In response to 
IMHO, most charities don't.
When I was in the military, there was an annual "Charity Drive".
Servicemen were given a list of charities and asked to "voluntarily" donate to three of them.
Everyone knew that by tradition, personnel in the units with a high percentage of "donating" members were given some basket leave (time off work that was not charged against a member's annual two weeks vacation) and their Commanding Officers get their names read at the Charity Banquet and Ball.
Those who don't donate were not officially blackballed, but it was strange how they immediately inherited some sh*tty collateral duties right after refusing to join the other "volunteers".
So, in effect, the "voluntary" participation was as close as you can get to "mandatory" without labeling the whole scheme as such.
The List -
The list of approved charities was surprisingly liberal.
I mean, in a military that frowned upon tie-dyed shirts and parting your hair down the middle 'cause "only druggies and fagg*ts do that", it was weird that every charity supporting some extremist group or radical cause mysteriously made it on the list.
I always suspected that it was a covert Military Intel (now that's an ultimate oxymoron) test; a benign looking tool to canvass the troops and find dissidents to whisk away to a Black Site and torture.
"Zign ze paeperz old man!"
Lol!
The Usual Shtick -
Every charity proclaims how they aim to help some poor group of people.
Those needy beneficiaries of charitable generosity usually were just hit by a drought and now suffering from widespread illness and genocidal famine; or maybe they were being oppressed by an evil despot or regime, whatever.
The pleas and subtle guilt trips always sounded like a version of this:
"The _______ (Fill-in your choice of an unfairly marginalized pocket of society) need our help! Compared to them, we (the collective "We") have and waste so much. It is only fair and right to share a little of our abundance that's made possible by living in these our United States of America...blah, blah, blah..."
I remember seeing all those "Feed the Children" commercials when I was young and wondering why the fat celebrity spokespeople standing right next to them aren't shown eating their own meals with them?
Lol!
It's an Institution, dummy! -
The longer a charity fund exists, the more it becomes and institution. And institutions focus on only two things "Self Preservation and Growth".
The original goals and benevolent future vision soon fades.
People become expendable/replaceable, nameless and faceless puppets. "Beneficiaries" (aka masses of sheeple willing to sell their own children for the fallen crumbs from "The Big Boy's Table") become an ever-expanding target market.
If anything becomes detrimental to the survival of the institution, it is quickly discarded; the "official" reason being "cost prohibitive" or "contrary to the Charity's goals".
If you think about it, in the beginning, any true and benevolent charity has plans to empower the people they're helping; learning how to fend for themselves and no longer needing the charity's help - in effect, putting the charity out of business.
Think. Think hard.
How many actually do this?
How many religions that shill themselves as a charitable, benevolent force in the world does this?
I bet the number is closer to zero than 1.
Time to stop this rant before it sounds like a sermon!
But I'll leave you with this quote:
"In the Global Charity Industry, exit plans a rarely executed. And winning just means 'still in business'." - Dr. E.A.P. (my late father and mentor)
Submitted for you to ponder in a quiet place.
Hope you and yours are well and loving life today.
In Lak'ech, JaiChai
(JaiChai 24 OCT 2021. Simultaneous multi-site submissions posted. All rights reserved.)
