Authenticity of International Help Organizations? 66
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?"
Re:Is it just me... (Score:2)
(that is unless it just started working when I logged back in....)
Trusted recommendations.. (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, word of mouth (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a dependency-forming handout they bring, it's a future.
If you know of others sticking to similar m
Re:Yes, word of mouth (Score:2)
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.
The two I list... (Score:2)
So your donation to the organisation is effectively 100% efficient.
other ways to help (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Simple. (Score:2)
I realize that this the Christian thing to do, but why not claim the tax deduction at least?
Re:Simple. (Score:1)
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
Re:Simple. (Score:2)
Well, there's not exactly a fine line between "completely anonymous" and "advertising your coolness and generosity."
Re:Simple. (Score:1)
Re:Simple. (Score:1)
Re:Simple. (Score:2)
Each gov has thier own fingers in a patent jar.
Re:Simple. (Score:1)
using popular services (Score:2, Insightful)
The perfect gift (Score:1)
/ "The Human Fund. Money for people."
CBF certification (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cbf.nl/ (in dutch)
http://www.cbf.nl/pages/cbf-erkende_goede
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)
Your Plan USA seems a similar organisation.
Re:CBF certification (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.karthick.com/relief.html
Re:CBF certification (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:CBF certification (Score:1)
Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:2)
Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:1)
So donate through ADRA (Score:2)
I just let them spend it where it's needed most. I think they're better judges of that than I am.
Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:2)
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
Re:Third World Countries...BAH! (Score:2)
You can refuse to recieve the benefits of government programs, but you can't refuse to stop paying for them. I recommend getting all you can, especially if you are just scraping by. I'm in a very similar situation (debt), though no longer eligible for gov't assistance because I have a decent job (though it'll be a while before I have a positive amount of
Very poorly said. (Score:2)
Charity begins at home.
What also bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:What also bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/don a te/info.s html
So your assum
Re:What also bothers me (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:What also bothers me (Score:2)
Let me second this. Médecins Sans Frontières [doctorswit...orders.org] staff routinely work under extremely difficult and dangerous conditions, sometimes harassed by contending governments, warlords, and bandits. This is an organization made up of heroes.
Re:What also bothers me (Score:1)
2 Stars (Score:1, Informative)
Banks do this.... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Banks do this.... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Banks do this.... (Score:2)
The Bush/Clinton Ad (Score:2)
World Vision (Score:1)
Well, I'm working for one... (Score:2, Funny)
charity watch (Score:2)
If they operate in the UK... (Score:2)
Re:If they operate in the UK... (Score:1)
The preferred term is "less-developed countries" (Score:1)
Church organizations (Score:2)
Re:Church organizations (Score:2)
The Mennonite Central Committee [mcc.org] has a good reputation and though religously motivated engages in minimal proselytization. (I'm not a Mennonite, or a Christian of any sort.)
Google for $ORGANIZATION fraud (Score:2, Interesting)
CharityNavigator.org (Score:2)
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)
your neighbor (Score:1)
CFC (Score:2)