Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Security The Almighty Buck

Authenticity of International Help Organizations? 66

Posted by Cliff from the are-they-legit dept.
UlfJack wonders: "I've been thinking about donating money, especially to organizations like Plan USA, who are doing what they can to help people in Third World countries. However I found it very difficult to check the authenticity of these organizations, so I'm trying to cross-check multiple independent sources. Has anyone figured out an easy way to do this?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Authenticity of International Help Organizations? More

Authenticity of International Help Organizations?

Comments Filter:
  • I only donate to whom the BBC [bbc.co.uk] recommend.

    • Yes, word of mouth (Score:3, Informative)

      by leonbrooks ( 8043 )
      I donate through ADRA [adra.org] and AsianAid [asianaid.org.au], since I know from being told by people who've been there, helped out and looked around that not only is 100% of your money is spent on the front lines (the cost of running these organisations is drawn from money donated by others specifically for the purpose) but the methods they use to help people lean heavily towards (re)establishing self-supporting independence.

      It's not a dependency-forming handout they bring, it's a future.

      If you know of others sticking to similar m
      • that not only is 100% of your money is spent on the front lines (the cost of running these organisations is drawn from money donated by others specifically for the purpose)

        Some organizations use this technique to claim "100%" goes to the projects, but standard accounting procedures would still count this as part of their overhead. It does cost money to run an organization and I'd rather trust an organization which is honest about those costs than one that pretends otherwise.
        • ...pay for the overhead out of separate donations earmarked for the purpose, and are pretty reasonable on overall efficiency anyway.

          So your donation to the organisation is effectively 100% efficient.

  • other ways to help (Score:5, Insightful)

    by same_old_story ( 833424 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @07:53AM (#11765099)
    Of course giving money can make a difference.

    But there are other ways to help (specially if you are an american citzen).

    One great way is to make sure you vote / pressure you legislators / presidents towards broader / better foreing policy. For example, Brazil has held long disputes with the wto for the usa to stop anti competitive measures, such as heavy agricultural subsidies. There is much talk about open economies, but many developed countries put a lot of barries for third world countries to make a fair competition.

  • Simple. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @07:54AM (#11765101) Journal
    Go to av.com, google.com, amazon.com and look for the organisation that they recommend.

    Basically, trust comes not through computing, but through inplied trust.

    You trust google to know which companies to link to.

    Of course, a centralised website should exist that gives an easy API for charities to take donations, give feedback, be accountable and of course, this should be government run, and be worldwide, and have the IRS (the only people you can really trust when it comes ot money, and by IRS I mean the inland revenue of your country) poking at it with a big stick.

    that is my opinion. for now, look at av.com and donate to thier link button.

    • Re:Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tod_miller ( 792541 )
      You could use google pagerank for plan usa, plan usa has a link to give.org... you could google both of these and find out if a larger company is linking to them (amazon or bbc).

      There you go. Don't forget, always donate anonymously and in private, why advertise your generosity, that is like buying a service, rather than donating charitably.

      • Re:Simple. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by JohnFluxx ( 413620 )
        What's wrong with "buying a service" instead?
        Just because you want to help others doesn't mean you can't help yourself as well. Consider all the aid workers that get paid to do their work.
      • Don't forget, always donate anonymously and in private, why advertise your generosity, that is like buying a service, rather than donating charitably.

        I realize that this the Christian thing to do, but why not claim the tax deduction at least?
        • Why claim the tax deduction and declare publicly your donation.

          I'm not a member of the tin foil brigade, but the fewer persons who know how I choose to spend my time and/or money, the better. IMO donations shouldn't be deductable, and taxes shouldn't be spent socially, but thats MHO and I don't expect it will change anything. OTOH, I get all my (income) taxes back ... most years and based on my giving practices(I don't track my exact giving) I give more than I pay in taxes(payroll) anyway.
          • Why claim the tax deduction and declare publicly your donation.

            Well, there's not exactly a fine line between "completely anonymous" and "advertising your coolness and generosity."
            • Certainly, but since federal tax returns are a matter of record, and the law could be ammended to make them a matter of PUBLIC record, I prefer not to take that deduction and further attempt to make my donations via cash or money order whenever possible or reasonably convienient.
    • Worldwide AND government run? Which government would that be? ;)
      • Government is non countable. Not a singular entity. It wasn't one government I was reffering to.

        Each gov has thier own fingers in a patent jar.
    • Most of what you're asking for here, for US organizations at least, is at http://www.guidestar.org/ [guidestar.org]

  • living in germany, i always check back websites of popular newsservices or tv-stations to see if they are listed (e.g. at the horrible tsunami disaster)
  • A donation has been made in your name to The Human Fund.

    / "The Human Fund. Money for people."

  • CBF certification (Score:5, Informative)

    by RogerWilco ( 99615 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @08:20AM (#11765181) Homepage Journal
    In the Netherlands we have the CBF certificate program
    http://www.cbf.nl/ (in dutch)
    http://www.cbf.nl/pages/cbf-erkende_goede_ doelen/m et_cbf-keur.php
    gives a list in Dutch of certified organisations.

    One of their criteria is that overhead costs for advertizing, organisation, etcetera should be less that 25% of the average last 3 years collected funds. I think this limit is a little high, but it gives a valid criterium.

    A lot of USA based organisations fail this test. Certified organisations are Amnesty Internantional, Greenpeace, Medecins sans Frontieres (Artsen zonder grenzen), OXFAM (NOVIB), UNICEF, WarChild, WWF (WNF), Red Cross.

    Furthermore you could look at how and who forms the board of directors, income of the director, publicly available financial information. Stuff that can give you cues about accountability.

    • Re:CBF certification (Score:3, Informative)

      by RogerWilco ( 99615 )
      I would like to add that a lot of USA based organisations have large (> 50%) overhead cost because of advertizing and management. I have been told Foster Parents Plan is one of them. It spends most of it's resources on giving their contributers the idea that they are helping.

      Your Plan USA seems a similar organisation.

    • Re:CBF certification (Score:4, Informative)

      by RogerWilco ( 99615 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:19AM (#11765436) Homepage Journal
      I found a list of overhead percentages here:
      http://www.karthick.com/relief.html

    • Re:CBF certification (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's the nature of Amnesty International's work, though, that they would seem to have high overhead. AI's purpose is to bring the spotlight of world attention to political prisoners and to publicize human rights abuses, and a lot of that may well fall under "advertising."
      • So AI's purpose is yapping, not acting. Well, I haven't given them money before, and I likely will continue that trend and mark them off the list of charities I might consider in the future. OTOH, if they took action(directly or indirectly) to include writing letters to the powers that be. that might be different, but there are enough human rights abuses in front of my nose in my own neighborhood workplace and community, that I don't need my attention drawn to those I can't influence. And I'm not going t

  • Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You know, as an American I am sick to death of all these charities that help people in third world countries. Sure, I understand that they need the help, but god damnit, there are people in the good 'ol US of A that need help equally as much, sure they might not be as bad off as those in these third world countries, but goddamn, whatever happened to making sure your own people are doing fine before helping out someone living god-knows-where?? I hate all those late night commercials. Help the kids in Countr

    • Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What exactly makes your neighbors more deserving of your help than my neighbors? (Besides the fact that they have to put up with a xenophobic bigot such as you in their community?) What you're talking about is only a little less self-centered than someone saying that he'll only help his friends, or his family, or himself. Thank God most Americans have a better grasp of what charity is.
    • It is sad that you are a fellow American. I am glad short sighted thinking like yours didn't prevent the Marshall Plan after WWII. Studies have proven that America's investment in rebuilding Europe after the war has paid dividends back to America 5000 times. If you really need a self centered reason for helping other nations think about the world's stability. America is part of the world community and an unstable neighbor is more likely to harbor terrorists and plot against the US. Maybe helping out the
    • I would partially agree with the AC. We can't forget to also help our country. There are many ways to do this, one being AmeriCorps [americorps.org], TeachForAmerica [teachforamerica.org], etc. Volunteering at a soup kitchen, battered women's shelter, etc. Helping out your community/country is just as important as helping out a third world country. Polarizing the issue between helping 3rd world vs helping local society, is what part of your argument I would disagree with.
    • You can specify that what you donate goes to locals, and it will - still with zero effective overheads since the organisation itself is paid for by people donating for the purpose. In Australia, the local-charity arm of the organisation is called ADCare, it may be different in the USA.

      I just let them spend it where it's needed most. I think they're better judges of that than I am.
    • You're not an asshole, at least in my opinion, from reading this post. There are many practical reasons to focus on helping locally when you have limited resources to expend (but.. are YOU expending them helping your local area already???)

      1. Much more efficient, you can see in detail where the problems are in your local area and solve them.

      2. Better feedback as to the accuracy and effectiveness of what you're doing.

      3. More motivational to have it improve your local life - stuff you see every day. This is
    • It would have been far better to have simply said:

      Charity begins at home.

  • What also bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fozzmeister ( 160968 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:23AM (#11765460) Homepage
    is how much of the money you give actually gets to the intended cause, my guess for a standard high profile charity (oxfam et al) would be somewhere between 40% - 60% (although this may be well off). As for those people who just walk upto you in the street for some random charity i've never heard of, i'd never give to those.

    Really I think charities should be made to publish this information, it surely could be a charity and pay its President most of the contributions, providing the "charity" didn't make money
    • At least in the US, I believe charities ARE required to publish this information. If it isn't a requirement then apparently a lot of them are doing it voluntarily. Go the Red Cross, UNICEF, or Doctor's without Borders web pages and you can find their budgets. The information tends to be in their press centers. Doctors without Borders is 85.67% towards program services. Management is small at 1.92% and fundraising is the other 12.41%.
      http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/don a te/info.s html

      So your assum
      • Even with their overhead, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) [doctorswit...orders.org] does fantastic work.

        They were also the only (at least the only that I heard of) charity that publicly announced when they had received enough for the Tsunami effort. Though they took a lot of heat for this announcement from other charities, their spokesman indicated that people had to be confident that the organization's integrity was beyond reproach.

        I found this very impressive and it encouraged me to donate to t

    • As I recall it oxfam actully has the highest % going to the actual cause.

  • 2 Stars (Score:1, Informative)

    by Bnderan ( 801928 )
    Plan USA got 2 out of 4 stars from CharityNavigator.org http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4337.htm [charitynavigator.org]

  • Banks do this.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by hughk ( 248126 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @09:40AM (#11765571) Journal
    all the time because Charities are regarded as high-risk from the point of view of anti-money-laundering. Non-Profit Organisations are considered a little dodgy because the audit reuirements are usually looser than corporations.

    A charity must be registered somewhere. The registrar should have a website with a list of real registered charities. That should be checked.

    A search on the net is also useful to pull out any press records, both good and bad about them. Banks do this too, to ascertain whether the charity is genuine or not.

    • A charity must be registered somewhere.

      Aye, there's the rub. There's a pseudo-religious organization that operates in the UK as an Australian charity under a reciprocal tax agreement. (Their charity application was turned down in England, Wales, and probably Scotland in 1999.) They slide between the cracks in the laws of both countries that way.

      Groups with a dodgy off-shore charity registration should be looked at closely before donating.

  • If you're specifically interested in donating to help tsunami victims, former Presidents Bush I and Clinton have been appearing in a commercial soliciting donations for that cause. They cite a web site [usafreedomcorps.gov] that lists legitimate charities that are helping with this disaster. Check it out.
  • World Vision [worldvision.org] is a pretty good company. I do work with them professionally, and they're a straight up organization.
  • I'm currently working for Geekcorps Mali [geekcorps.org]. So I can say they're authentic :) You could donate to Geekcorps [geekcorps.org] (sorry for the asp link, here in Mali proprietary software users are put away in the basement, and we're even developing a free software distro, Kunnafonix...). I'm also setting up a side project: getting more resources in Mali's most spoken language, Bambara. So I came up with the idea to kick start the Bambara Wikipedia, with the help of gadgets you geeks forgot about long time ago (one month ago whe
  • I saw this site http://www.charitywatch.org/ [charitywatch.org] on ABC news. They review the tax returns of charities and rank them by how efficiently they are run.
  • then they should be registered with the Charity Commission, whose register of charities [charity-co...ion.gov.uk] is searchable.
  • Try "less-developed countries" -- many ppl think "third-world" is just plain offensive (myself included).
  • If you're a church-goer, check with your church to see if they support a relief organizations. I donate to United Methodist Committee On Relief, which sends services and supplies to areas stricken by natural and man-mande disasters. Their web-site, http://www.umcor.org , contains instructions for donating. If you're not comfortable sending money, send supplies. If you can't send supplies, there are plenty of volunteer opportunities, often through local churches putting together flood-buckets, health ki
  • or complaints, investigation, etc. This gives you a good idea of how much negativity they generate.
  • If you're US-centric, CharityNavigator usualy has some good information on pretty much everyone, including percentages of monies raised that go to Program expenses, and so on.

    For example, Plan USA has a working capital ratio of about half a year, negative reveneue growth, and positive expense growth - meaning that they're short on cash. Their overall score was a 42 out of 70. The ran a defecit of 3.4 mil last year, although they have reported assets of over 20 mil.

    http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cf [charitynavigator.org]

  • Charity ratings website url (Score:3, Informative)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Thursday February 24, 2005 @11:38PM (#11773605)
    I don't know how to post on slashdot, my husband usually reads it, not me. However, I'm the one with experience in development (fund-raising) and have seen places where charities are rated according to what percent of their income they spend on themselves - for fund-raising, salaries, etc. The url below lists charities that spend less than $25 for every $100, this is considered pretty good! Worth magazine puts out a rating of the top 100 charities in Dec of every year, but I was unable to access the article without subscribing to their on-line magazine, as does the Chronicle of Philanthropy - also by subscription only. These are very good sources of info on charities if you're willing to subscribe or go to the library to find a hard copy, otherwise, check out the website below. Cookie http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html#intrelie f
  • Ask a minister, priest, rabbi, or any other person in a position to know who is in need in your own community and give the money to that person or persons. Avoid the skimming to pay 'management' that charities are guilty of doing.

  • CFC (Score:2)

    by Mork29 ( 682855 ) *
    The combined federal campaign is the governments way of helping it's employees/soldiers donate to charities. They do all the research of the organizations and show how much of your money actually goes to the cause. This gives soldiers and the like a chance to donate some of their money, and they know where it's going. They also offer incentives and the like, and make it very easy to give a small portion of your check every month, and get credit for your contribution. They maintain a list of almost any chari

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Close