the organization? Look at board members, founders, the leadership team, and their backgrounds to determine the culture and values of the organization. If you are an environmentalist working to save rainforests and the organization’s Board of Directors are fossil-fuel company executives, you may want to choose another charity, even if the stated goal aligns with your interests.
• Look deeper than money spent on programs versus administration. This is important, but also look at the whole picture and history of an organization.
• Compare several organizations with the same goal. You may find one you hadn’t considered who can do the job better than the name that first came to mind.

Dr. Booker-Drew also has tips for avoiding charity scams and lists more charity evaluation sites here.

Most people know the acronym BIPOC stands for “Black Indigenous People of Color,” and may use it meaning to be inclusive. But the term doesn’t really include everyone, and it can be more harmful than helpful. Consider these thoughts from Constance Grady and Dr. Omekongo Dibinga:

• It’s imprecise. Dr. Dibinga points out that it’s redundant, referring to both Black people and people of color, as if they were two different groups.  Ms. Grady notes that it obscures who is really being referred to. For example, if a conversation is about police brutality, it is Black people specifically who have historically been targeted for police violence. Using a catch-all term like BIPOC camouflages that.
• It ignores differences. Black people and Indigenous people have historically been treated very differently in this country. While Black people were subject to the “one drop rule,” i.e. any amount of Black ancestry makes a person Black, Indigenous people have been erased—one has to prove membership in a Tribal Nation. This operates to maximize the Black population and minimize the Indigenous population in the United States, and the history of both is terribly racist. These rules of identity allowed many more people to be considered property than if having any white ancestry made one white, and on the other hand, having to prove membership in an Indigenous Nation allows the myth that European people settled an uninhabited wilderness to persist.
• In addition, the term does not even explicitly refer to the many, many different groups of non-white people in America who are not Black and not Indigenous. “What is this category of ‘people of color’?” Jonathan Rosa, a sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist at Stanford asked Ms. Grady. “It presupposes a kind of solidarity and a shared positionality that doesn’t play out in practice.”
• It centers whiteness. “The more time we spend coming up with new terms to describe nonwhite groups, the more we actually strengthen the narrative of white Eurocentric dominance in America,” notes Dr. Dibinga. Using a “catch-all” term for everyone who is not white makes “white” the norm against which all others are compared.

There are instances where using “people of color” can be appropriate. An example Ms. Grady includes in her article is the organization Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera founded, Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR). STAR’s mission is specifically to help Black and Brown queer and trans people. Since the term “people of color” does accurately describe STAR’s mission, it can be used in referring to that organization’s work. If a discussion is about mass incarceration, however, it would not be appropriate, as it is specifically Black and Indigenous people who are imprisoned at rates vastly disproportionate to their percentage of the population, not Asian or Latinx people. The point is to be mindful of who you are really referring to. Read full articles on the subject from Dr. Dibinga here and Ms. Grady here.

Image courtesy of YMCA Seattle

It’s Christmastime! Christmas is the most widely celebrated winter holiday in the United States, with estimates of those celebrating ranging from 85% to 93% of the population and over 1.5 billion (yes, that’s billion with a B) Christmas cards sent yearly. However, it’s also Hannukah, Kwanzaa, Yule, Tohji-Taisai, and Festivus this month. In addition, many who do celebrate Christmas treat it as a secular holiday; a 2019 Gallup poll found only 35% of those observing Christmas viewed it as a “strongly religious” event. With so many holidays in December, and so many different opinions of Christmas itself, it makes sense to consider saying ‘happy holidays’ or ‘seasons greetings’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas’ to people you don’t know well.

While a few people might want to view alternate greetings as a ‘war on Christmas,’ they are simply polite. ‘Happy holidays’ embraces any holiday a person might celebrate, including Christmas, while “Merry Christmas” excludes every other holiday. If you know what holiday a person celebrates, go ahead and wish them “Happy Hannukah” or “Merry Christmas,” because you’re sure of that person’s traditions. But if you don’t know them well, why assume?

When we wish people well during the holiday season, we mean to spread good cheer, not to insult, exclude, or proselytize. So be inclusive and show others “that you respect and value whatever tradition they observe,” says Alice E.M. Underwood. After all, Underwood reminds us, “what matters most is the sentiment” and we should all do our part “to make sure everyone’s holiday actually is as happy as it can be.”

Follow us on Instagram @ichumanrights

Subscribe to the Office of Equity and Human Rights at icgov.org/subscribe. Thanks, and welcome!