Slashdot Mirror

+4 insightful?

It must be the Christmas eggnog.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

*shakes head sadly*

You could try examining potential recipients at Charity Navigator. They evaluate charities based on their operational effectiveness and allow you to compare a potential recipient against others that serve similar needs.

I have used it many times and find it extremely helpful.

More like 3.9%.

Charity Navigator

Considering the fact that you can donate 50% of your income to charity pre-tax* and given that ultimately that's what the system is designed for you to do (give freely of your own choosing, rather than let the government just spend as they see fit), then you see that tax is the whip and charity is the carrot. But if you're a greedy, self-absorbed sod of a grinchy Scrooge, then giving to charity won't make you feel any better, like it does for normal humans.

The carrot's not as sweet without knowing the sting of the whip.

* - From http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=31 :
"For most people, the limits on charitable contributions don't apply. Only if you contribute more than 20% of your adjusted gross income to charity is it necessary to be concerned about donation limits. If the contribution is made to a public charity, the deduction is limited to 50% of your contribution base. For example, if you have an adjusted gross income of $100,000, your deduction limit for that year is $50,000."

1. Develop a manner where a person could support themselves legitimately anywhere in the world. (ie: generate legit income from fair labour)
2. Develop a manner where a person could know what organizations to support and which to avoid.
3. Help inform people about what they do that is positive.
4. Cultivate talent.
5. Grow numbers.
6. Maintain their own security.
7. Shun asshats.
8. Give and get some lulz that are positive. Remember sometimes the lulz are funny.
9. Create some technologies and give them away to the planet.
10. Develop a future for Anonymous. What is Anonymous in 20yrs? Is it still an underground group of loosely affiliated people? Is it every human being on the planet? What are the goals of this group? What should the goals be? What shouldn't the goals be?

1. This currently falls under the jurisdiction of education / apprenticeship / schools. There are too many varied industries that any advise you get from a single one of them is going to end up being terribly biased.
2. http://www.charitynavigator.com.
3. Anonymous has carried a good track record of punishing groups who sorta deserve it. That's a good thing, to me.
4-7. Gonna skip these b/c they are too general.
8. Practical jokes are actually really hard to pull off without causing damage... so this would indeed be something to see.
9. LOIC ?
10. I think the goal is that Anonymous will only exist if it has to. The end goal is for the organization to not need to exist 20 years from now.

A large percentage of each dollar does NOT get gets spent on administrative expenses for the Red Cross. Only 4.4%. Seems reasonable to me. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

The data is old, but according to forbes charities

American Red Cross operates at 91% efficiency.
And this site: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
Puts it at almost 92%.

Of course that doesn't mean they don't pay their CEO a lot. It says he makes $446k a year.

Charity Navigator or something similar. Reward efficiency (i.e. high % of dollar goes to actual cause). Sometimes though if you're trying to support a certain cause, it's hard to find a charity that ranks high.

Really quickly I see:
AmeriCares
International Relief Teams
Direct Relief International

Try this: Charity Navigator's page on The Wikimedia Foundation.

I do not want to spoil your cheers for charity, but according to this site: charitynavigator.org, US charities (most of them) are money devouring scumbags.

I wonder whether we can even call them "charities", on average they spend about 50% of donated money on "expenses", but shockingly those expenses are excessive wages in millions of dollars for a selected few at the top. Some of these tax-avoiding charities burn as much as 90 cents on every dollar you donate. Just look at the annual charity report PDF at that site, it is a revolting shameful read.

For some "non-profits", that could be a considerable sum.

You don't deal with many non-profits do you? Even middle-management at many non-profits earn a very healthy income, easily on par with anything the corporate world offers.

Let's see, the CEO of the WWF (the authors of the report) earns a whopping $465,427. Now have a look at this list of CEO compensation by industry type. Can you see any under $1,000,000? How many over $10,000,000? They are certainly not on par with the WWF salaries.

That said, some of those executives you describe are directly responsible for the existence of non-profits. The money has to come from somewhere.

No, not the ones we are talking about. Do you really think that the mining industries are funding the climate advocate groups? No, I don't think so. Sure they have their own industry groups and think-tanks, but none of those could be called "tree huggers".

Perhaps you should go donate blood to the red cross. It'll make you feel better.

The Red Cross is doing just fine..

Net Assets $2,559,637,123

We have determined that this charity has a privacy policy which requires you to tell the charity to remove your name and contact information from mailing lists it sells, trades or shares.

They sell my blood for $200 a pint and then sell my name and address as a blood donor.

BTW - I do check the efficacy of your charity before I give.

I think it's a great idea for people to check out their charities carefully before donating. Unfortunately, there are a few wasteful and even corrupt charities out there. However, if you're using charity navigator, make sure you read their fine print: at present they only catalog 4500 charities, only organizations with about $500k private donations each year, only organizations with budgets of $1M+ per year. This is not meant to say anything bad about charity navigator; they are offering a tremendous service that is greatly needed. But when you search for an organization and it's not there, it could be that they're just too small to be on their map.

When I donate, I look for the organizations that seem to get the most work done with the least overhead and who can benefit the most from smaller donations from non-rich people like me. That almost always comes out being the small grassroots organizations that were formed up because individual community members decided to take things in their own hands (mostly because the nat'l orgs or nat'l gov't weren't doing their job). They have very small staff (under 20, often under 5), and budgets that are impossibly tiny to even cover their payroll.

These organizations will never make charity navigator's list. So, like with all tools, make sure you know what charity navigator does and doesn't do. And if you want to really want to change things, donate to groups that are too small to be on that list.

BTW - I do check the efficacy of your charity before I give.

I think it's a great idea for people to check out their charities carefully before donating. Unfortunately, there are a few wasteful and even corrupt charities out there. However, if you're using charity navigator, make sure you read their fine print: at present they only catalog 4500 charities, only organizations with about $500k private donations each year, only organizations with budgets of $1M+ per year. This is not meant to say anything bad about charity navigator; they are offering a tremendous service that is greatly needed. But when you search for an organization and it's not there, it could be that they're just too small to be on their map.

When I donate, I look for the organizations that seem to get the most work done with the least overhead and who can benefit the most from smaller donations from non-rich people like me. That almost always comes out being the small grassroots organizations that were formed up because individual community members decided to take things in their own hands (mostly because the nat'l orgs or nat'l gov't weren't doing their job). They have very small staff (under 20, often under 5), and budgets that are impossibly tiny to even cover their payroll.

These organizations will never make charity navigator's list. So, like with all tools, make sure you know what charity navigator does and doesn't do. And if you want to really want to change things, donate to groups that are too small to be on that list.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

a) I gave you money unsolicited, for your cause. I only give when I can, and want to. Almost NEVER is it due to a solicitation or campaign.
b) Please don't send me unsolicited materials, you are wasting your (our) money and I resent that a portion of my donation is being churned back into solicitations and not the original purpose.
c) Don't sell my name to other charities. I know, it is a fund raiser (maybe?) but I will NOT respond to their solicitations. They are wasting their money sending me pleas...
d) Please remove my name from your list when I ask, (usually the "c" listers, but sometimes the "a" lister too!). If I go thru the trouble of asking to be removed, I will REALLY not EVER donate to that organization.
e) Just because the return address on my envelope doesn't match the address on the check I am still just one person. Please don't harvest this extra info into your database and SEND ME TWO of everything! What a double waste of money.
f) It would be nice if you sent the tax-deduction acknowledgment letter, but just once at the end of the year is fine.
BTW - I do check the efficacy of your charity before I give.

I don't mean to be dickish about this, but there are more good causes than I can support, so this is just part of how I chose which to give to.

In short, your CRM software should allow you to check the "hey this guy will give us money if we DON'T bug him" box.

That article is a bit sketchy, and way out of date. Take a look at this instead: Charity Navigator on the American Cancer Society

I trust Charity Navigator a lot more than thus guy. His site looks like a non-profit organization, but it seems to be just one guy looking for a way to sell his own books. All the publications on the site are written by this one guy, Samuel Epstein. He criticizes the ACS, but his nonprofit isn't even listed on Charity Navigator.

in 1988 the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million...Of that money, the ACS spent only $90 million— 26 percent of its budget— on medical research and programs

That was 22 years ago! Based on Charity Navigator, they spent 6.9% on administrative expenses, and 72.8% on programs. The names he mentions in his article aren't current.

It was probably a good criticism in it's time, and it appears that the ACS has reformed -- perhaps as a result of the article.

And they do it for a pittance of pay because it's something they care about.

I spend on charity, and almost never do I donate to charities that pay people to call me. I find charities that spend their money on programs, not on fundraising and administration. Some charities attract volunteer callers/canvassers - but a lot of times it's just people doing a job like any other and there's no reason to glorify what they're doing. The net effect of what they do, beyond making a living, is often going to be moving charitable funding from funding programs over to funding administration and fundraising (calling/advertising) costs.

Honestly, many charities are basically a business that produces calls for donation. For example, "Angel Flight West" sounds like a great charity: "Arranging free air transportation in response to health care and other compelling human needs".

Then you see that only 31.1% of donations go towards the actual program and the rest is lost to administration and fundraising costs (link). Now I'm not saying they aren't trying to good work, or that charities in general aren't doing good work - but I do think there's justification at being frustrated with how many charities are run.

To balance out my last example, look at Food For The Poor. 96.8% of their incoming funds goes to the program.

And they do it for a pittance of pay because it's something they care about.

I spend on charity, and almost never do I donate to charities that pay people to call me. I find charities that spend their money on programs, not on fundraising and administration. Some charities attract volunteer callers/canvassers - but a lot of times it's just people doing a job like any other and there's no reason to glorify what they're doing. The net effect of what they do, beyond making a living, is often going to be moving charitable funding from funding programs over to funding administration and fundraising (calling/advertising) costs.

Honestly, many charities are basically a business that produces calls for donation. For example, "Angel Flight West" sounds like a great charity: "Arranging free air transportation in response to health care and other compelling human needs".

Then you see that only 31.1% of donations go towards the actual program and the rest is lost to administration and fundraising costs (link). Now I'm not saying they aren't trying to good work, or that charities in general aren't doing good work - but I do think there's justification at being frustrated with how many charities are run.

To balance out my last example, look at Food For The Poor. 96.8% of their incoming funds goes to the program.

I suppose the link to the Red Cross is meant to be a bad example, i.e. you imply that the red cross gives away 10c on the dollar, but charity navigator says something different:

Program Expenses 89.2%
Administrative Expenses 6.5%
Fundraising Expenses 4.1%

So there's only about 10% overhead, which I suppose isn't too great, but not too bad either.

Call me crazy, but can you imagine a charity (secular) giving away only 10c on the dollar and not being hassled for it?

Yes. Yes I can. Charity Navigator is your friend.

Call me crazy, but can you imagine a charity (secular) giving away only 10c on the dollar and not being hassled for it?

Crazy. You might want to check this out.

Call me crazy, but can you imagine a charity (secular) giving away only 10c on the dollar and not being hassled for it?

Crazy. You might want to check this out.

Help us continue this fight: http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping

We've just opened a new page for student rates: http://www.eff.org/students

Third-party details on how EFF compares to other non-profit groups: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576

(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)

I ran some of these through our SiteTruth system to get legitimacy ratings. None of them rate very high.

• boredatgustavus.net No website - not rated.
• contributegustav.org Redirector - not rated - redirects to "braf.org"
• braf.org Found in Open Directory, has business address, no ads. Turns out to be Baton Rouge Area Foundation, which has a 3-star rating in Charity Navigator and a writeup in Wikipedia, so they're legitimate.
• contributiongustav.org redirects to "braf.org"
• donategustav.org redirects to "braf.org".
• donationgustav.org redirects to "braf.org".
• gustav-hurricane.info No rating, contains frame of empty parking page.
• gustav-hurricane.net SiteTruth says: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". It's just a parking page.
• gustav-hurricane.org Frame of Sedo parking page.
• gustav-hurricane.us No website.
• gustav-relief.org No rating - GoDaddy parking page with ads.
• gustavassistance.org redirects to "braf.org".
• gustavattorney.com No rating - GoDaddy parking page with ads.
• gustavcharities.com Rating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". We were too harsh there; the site does have a street address, but it wasn't enough like a mailing address to be picked up. This page was set up by Samaritan's Purse, which gets four stars from Charity Navigator.
• gustavcharity.com Rating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". Samaritan's Purse again.
• gustavclaims.netRating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". Parked page with ads.
• gustavcontribution.org Redirect to "braf.org".

Thus far, I'm not seeing major scams; just aggressive marketing by existing charities.

(SiteTruth is really the wrong tool for this job, because it's focused on business legitimacy, for which we have databases.)

I ran some of these through our SiteTruth system to get legitimacy ratings. None of them rate very high.

• boredatgustavus.net No website - not rated.
• contributegustav.org Redirector - not rated - redirects to "braf.org"
• braf.org Found in Open Directory, has business address, no ads. Turns out to be Baton Rouge Area Foundation, which has a 3-star rating in Charity Navigator and a writeup in Wikipedia, so they're legitimate.
• contributiongustav.org redirects to "braf.org"
• donategustav.org redirects to "braf.org".
• donationgustav.org redirects to "braf.org".
• gustav-hurricane.info No rating, contains frame of empty parking page.
• gustav-hurricane.net SiteTruth says: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". It's just a parking page.
• gustav-hurricane.org Frame of Sedo parking page.
• gustav-hurricane.us No website.
• gustav-relief.org No rating - GoDaddy parking page with ads.
• gustavassistance.org redirects to "braf.org".
• gustavattorney.com No rating - GoDaddy parking page with ads.
• gustavcharities.com Rating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". We were too harsh there; the site does have a street address, but it wasn't enough like a mailing address to be picked up. This page was set up by Samaritan's Purse, which gets four stars from Charity Navigator.
• gustavcharity.com Rating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". Samaritan's Purse again.
• gustavclaims.netRating: "Site ownership unknown or questionable. - No Location". Parked page with ads.
• gustavcontribution.org Redirect to "braf.org".

Thus far, I'm not seeing major scams; just aggressive marketing by existing charities.

(SiteTruth is really the wrong tool for this job, because it's focused on business legitimacy, for which we have databases.)

And for those interested in the finances of the FSF, see Charity Navigator.

"I no longer give to charity for an extension of those same reasons. Charities are now run like businesses, with salaried fund raisers, and wage slaver collectors on the streets. They pay to make money, and they make more money this way. Since making money is their primary cause, they see it as a good thing."

I understand where you're coming from, since I give a good bit to charities myself... however, don't write all charities off because of the smarmy, professional fund raisers that some employ. A good way to gauge good charities is with Charity Navigator, which rates charities on a variety of topics, including fundraising and expenses. If a charity is spending too much on fundraising and administration, it's all laid out for you to see. Most also have their mailing list and privacy policies available there. Before I give to any cause now, I check Charity Navigator first.

FOSS has done an amazing amount of good for the world, but I decided that my money can have a more significant impact on more urgent problems elsewhere. I've donated to Wikimedia, a nice blend between FOSS philosophy and usefulness Right Now for a very wide audience, but they're only useful for those of us with ready access to the 'net.

For advice on many of the major Good Causes, Charity Navigator appears very worthwhile. I've been using it for a few years, and find that while it misses a few, the information it provides is very interesting.

In case you care, my current top pick is Pathfinder International, although the Union of Concerned Scientists is always high up there. If you want more of an Amerigeek angle, there are always the EFF and the ACLU.

So you're using your impressions of the actions of a few of your friends as a yardstick to judge the philanthropic efforts of countless charities? That doesn't sound terribly intelligent. Why don't you navigate over to a site like charitynavigator.org and do a bit of research on your own?

I worked in "charity" for five years. In all that time, I cannot name one thing other than "not having to fire anyone" that we accomplished.

If that's true, then you need to report it to the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance, as well as to Charity Navigator -- groups which track the return-on-investment aspects of charitable organizations.

If you truly and literally spent five years not helping anyone, your charity is a scam. This hardly means that all charities are scams; most are not.

As for connecting donors to recipients: sure, that's a nice idea, except for:

• Economies of scale. You get ten thousand donors together to buy food, supplies, etc., then you can get a lot more solution for your money.
• Addressing root problems. Sure, a thirsty family in Africa might be able to buy safe drinking water for a month on the $20 you send them. But it would be better if a bunch of people could collectively send over $2500 and build a new, clean-water well. Or if somebody organized the money together and built dozens of clean wells all over the region. There are tons of problems like this.
• The problem isn't always money. Sometimes the problem is education. Or identifying problems in service delivery. Or advocating for change in government policies. How would you solve these problems by sending your money to the needy people?

Sometimes direct support works well. Kiva has a really interesting approach that seems to be successful, for example. But it's hardly the answer to every problem that nonprofits try to solve.

I really hate this whole libertarianism means fuck everyone else falsehood.

I work part time at a bar to support myself while going through graduate school, and my favorite thing to talk about is politics. One evening I jumped into a conversation with a couple Obama supporters, one was really interested in our debate the other was two sheets to the wind. When I expressed my desire to get rid of welfare the drunk guy started up with the name calling.

"You're a spoiled rich kid."

I explained to him and his friend my ideas. Essentially welfare is a state supported form of charity. When looking at a charity, outside of religious ones, you can get the numbers on how much goes to the bureaucracy of the charity vs how much goes to actually help people. Here's a website that rates charities on just that. For example a breast cancer walk can raise a lot of money, and is great for women who have had breast cancer or lost someone due to it, but a lot more money is going to go into creating the walk. So if you donated 100 dollars more of your money directly to a charity dealing with the issue more of your money will go where its needed.

With the government basically running a charity what are the numbers for how much gets wasted vs how much actually goes to those in need? What about accountability for fraud such as when the rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard was picking up a welfare check in a limo? When a charity does something ridiculous you can vote with your dollar to not support that organization anymore. You cannot do that with the government.

So as a tax paying citizen I am forced to donate some of MY income to goto the government to do these charity services where there is little to no accountability. And whose to say that I wouldn't give to charitable organizations that I believe in if I had extra money to burn?

This didn't go over well with the drunk guy, and I was still a "spoiled rich kid".

I don't donate to people who advertise on TV. They waste way too much money. I use http://www.charitynavigator.org/ to find charities that operate effeciently. In addition I never said to send all your money to Africa. I prefer Americares which helps people here in the USA and abroad. They also operate with some 98% effeciency or something close to that.

I'd love to see Child's Play show up near the top of the list as having one of the lowest CEO salaries or administrative expenses -- "Gamers -- Violent Psychopaths, Generous Givers, or both?"

EFF has four of five stars according to Charity Navigator for "financial efficiency and capacity." Here's a direct link: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/7576.htm (My apologies for not including this in my first post.)

you could share a little in order to improve the lives of others not so fortunate as yourself. as someone who values efficiency, i think it is cool to be able to support a child in need for about $1 / day. i'm only affiliated with cotni through the check i send them every month.

http://cotni.org/

highly rated by charity navigator:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=children+of+the+nation&Submit2=GO&bay=search.results

The Bible isn't a slasher novel, it's a love story. It's about these kids who run away from home seeking independence and what they perceive as life's true fulfillment, and a father who desperately tries to get them to return. The father pleads with them for years to come home and enjoy the shelter and comfort of his house, but they continue to ignore him until finally the father makes a tremendous sacrifice in order to open the door for them to return. Some of the children realize the father's sacrifice and unconditional love he has for them, and come home. The others continue to wander aimlessly. The subtle, but real, plot of the story is that the father knew all along what it was going to take to be reunited with his children, but he also knew he had to let his children suffer in order for them to realize what they'd given up and the importance of the sacrifice it was going to take to save them. You should read the whole book sometime. It's amazing!

that's a very good, summary.

however, i think folks who don't know so much about the bible would benefit from a few other tidbits.

1. the bible has a lot of blood and gore b/c people are bloody and gory.

2. yes, the father in the love story ended the lives of some clay versions of very evil people and societies, but he has not ended the potential for their eternal life, rather, he ended the misery they foisted onto themselves and those around them. literally, he put them out of their misery. he will raise them again and show them his way of happiness, peace and joy.

3. eternal hellfire doesn't exist. the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in some eternal fire. people have bastardized a parable about being kind to the needy into the magna carta for dante's inferno because, frankly, the bible teaches something entirely different from dante's inferno. think about - a man is literally burning in fire and can hold a normal conversation and asks for a drop of water to cure his dry mouth? yeah, right! god is love and love does not (permanent) harm to his neighbor). god is not the sadist most portray him to be.

4. this life is not the only life that eternal salvation will be offered to people. god NEVER offered the nation of ancient israel spiritual salvation. he will, one day. check out ezekiel 37 for details.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible. cgi?new=1&word=ezek+37&section=0&version=niv&langu age=en

5. there is god's way of life - care for others EQUAL (not more, not less) to oneself - and there is the spoiled clay child way of life - care for myself above others. the former leads to sustained happiness, peace and joy for the individual and the community while the latter leads to... well, look around you. then educate yourself. ~170,000,000 died in the 20th century due to the impact of war.

it would take you 5.4 years to count that many people at 1 per second. i guess that's an average of almost 1 war related death every 20 seconds for 100 years. let me assure you that the actual death is a pittance of the misery that led to that death.

kids starving left and right. i think 10k die every day due to starvation and illness.

yet many, even "intellectual" types, think the world is a "good" place. the truth is they deem their world "good" and they are so self centered they don't care about anyone else's world.

anyway, if you want to care about others equal to yourself, sponsoring a child or children is a great way to express it...

http://cotni.org/

they are rated 4 stars (highest rating, exceptional) by charity navigator:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summ

Maybe you should write to Mark Everson, CEO of the American Red Cross, and ask him why he's taking funds away from the American Red Cross, namely a $500,000 salary, "more than triple his annual salary with the IRS".

Yes, the IRS, where totally co-incidentally the new ARC ombudsman came from. In fact, she's his old chief of staff! I'm sure she's totally independent and will be a great internal watchdog of Mr. Everson's actions.

But that's okay. He doesn't have any experience with non-profits or disaster relief, but since he was a Bush appointee I'm sure he'll do a heck of a job.

You DON'T need to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on nothing!

Here's a link to website with a huge listing of charitable organizations. I promise you that giving 2 grand to help the needy or cure a disease will make you feel better than spending 2 grand on a shiny new level 70 rogue.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Comprende?

The ACLU gets money from donations to the ACLU Foundation. At any rate, the government should have to pay legal fees if the ACLU does win against them, since they have thus proved in court that the government abridged everyone's freedom. Doesn't sound shady to me; sounds more like justice.

I know you're really trolling, but http://charitynavigator.org/ is what I use for picking the best "bang for your buck" organizations. You can easily compare groups & see who has the lowest overhead costs etc.

It is like Consumer Reports for charities. It tells you what % of your contribution actually goes to helping people, compares the charity to others of similar mission and size, tells you how much the CEO makes, etc.

Especially in light of all the fradulent charities that sprung up after Hurricane Katrina, I think it's a valuable site to make sure your money goes where you wanted it to.

I'm going to call you on that.

UNICEF's administrative overhead is 7% (of the remaining money, it's 28% in early childhood devel, 24% on immunization, 19% on girls' education, 11% on protection of children in wartorn areas, 9% on families with HIV/AIDS, and 9% on other programs (mostly youth and community development).

The American Red Cross? 91.1% of their income goes to services. It gets worse, though. Last year, they spent $111 million of their 3 billion income (3.5%) just on advertizing for its fundraising drive. Yet, fundraising produces less than half its profits. 59% of their money goes to their blood drive; 53% of their income comes from selling the blood that gets donated to it (if their blood sales were a company, in several years they'd have been on the Fortune 500 list). The Red Cross has really morphed into a big blood business.

Now, to be fair, the US Fund for Unicef is less efficient, at 87%. But UNICEF as a whole is more efficient than the American Red Cross.

Look up a budget some time. I recommend Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/ for US charities, but there are some good in-depth investigatious out there elsewhere. UNICEF's numbers can be found on its site, among many other places.

You posted the wrong link! The Heifer you linked to is a small offshoot of Heifer proper. The reason their expense to outlay ratio is so bad is because they only brought in $3 million last year.

This is the actual link to Heifer International on the Charity Navigator. The expense ratio is in line with other charities of its size. Note that the CEO still makes a fat lot of cash, as they all seem to do at that level. As always, non-profit doesn't mean you can't line your pockets on the backs of the poor. They at least manage to get 71% to the people that need it.

...but I'm a little concerned about their rankings in CharityNavigator:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/9654.htm

I'm especially concerned about the fact that their CEO is making about 6% of the organization's total income.

I don't doubt the possibility that they are doing something very different or revolutionary (which I could see as justification), but honestly, why the high program expenses to teach sustainable, low-input farming? I'm a big fan of this method, but it appears to be run inefficiently.

Many sites have info on the 'validness' of organizations and how much of what you donate actually is spent on the program you want (such as Hurricane Relief). Easy to decide if the one asking for money is valid and a good choice! See http://www.charitynavigator.org/ for example.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/cont ent.view/catid/2/cpid/48.htm

And yes, you are correct, the American United Way CEO does in fact make $400k a year. So does the American Red Cross CEO. However, the the CEO salary is 1% of the total United Way overhead expense, while only .01% of the Red Crosses.

I'm not sure what difference that makes, but this website does rate the United Way much lower than the Red Cross on their scale.

I don't know that it's fair to say that charitable organizations shouldn't compensate executive officers well. They are in charge of multi-gagillion dollar companies after all and if they're not paid a market level salary, they'll only be able to get below-market level quality people in the job.

Personally, I rate charities based on how much of their annual expeditures goes to charitable uses, and how much goes to administrative overhead.

Many of the nearby food banks that aren't themselves in affected areas are sending their own supplies to the affected areas, so they're going to be going low for a while. Additionally, the food banks in the affected areas will experience increased demand over the next year, at least, as people try to recover economically, and many of their local donors will probably be unable to give to them because of their own changed financial circumstances.

I'm not affiliated with Second Harvest or anything like that, but I respect their work. Less than two percent goes to overhead and all the rest goes to actual services. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/5271.htm