
Parachuting for Charity: A 5-year audit (1999) - rwmj
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10476298
======
braythwayt
Some years ago I organized some bridge* events for charity. It was as simple
as selecting a worthy cause (a children’s hospital), signing an agreement that
we were going to turn over the funds, collecting the funds, and handing them
over.

These were a minuscule success, and I later thought that a “fun run” would be
a good way to raise some money. I asked around about how to organize such
things, and I was connected to a firm that organized these things as a
service.

They took me to a nice lunch, which I thought was a bad sign. “Never buy
anything in a room with a chandelier,” is the old saying, and while there was
no chandelier in the restaurant, the metaphor was nevertheless on point.

When I finally got the actual details of how the run would operate, I realized
that the firm’s fees would greatly exceed the amount of money that would end
up going to the charity.

I speculate that the “market” for these services are people who want to buy
some respectability. Had I gone though with the deal and the run was a
success, everyone would think I was a nice person doing nice things for people
in need, even if the actual numbers would show that I was a nice person doing
nice things for a service company’s revenues.

N=1, of course, but I have had an extremely cynical view of charity events
ever since. There appears to be an entire industry built around siphoning away
90%-99% of every dollar adjacent to charity.

———

* Bridge the card game, not the BASE-jumping location.

~~~
nradov
I've participated in many such charity fun runs and see no problem with this
type of arrangement. It takes a lot of work and experience to host successful
running events: registration, insurance, web site development, course marking,
permits, aid stations, timing, t-shirts, clean up, etc. It's worth paying an
event management company to ensure everything runs smoothly. Shop around and
you might find a smaller local company willing to do it for a lower price.

In the end the charity still gets more money than they had before and the
runners get some exercise: win / win. Plus you've raised awareness of the
cause and some participants will go on the become regular donors.

~~~
elliekelly
But people think they are donating money to a charity, not purchasing an
experience from an event company. It’s misleading at best.

~~~
nradov
There's no need to mislead potential participants. Just post information on
the event web site showing where their registration fees go and let them
decide.

~~~
elliekelly
I don’t think it’s the participants who are being mislead the most, though.
It’s the donors. The people who “sponsor” the participants.

~~~
nradov
Arrangements vary by event and production company but typically participant
registration fees cover the management company's charges. Any additional
donations from sponsors go directly to the charity, minus a small processing
fee. Of course you might be able to find exceptions to that rule.

------
skue
This study was published in 1999 and while it is a wonderful example of
incentives gone awry, it’s also dated.

Per the article, “All charity parachuting in our study was apparently done by
static line methods from 2500± 3000 feet.” [1] Static line parachuting means
the participant jumps solo and a cord automatically opens the parachute for
them when they exit the plane. It’s very different than skydiving tandem,
which is far more common these days and much safer.

That still doesn’t mean that skydiving for charity makes any sense
financially. It strikes me as absurd that people who want to skydive collect
money from friends under the expectation that a small percentage of the
donated funds make their way to a charity —- £30 per jump for the NHS, though
apparently more for other organizations. [2]

But then this comes from a country that is trying to convince the rest of the
world that wearing a clown nose for a day is a charitable act. [3]

Y’all can’t just give for the sake of giving? ;-)

[1]
[https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1999-lee.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1999-lee.pdf)

[2] [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3224643/Why-tell-
ch...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3224643/Why-tell-charity-
skydivers-running-JUMP-Good-causes-fraction-cash-NHS-pay-injuries.html)

[3] [https://rednoseday.org/](https://rednoseday.org/)

~~~
smcl
I have never understood this either. It might seem a bit cynical but it often
feels a bit like someone trying to:

1\. Do something cool they always wanted to

2\. Get someone else to pay for it

3\. Get some feel-good story to tell their friends in the process

Perhaps it’s not the case, and that most people are well intentioned, don’t
think about it this way and aren’t trying to do anything nefarious. But it’s
hard to shake the idea once it’s in your head :-/

~~~
fooblat
My uncle once asked me to sponsor him to do a charity marathon. I contacted
the charity and found out that at most 50% of my donation would go to the
charity and the rest would pay for him training and event fees.

I did sponsor him but I kept thinking it would have been better to send 100%
of my donation directly to the charity in my uncle's name. Of course that
would have been a lot less fun for my uncle.

~~~
irjustin
I think the question is - would you have donated, to any cause, without your
Uncle?

I'm not asking to be combative - it's a legitimate question millions have to
ask themselves. My friends and I participated in the ice-bucket challenge. We
would not have done what we did w/o such a ridiculous, yet fun, method of
virality.

To me, it is about 'effective' money. With your uncle + the organization, was
the money more effective with or without?

There is an interesting TED talk from 2013 that highlights a semi-
counterintuitive problem - if you can't pay top dollar, you can't get top
dollar talent except in extremely narrow cases[0].

My interpretation is, we would love 100% of our charitable donations to reach
the village who needs water or a toilet, but the reality is, people who run
the org need to get paid as well.

Measuring a charity by how stingy it is might actually be less effective
overall.

Anecdote: Bill and Melinda Gates foundation absolutely pays top dollar (of
charities) to gain some of the smartest former execs in the industry. They're
wildly effective.

[0]
[https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou...](https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong/transcript?language=en)

~~~
fooblat
I certainly would not have known about this particular charity without my
uncle. However, had he told me it was an important cause to him and simply
asked me to join him in donating, I would have.

I guess another question is whether my uncle would have made that effort
without the marathon.

------
im3w1l
> The injury rate in charity-parachutists was 11%

That's how-are-they-even-allowed-to-operate high. Can this really be right?

~~~
sosborn
At first I was thinking no big deal, it probably includes things like minor
scrapes and bruises from the landing, but then I saw this:

>Sixty-three percent of casualties who were charity-parachutists required
hospital admission, representing a serious injury rate of 7%

Can any skydivers give insight on this?

~~~
digikazi
I'll bite. Assuming those charity parachutists were doing solo jumps using the
static line system, it makes sense. The static line exit isn't dangerous per
se, but the landing can be... challenging. For example, the old style round
parachute couldn't be slowed down on landing, it had a constant rate of
descent. On landing,you had to hit the ground and do a PLF [1].

The square canopy (or the ram-air canopy) can indeed be slowed down. It's also
a lot more manoeuvrable, and can go quite fast. A novice might not be able to
correctly judge the speed/altitude/wind direction - and if not handled
properly, a square canopy can land you on your face or break a leg.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_landing_fall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute_landing_fall)

EDIT: spelling and added a link

~~~
perl4ever
"For example, the old style round parachute couldn't be slowed down on
landing"

In the late 90s, wouldn't they have been using the ones that you can fly like
a wing? And I don't know how widespread it was, but possibly a radio to give
you instructions, when to flare.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
I have always found the premise of “run for charity” or “jump for charity”
weird. If I thought a cause was worthwhile, I would donate to it. Why does
someone running or jumping have anything to do with me donating?

~~~
reaperducer
Ditto for all the dozens or maybe even hundreds of new charities that are
formed each week (at least in the United States).

It seems like instead of having a hundred thousand micro-charities, it would
be better if the money were just sent directly to a large charity that already
operates at scale and can use the money more efficiently.

Sending $100 to Doctors Without Borders is far more effective than giving $100
to The Dr. Steffy McStethoscope Memorial Fund For People Who Want To Make
Themselves Feel Good.

It's like "raising awareness." It doesn't help anyone but the people trying to
make themselves feel better about themselves.

~~~
raldi
_> It seems like instead of having a hundred thousand micro-charities, it
would be better if the money were just sent directly to a large charity that
already operates at scale and can use the money more efficiently._

We could call it "taxes".

~~~
reaperducer
Except that (again in the United States which I point out because the article
is UK-focused), governments at all levels have been offloading their
responsibilities for the common welfare onto private entities, often for-
profit entities. And in many places simultaneously making it harder for
charities to do their work.

------
projektfu
In other news, programs like Product (RED) cost much more in marketing and
advertising than they raise.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20070624105650/http://www.africo...](https://web.archive.org/web/20070624105650/http://www.africomnet.org/news/mustreads/read03081.php)

The question, I suppose, is whether it's better for charity that it collects a
few dollars that it might have not received anyway.

The example in the OP is particularly egregious because it suggests that
society is paying a high cost for a few dollars donated to charity.

------
angrymouse
This brings back memories.

Used to work for an NHS hospital trust.

The chief executive made a rather rash, very public announcement (under peer
pressure) that he was going to do a skydive for the hospital charity.

Lots of jokes etc.

But he was going to do it.

Until our chief medical director took him aside and told him about the injury
rate and how they actually cost the NHS more.

Though a few people from the charity brought it up, it was politely forgotten
about. And he did a walk around the peak district instead

------
mytailorisrich
To be honest, many charity events cost more to organise and run than they
collect in money.

A bit of a (related) tangent...

As a parent this is really obvious for almost all events that schools run. Of
course, an argument in those cases is that they have educational value, but I
think that teaching to do the maths and to be effective beyond the immediate
desire to "help and do something" also has educational value.

Sometimes we, parents, have to spend £20 to get the child ready for the event
where they are asked to donate £1 for the chosen charity...

------
htfu
Makes me think of this one time. It was me, and a first timer who'd been
convinced by his gf it might cure his fear of heights.

Yada yada yada, he broke both his legs. Something tells me it didn't help
much.

------
Zenst
This is 1999 and popping "parachute jump for NHS" into Google yields many
results and let's not forget the ADsense promoted ones as well.

So a known issue and one perpetuated still today for profit. But this is a
pattern we see play out over and over again and alas without some media drama
incident of say a charity parachutist landing on a child in a playground with
fatalities - nothing will change. Heck - look at bigger issues like climate
change and how long that's been known about and how long it drags out.

Which makes you wonder why governments who have departments for everything,
lack one for common sense education as many sound messages get lost in the
void of nothingness.

------
emmelaich
After a local epidemic of chuggers ("charity muggers") here there was a good
newspaper article on some disreputable charities.

A bit of web searching took me here:

[https://thedevilcorp.wordpress.com/](https://thedevilcorp.wordpress.com/)

It's very enlightening and alarming!

------
blowski
Published in 1999.

------
gojomo
I've not heard of parachute jumps for charity in the USA. Is it more popular
in the UK?

And if so, is it possible the existence of the NHS – making participants &
charities somewhat more indifferent to the medical costs – is what's helping
the popularity (& resource waste) here, in a classic 'moral hazard' situation?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

Have UK charities just figured out a way, via a slight nudge to wannabe
parachuters, to siphon off some of the value of NHS coverage into their own
program funds?

------
Balanceinfinity
if you start from the assumption that each of us has a finite amount of money
we will give to charity and that - one way or another - we will give that
amount, then giving to things like fun runs and fancy balls
([https://leukemiaball.org/](https://leukemiaball.org/)) makes no sense at all
(the donation pie is fixed). If, however, these activities increase the pie of
actual donations, then holding them makes sense, so long as the increase in
the size of the giving pie is not exceeded by the expense of holding these
activities.

------
jxramos
3 questions

    
    
        * at what cost
        * compared to what
        * with what hard evidence
    

At least they figured out the first eventually.

------
travisoneill1
11% injury rate with 60% of those admitted to the hospital! Cost is not the
main issue with this!

------
jbob2000
What better way to show someone the value of a hospital system than to have
them admitted and treated by it!

~~~
perl4ever
New doctors have to practice on someone...

------
chiefalchemist
> "...and places a significant burden on health resources."

How can 174 people place significant burden on NHS? I understand their concern
but certainly there are bigger fish to fry.

Also, more importantly, the analysis is completely flawed. Their ROI is based
on the injuried, not all who donated and dived.

~~~
refurb
_Parachute jumping for charity is not cost-effective in raising money, as the
cost of treatment of the 11% who are injured is far in excess of any money
raised by the rest._

There analysis is correct. They looked across all charity parachutists, the
medical costs for those injured versus total amount raised.

How can it put a burden on the NHS?

 _Of 105 patients admitted to hospital, 66 (63%) required operative
intervention._

Can you imagine the 1 or 2 hospitals dealing with this? The system overall can
deal with it, but not the local providers.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Where does it mention the total universe of donors/jumpers? It says the
average donation was 30 quid. That said, 30 to jump is not the same as 30 per
donated.

Too many loose ends here, or a sloppy job at communication.

~~~
refurb
It’s in the open access article. They calculated the “net” donation after
costs.

