Thread: Worthwhile Charities "help"

Tweet

I'll respectfully disagree with your post, as I've seen the numbers from an insider many years ago. Charity Watch is just one of four such oversight sites and newsletters I read on a monthly basis as I have several automotive collection families who are constantly asking who, what, or where they should donate.

philanthropy.com
CharityNavigator
givewwell
give.org

there are a few of these that are partially biased for one reason or another. One that I refuse to post because they are extremely biased based on who owns the web site (IE: not in the best interest of the end user).

The bottom line is that you as the end user make your own decision on who you want your donations to go to. Good, bad, or anything in between is a choice only you can make.

Bill S.


PS: Our next planned big ticket donation (at least a few years off) will be going to Shriners. Why, because they took care of our sons spinal issues, not once, but twice without seeking anything from us at a time when we were struggling.

Originally Posted by rspears

As you say, "Without taking things off topic and down the rabbit hole I'll respond:"
The Charity Watch writeup is confusing unless you read and understand the entire article, and then check their tables of efficiencies. Because they are not required to file the same paperwork as the "normal" non-profits (Salvation Army is classified as a "church") their numbers were communicated in their format, and your math doesn't wash. Their "expense" of $1.6B is actually their distribution to their programs, and being out of $2B collected that gives them an efficiency rating of 80% that year. More recent figures have the SA as high as 84%. They "...rank high on finance, but low on governance" (Charity Watch's words), which is policies. I have no idea what their efficiency rating is for NZ, and with that I am done. You can lead a horse to water.....