Charity suggestions

[bachfan]

[ QUOTE ]

The main candidate is Oxfam.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oxfam is a high class outfit, and receives the bulk of my charitable giving each year.

[ QUOTE ]

Since I think they use most of the money for charity and not for administrative stuff (80% charity, 10% paying staff, 10% trying to get more money) and it also helps the people I want to help.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful here. There is a common misperception that the quality of a charity is directly related to the percentage of money that is given to its 'target', when in fact, this isn't really fair. Some charitable organizations (this is somewhat dependent on area, from what I've read) really do need to spend a fair chunk of money figuring out where their money should go and how they can maximize the impact of their giving.

- bachfan

[Fishwhenican]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since I think they use most of the money for charity and not for administrative stuff (80% charity, 10% paying staff, 10% trying to get more money) and it also helps the people I want to help.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful here. There is a common misperception that the quality of a charity is directly related to the percentage of money that is given to its 'target', when in fact, this isn't really fair. Some charitable organizations (this is somewhat dependent on area, from what I've read) really do need to spend a fair chunk of money figuring out where their money should go and how they can maximize the impact of their giving.

- bachfan

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true but it is not solely dependent on location. There are a lot of other factors as well. A lot of organizations also do things to make that number look at lot better than it should be. For instance, an organization like the National Heart Association sends out a direct mail appeal and includes either a brochure or some information about heart disease on the back of the letter they send. They then turn around an label the cost for this campaign as a program expense (ie going directly to the charity) where a different organization that cannot do this or will not do this has all campaign expenses show up as cost for raising funds.
**Disclaimer** I do NOT know that the American Heart Association has done this it is only an example I pulled off the top of my heard. But, I do know that this absolutely is a tactic used by various organizations.

Location can make a huge difference, in the case of the organization I work for, we are located way out in the middle of nowhere and this creates expenses in and of itself. Cost for shipping things is greater. Housing for workers is non existent, for the most part, and so the organization is involved with that which adds to expenses. There are also plenty of other things that add to the cost of maintaining a facility of this type that tie into the location.

Anyway, program costs should not be a sole determining factor for how well run a Charity is.

[Enrique]

[ QUOTE ]
Be careful here. There is a common misperception that the quality of a charity is directly related to the percentage of money that is given to its 'target', when in fact, this isn't really fair. Some charitable organizations (this is somewhat dependent on area, from what I've read) really do need to spend a fair chunk of money figuring out where their money should go and how they can maximize the impact of their giving.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I was reading through reviews of charities and how they evaluated charities discussed how much importance that had and how the % wasn't as important as some other ratio.