Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Most Efficient, Worthwhile Charity?

New submitter yanom writes "I'm thinking about making a holiday donation to a charity, but I'm not sure where to give it. I've looked at organizations such as the Red Cross and Village Reach that promote disaster relief and health in the developing world. I want my money to have the biggest possible impact, so where should I send it?"

570 comments

  1. Charity Navigator by XanC · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, so you think he should send his money to the Charity Navigator?

    2. Re:Charity Navigator by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you care about donating to charity, but don't personally have cash to spend, then I suggest using Bing instead of Google. Microsoft lets you donate your Bing rewards (which you gain when you search for something) to charity. Just by signing up you get 250 points, and every 100 points you get lets you donate $1 to charity.

      I'd like to see Google doing similar good for the world.

    3. Re:Charity Navigator by infaustus · · Score: 5, Informative

      In a similar vein: http://www.givewell.org/charities/topcharities GiveWell does a very thorough job of vetting charities and evaluating their impact.

      --
      Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
    4. Re:Charity Navigator by abigor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Surely you are trolling: http://www.google.org/

    5. Re:Charity Navigator by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 2

      Well, Microsoft has other charity campaigns too. But Google doesn't let users donate just by searching, while Bing does.

    6. Re:Charity Navigator by jdpars · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either way, some part of revenue from the search engine is going to charity. You aren't generating anything new by using Bing's donation feature, just clicking a button to do what Google apparently already does.

    7. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      best charity ever: there is one out there that offers to surgically sterilize welfare recipients at no cost to them or to the taxpayer. i mean .. if you can barely feed yourself you are hardly in a position to keep popping out kids. i bet this prevents a lot of children suffering due to their negligent parents' stupid decisions.

    8. Re:Charity Navigator by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps a MS fanboi or a crowdturfer

      *removes tinfoil hat, ducks*

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    9. Re:Charity Navigator by hedwards · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with eugenics...

    10. Re:Charity Navigator by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're trolling, and if you're not then you should volunteer for the same program that you advocate. Do you seriously believe that everyone that has ever been on welfare is stupid and a hopeless drain on society? I was unemployed for 2 years in my late teens, in an era where youth unemployment was over 20%. Guess what, I'm now a productive member of society who pays taxes and has done for many years. Being on welfare is not necessarily a life choice and doesn't relate to an individuals productivity or intelligence.

    11. Re:Charity Navigator by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      And pro-DCMA, to boot. Yikes.

    12. Re:Charity Navigator by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Offspring based income bracket?

      Uhh... Fuck you, you cesspool of beliefs.

    13. Re:Charity Navigator by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Wait, you've identified a gene sequence for "being a welfare recipient"?

      Note that I don't approve of the idea, but how in the heck would this be eugenics? You do know that eugenics has to do with inheritable characteristics, right?
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

      -- Terry

    14. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about just handing out BC pills and condoms to them, seeing as it'd be one less thing they'd have to 'afford'?

    15. Re:Charity Navigator by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.

      As for your notion, I know precisely what eugenics is. I take it you haven't noticed how it's been used in the past.

    16. Re:Charity Navigator by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3

      Yeah, because there's nothing at all wrong with eugenics...

      There's one hell of a difference between offering something for free and it being compulsory. I find it highly unlikely that the mentioned charity is using its funding to forcibly sterilize anyone. Just like the salvation army does not force anyone to accept donated clothing, food or toys.

    17. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people shouldn't be giving to Godless corporations.

      Give to your local televangelist. Your donation will go towards quality, family oriented, Jesus-centric shows; instead of the secular humanist heathenism that you see on TV stations like PBS.

      So if you ever see the God-fearing Pastor Jake on late night T.V. thumping his bible to the beat of gospel singers, just pick up the phone and call the 1-800 number listed at the bottom of the screen. Operators will be waiting for your credit card number. If you don't have a credit card, borrow your parent's credit card when they are sleeping. Remember, it's all for Charity.

    18. Re:Charity Navigator by TheLink · · Score: 2
      --
    19. Re:Charity Navigator by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      Oh no !! they could have fun, that would be horrible, we first tell them to "just say no", and then try to find a way out of the problem we created (with their help, nevertheless we provided the lack of education)

    20. Re:Charity Navigator by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      You mean you can help microsoft to leverage some of it's marketing fund into non taxable income by using bing..

    21. Re:Charity Navigator by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.

      I don't know about Jews, because that's sort of a complex label. But you can absolutely tell ancestry from a genetic sample. "African descent" (what most people in the U.S. would call "black") is easy to discern from a DNA sample.

      Law enforcement agencies have been slower to adopt using this capability because it's considered a political landmine to say (for example) that they know that a murdering rapist is black with only DNA evidence to go by. But it can be done, and it has been done. Here's an example:

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm

      You can get eye color, hair color, and other traits too. The science is getting better.

      That said:

      Just because you disagree with something, doesn't make it the same as something else that you disagree with.

      Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.

      An interesting primer on the subject:
      http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/15/race-doesnt-exist-or-does-it/

      I know podcasts can be a PITA because it's slower than reading, but it's worth a listen if you're at all interested in the subject.

    22. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economist just recently had an article about the "best ranked" charities. Almost all of them were church based, YMCA being #1.

      My favorite was cityofhope.org. The article stated their CEO has a salary of $0 whereas nearly all the others had massive 6-figure salaries.

    23. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about that, it wasn't the economist, it was the christian science monitor, nov 18. And YMCA was #1 ranked by total income.

      google: csmonitor charity rankings

    24. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      [Posting as AC to not lose mod points]

      we provided the lack of education

      It sounds like you may not have much experience with the regular public schools in "welfare neighborhoods"..

      Schools do not control a child's education, Parents do. "We" can provide the same education to children in a "middle class" school and a "welfare" school and the students in the "middle class" school will do much better.

      For most students to be successful in elementary (K-6) school, which is where their educational trajectory for the rest of their life is usually determined, their parents must Prioritize education highly AND have Control over their children. Unfortunately one, and often both, of these elements are missing for any of a variety of reasons in many of the families in "welfare neighborhoods". As a result, general public schools in these areas are overrun with misbehaving and unmotivated students making it very difficult for those students from families who are not missing either of these elements to achieve. This creates a vicious cycle for both teaching students whose families do support education AND for retaining teachers who are good.

      Fortunately, in recent years, charter schools focusing on academics have been springing up and helping save those children whose parents have it together enough to prioritize education highly and are willing/capable of controlling their children but had the misfortune of being in a lower income area by financial necessity. Of course, attending these schools is a privilege which is one of the keys to their success — they can (and do) send misbehaving and unmotivated students back to the "regular" public school. This of course may make the regular public schools more like sewage pits full of the least motivated and most poorly behaving students -- but that seems like an acceptable tradeoff to me as most of those students were likely never going to contribute much to society anyway.

    25. Re:Charity Navigator by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

      The core issue with "bad schools" is the size of them, in all "rich" nations there has been a trend to "optimize" the cost of education.
      The basic idea is to get the public to pay for basic education, but try to push the price down, and privatize upper education, so that the only poor people who can get access it are the ones so smart that they might become dangerous for the status quo.

      It is impossible to really manage and discipline a school with 2 to 3000 pupil without some sort of "enforcement", if you have a 1% level of "hard cases" in a small school you might have 2 or 3 people who need "special care" but are basically isolated.
      In a large school you have a core of 20 to 30 people organizing their cosy little gang, and impressing 60 to 120 "hanger ons" who would never have though of it otherwise.

      It is not the "fault" of poor people who have trouble finding feeding themselves, they do not value the education their children get, because they know it's sh*t, and they do not have the time.
      If you'd force somebody making 200K+ to send their children to a "parking lot school" full of gang members, they would not really care so much about their children going there or not.

    26. Re:Charity Navigator by ChrisUK · · Score: 1

      Charity Navigator doesn't actually address the OP's question. They rate charities based on *efficiency*, but not based on *impact*. You can do a lot of things that have little impact but high "efficiency", and a lot of things with huge impact but high overhead. Efficiency is simply the wrong quantity.

      GiveWell (GiveWell.org) measures impact and effectiveness directly, and just put out their new list of recommended charities.

    27. Re:Charity Navigator by morari · · Score: 1

      I live in a low income area. The large majority of the inhabitants are [i]generational[/i] welfare families. The only work they do is scamming pharmacies for Oxycontin to sell to other welfare persons. Or worse yet, robbing working folk to pay for their own pain pill habit. When they start to run low on monthly rations, they tend to pop out a fourth or fifth kid to gain further subsidies. Now I'm sure that there are some that are simply down on their luck and are trying to get their shit together, but they are the overwhelming minority.

      Should they be sterilized? No, as the hope is for welfare programs to simply be a temporary safety-net. They should most certainly be required to take birth control however. [i]Real[/i] birth control, the kind you can't accidentally "forget" one morning. There are plenty of semiannual injections, for example. While we're at it, there should be mandatory drug testing every month as well. You slip up once (maybe twice) and you're out of the programs for life.

      Social welfare programs are a wonderful thing in theory, but the abuse is widespread and really seems to do more harm than good in my neck of the woods. Stronger regulations and appropriate enforcement should be put into place so that the stereotypical system-abusing piece of white trash can be minimized. We need to be backing people as they recover from a bad hand being dealt to them by life. We don't need to put pill-billies on easy street for generations and let them drag down the rest of society with them.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    28. Re:Charity Navigator by afidel · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I went to a nice suburban school district with one of the largest high schools in the state, in fact 9 of the top 10 schools by size in Ohio are in solidly middle class (to upper middle class depending on definition) suburbs. Inner city schools tend to be smaller as they service a specific neighborhood with almost all of the students walking to school (at least when they were built).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    29. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you may not have much experience with the regular public schools in "welfare neighborhoods"..

      Schools do not control a child's education, Parents do. "We" can provide the same education to children in a "middle class" school and a "welfare" school and the students in the "middle class" school will do much better.

      Bullshit. Your entire premise is wrong. "We" do not provide the same education. "We" never have.

      I suggest you get certified and volunteer at a school in North Philadelphia.

      Educational discrepancies are socioeconomic.

    30. Re:Charity Navigator by Pento · · Score: 1

      Oh, cool! You have a copy of shit_that_never_happened.txt, too!

    31. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a similar idea: A charity which pays child support arrearages (thus keeping deadbeat dads/moms out of jail) if they agree to be sterilized.

    32. Re:Charity Navigator by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You obviously don't understand the very conservative (not the B$ pretend conservative but actually ruthless exploiters) basis for effective social welfare nets.

      First up they help to stabilise the economy ie downturns reduce demand, producing more unemployment further reducing demand, social welfare puts a direct brake on this cycle.

      Next social welfare substantially reduces crime, don't accept this easy just look at the crime rate difference between countries with effective social welfare nets and those without, in fact look no further than North America ie. Canada, US, Mexico.

      Of course an effective social welfare net also has a direct outcome on health, basically because it reduces stresses within that society, fears about being able to pay for health care, fears about unemployment, fears for the future of the next generation.

      As for requiring a licence to be a parent, sounds like a fine idea and in fact should be part of the compact for a more complete social welfare net. You could even go the harsh route, chemically neuter everyone at birth and then make them earn their fertility.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    33. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a Microsoft employee?

    34. Re:Charity Navigator by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The name of a country reduces crime, don't accept this easy just look at the crime rate difference between countries with the letter a in their name and those without, in fact look no further than North America ie. Canada, United States, Mexico.

      Correlation. Causation. Learn the difference.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    35. Re:Charity Navigator by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's fundamentally no different than doing it to Jews or black people, there's no genetic sequence to identify those people either.

      So it's just a coincidence that black parents have black children, then? Or perhaps some chemical found in fried chicken and watermelons is able to migrate across the placenta?

      I know precisely what eugenics is. I take it you haven't noticed how it's been used in the past.

      You could say the same about bronze, chemistry and writing. A tool is a tool, it's the wielder who chooses good or evil.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:Charity Navigator by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The problem with many of the online charity rating services is that because information on religious charities isn't easy to access without federal tax reports, they tend to just exclude them, when they also tend to have some of the most cost effective.

      An example:
        The humanitarian arm of LDS Philanthropies:

      100 percent of all donations go to help those in need. No administrative costs are deducted by LDS Philanthropies or our affiliated charities

      They can do that because the church members cover all administrative costs with a different fund and volunteer time separately, so all donations can go to those in need.

      If you only care about humanitarian needs, then their approach of helping people in emergencies and also helping people become more self-reliant (clean water, food production, etc...) then donate online.

      The best incremental use of your money, IMHO.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    37. Re:Charity Navigator by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Lets be honest here, bullshit and reality, learn the difference. How many other countries have a more complete social welfare net than the US and a corresponding lower crime rate, let's stick with the English Speaking ones, hmm, Australia and the UK.

      That's fine you wrap yourself up in the greed driven B$, the high crime rate, housing estates as prisons people are scared to leave, the highest prison population in the world, law enforcement agencies that lie about crime statistics to make themselves look better, basically exploit your country to oblivion. You know all you have to do is compare the US to what it was thirty years ago to what it has become, and greed has been the root cause of the degradation.

      Correlate this, that list of the best cities in the world to lice, guess how the extent of their social welfare net 'correlates' to their rating, now how far down that list were US cities and what kind of social welfare net do those countries have whose cities are at the bottom of the list.

      Considering where you come from, you should be ashamed of yourself.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    38. Re:Charity Navigator by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      You still don't have a bloody clue, do you?

      There are thousands of factors that result in a low crime rate. Australia, the UK and the US? They correlate across hundreds of them, as does every other Western nation. You just picked out one that suits your political ideology, and are claiming that it is solely responsible for prosperity.

      Sorry, you're an idiot.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    39. Re:Charity Navigator by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      http://euc.sagepub.com/content/5/2/217.abstract

      http://www.mendeley.com/research/striking-roots-crime-impact-social-welfare-spending-crime-during-great-depression/

      http://www.allbusiness.com/government/international-organizations/13622477-1.html

      Of course there are many more articles covering the exact same thing, the direct correlation between social welfare and reduced crime rates. The only unfortunate thing is that there is lag between increasing social welfare spending and reducing crime, the damage has been done and it takes time to re-integrate the disaffected all because of greedy screaming right wing asshats.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    40. Re:Charity Navigator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karuna Sechen runs at 2% overhead and is one of the most efficient charities in the world. They are doing remarkable work.

      http://www.karuna-shechen.org/

    41. Re:Charity Navigator by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Eugenics is selecting based on inherited traits. You can object to both practices without them being the same thing. This organization is doing something that you may object to. But it's distinct from eugenics. That doesn't make it right (or wrong), just different.

      If you are cutting off the breeding capacity of a swathe of society you are effectively engaging in selective breeding. The sort of people who are rich and good at working will be allowed to breed, and their genes will be passed on, whilst those who are less good and make the mistake of losing their job will have their genes' future cut off.

      I really don't see how this is different from eugenics.

      You selectively breed cattle so that they produce a lot of milk or beef. Social engineers would love to be able to have a human population of fanatically hard working drones.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:Charity Navigator by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 1

      The third category -- and this is what I'm talking about here -- are the unskilled welfare queens. They are almost always minorities and other immigrants who need a way to citizenship to pay for their 5 kids they had while working for McDonald's. Let's not kid ourselves here - most of these are not heroes. They signed up because they dug themselves into that hole, and they still get better(taxpayer-funded) healthcare than many civilians. Sterilization of those should be mandatory upon enlistment.

      >

      It seems like a futile effort to sterilize them after already having 5 kids.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    43. Re:Charity Navigator by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      But selective breeding for traits that are not inherited isn't Eugenics. It's not anything.

      If you selectively breed for people who's middle initials is "K", you accomplish nothing. Because our names are not passed on genetically.

      That economic status tends to prevail across generations is a happenstance of environment, not generics. Can the effect be the same as Eugenics? Sure. But it's not the same thing.

      Morally equivalent? Perhaps. But not the same.

      Let's take it a step further. If Eugenicists succeed, it pushes populations out of the breeding pool. Whatever race is deemed inferior will (if they're successful) disappear. No more black people, or jewish people, or whoever they deem undesirable.

      But if you selectively breed out poor people, or people who like plaid, or anything else that's not passed on in genes, it doesn't keep other people from having those traits later. A person who has well off parents is likely to be well off themselves. But they're not guaranteed. The course their life takes can change that.

      But a person born white, or a red head, or black or Persian will remain so his or her entire life. If you exterminate them, they're gone. That's the practical difference between this and Eugenics.

      Again, I'm not supporting this. Just trying to explain that while there are similarities, it's not Eugenics.

  2. I just give all my Bing points to whatever charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just give all my Bing points to whatever charity Microsoft recommends on their Bing points microsoft charity page.

  3. Save the Children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Save the Children works on many worthwhile causes and only has 8% administrative overhead, one of the lowest of any charitable organizations. I trust them.

    1. Re:Save the Children by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      No child['s] behind left?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    2. Re:Save the Children by garbyte · · Score: 1

      My thought goes to The Human Ape project- a pioneering project to study and rescue a disappearing tribe. Read details at http://www.betterplace.org/en/projects/4597-human-development-intitute and http://thehumanape.org/ if it helps.

  4. Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it to me!

    1. Re:Me by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1
      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    2. Re:Me by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So you are suggesting to donate to Anonymous?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. None by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been profoundly disappointed by all charities I gave to or came in contact with professionally.
    Give your time to something close to you, not your money.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    1. Re:None by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      Must agree, I give time to Silver Surfer groups with two of my local libraries. Being time rich and cash poor the payback from the groups in terms of what I have done for them over the month says more about me than cash ever can. The groups and I can see exactly where the effort has gone and all parties are well pleased with the results. With rising levels of unemployment and falling local budgets giving time may well be on the rise, a win-win for all.

    2. Re:None by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I give time to Silver Surfer groups

      You seek out life bearing worlds for Galactus to eat? You monster!

    3. Re:None by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On paper all charities are the same, walk to one, see if you like the people and put your money there.

    4. Re:None by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Or even working with your own money to making something that would help loads of people, such as solar lights, cheap long term batteries, cheap and quick cleaning methods for fluids and so on.
      Clean drinking water and power would help considerably, even more than food would. (human body can last for days on water alone)
      That water and power would then lead to food, better food, more food for all.

      No, instead lets just constantly send over water in huge containers and give food instead of learning people how to farm and work with tools to get clean water.
      It saddens me that the ones who supposedly are there to help people do the most insanely obtuse things with respect to "helping".
      Apparently they haven't heard of tough love.
      This isn't all of them of course, but most of them are pretty obtuse when it comes down to the helping part.

    5. Re:None by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      There is this guy who hangs out on my street in NY that I've known for 15 years.

      He is about 60, doesn't need a home or food but needs medications to breath from lung cancer which costs about 80 bucks a week, his mother and brother died last year, he spent the last month in the hospital and every now and then some dumb cop (usually while the U.N. is in session) will ticket him for soliciting and he'll spend the night in jail, the judge lets him go because he obviously can't pay the ticket.

      I've given him 5 bucks a week for the last 12 years if any one else wants to help him or better yet someone like him closer to you then I suggest you do.

      Fuck tax returns. Fuck religion. Fuck doing it for a reason.

      He makes me feel like a caring human and that is good enough for me!!!

    6. Re:None by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Donate local and there'll be less overheads eating up your charity dollar.

    7. Re:None by brusk · · Score: 1

      That is illogical. First, why would it make a difference whether I send $100 to the Red Cross in my town vs the Red Cross on the other side of the country? Second, less overhead =/= most good. If I give the $100 to a charity that gives free medical care overseas, where it is more needed than in my community, there might be overhead that is unavoidable in running long-distance operations, but the work won't be done otherwise. And finally, there is a certain fungibility to donations. If, for example, a charity gets free advertising from media sponsors, none of its donations go to that, whereas another agency might have to spend part of its income on publicity. It's not clear to me that the second charity is worse for doing so.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    8. Re:None by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Which ones were you disappointed by and why? And what is your profession?

      If you're doing IT or accounting or legal work at HQ offices in major cities, then I can see how your expectations would be out of line with reality.

      OTOH, if your professional contact was actually in the field (or on the streets) in the actual program activities and you're still profoundly disappointed, then I'm going to call you a cynic or label you as having an agenda other than that of the economics of charitable giving.

    9. Re:None by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. charities are primarily in the business of selling good feeling about yourself, rather than actually helping.

    10. Re:None by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      So instead, find out what the STEM type teachers in your local middle/high school need, and give them a grant of $ w/ condition that it is used to purchase such items.

      School board stuff is tax deductible. And I think every poster on /. would like to see more/better STEM teaching...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    11. Re:None by ChrisUK · · Score: 1

      As has already been argued, this is not a good idea if you're trying to maximize impact, as the OP is.

      This is because the kinds of tasks that dramatically improve quality of life are tasks that you could pay people significantly less (than you earn at your job) to do better at than you would. It follows that it would be better to work an extra hour, and then pay ten people to do the hour of work that you would otherwise volunteer instead.

    12. Re:None by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I've been profoundly disappointed by all charities I gave to or came in contact with professionally.

      My experience is that local charities are basically run by a bunch of well meaning people that squabble over how little money they have, and it sometimes gets nasty.

      Charities that I'd consider donating to right now (Red Cross and Salvation Army are currently on my shit list for a couple different reasons):
      Heifer Project International
      The EFF

    13. Re:None by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      OK, history with no specific names:
      - I was giving money to a cancer research assoc., whose boss ended up in prison for stealing from the assoc.
      - I was giving my blood to a blood bank that was knowingly not recalling un-heated blood, and not heating blood, at the start of the AIDS crisis, to save money.

      I work in IT.
      - One of my clients was a diabetes organization. Don't go there before 10 AM or after 4:30 pm: very light workdays.
      - During my travels, I often came across XXX assoc dignitaries travelling first-class, and once was invited to the local palace of one of them, with servants and everything.

      In the end, all supposed charitable orgs. I've come across were mainly self-serving.

      I'm sure there are people in the field for those orgs that are doing great work. I'm just not ready to pay the tax that the fat cats in central offices levy.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    14. Re:None by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      There are bad seeds in any organization, from for-profit corporations to religious organizations to charities. Why judge by the bad apple?

      Which one was travelling first class? If they were, you should tell us.

      None I've ever worked with have authorized business/first class travel. Most fly NGO rates. When airline staff find out who I'm working for, I am often offered free upgrades, which I more often than not decline. Most NGO and charity workers are very aware of the appearance of impropriety.

      FWIW, I've also stayed in some incredibly nice hotels as a part of the job and in every instance, the room/stay were in-kind donations.

      Seems to me you had 2-3 (?) negative experiences in high visibility circmstances that you might have misinterpreted and are using that to paint all charitable organizations with the same brush and are stating so in a public forum. I'm sorry your experiences have been negative, but that's not even remotely close to being fair.

    15. Re:None by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      I've had no experience pointing the other way, either.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    16. Re:None by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I was actually often wondering if, rather than donating to a charity organization, one could get much more effective by directly seeking out people need help - as in, one family, or even just one person - and giving it to them directly.

      The downside is that my employer won't match my donations that way. The upside is that I could actually see exactly how the money is spent, and whether or not it actually made someone's life that much better.

    17. Re:None by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      one could get much more effective by directly seeking out people need help - as in, one family, or even just one person - and giving it to them directly.

      Yeah, there was an article linked from Freakonomics a few [weeks,months] back that reviewed charity rating systems, and one of the ones they were talking about does just that. It's a young charity without a track record yet, but their charity model is to find a person in need and give them money.

      The theory is that they know better how to spend that money to help themselves than some office person at an NGO in Brussels.

      I hope that's true. If they're educated enough it probably is.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  6. really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about something close to home, efficiency doesn't always go along with need.

    1. Re:really? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2

      Good advice.

      It may not be as efficient, but donate to a local Occupy movement. Particularly in the northern climates, they need money for food, clothing, blankets, etc.. as these people are camping out (sometimes without camping gear because local ordinances do not allow it).

      As a gift that keeps on giving, these people are doing things that will beneift YOU in the long run.

    2. Re:really? by msauve · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "donate to a local Occupy movement"

      Nope. They're where they are voluntarily. And, since it's not a formal non-profit organization, no tax credit.

      Instead, donate to a local food bank (they can use cash contributions, too) which serves families which are involuntarily in need.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:really? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That's also a good way to ensure that you actually know what your money is doing. There are a lot of hare-brained NGO schemes out there, with people wanting to "save the world" in ways that often produce unintended consequences (like American food aid putting African farmers out of business). Like with the advice to "invest in what you know", imo it's better to donate to things that you understand.

    4. Re:really? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      That's also a good way to ensure that you actually know what your money is doing. There are a lot of hare-brained NGO schemes out there, with people wanting to "save the world" in ways that often produce unintended consequences (like American food aid putting African farmers out of business). Like with the advice to "invest in what you know", imo it's better to donate to things that you understand.

      Except we can all agree that there are more Africans without the food they need.

      If in doubt, stick with organizations who have been doing their work for longer. The Red Cross was started to get medical supplies to the Spanish-American war and they primarily seek to help those in most need: victims of disaster (be it natural or man-made).

      Disclaimer: I'm a volunteer at my local Red Cross chapter. Giving money is good but there is no replacement for giving time as well.

    5. Re:really? by Galestar · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. If someone believes in their cause, but lacks the availability to participate themselves, donating is a very good way to support them. Just because *you* personally don't believe in their cause does not mean no-one else does. Most likely you misunderstand their motives; I would suggest you read/watch something other than the (corporate) main-stream media.

      2. OWS applied for 501(c)(3) since October, and accepts tax-deductible donations.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:really? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Don't try to make it out like I tried to make this political. That was the GP. The poster referenced some global, non-political, needs based charities he was interested in supporting. I replied to a blatantly political suggestion, myself suggesting a local, non-political, needs base charity might be a good option.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    7. Re:really? by Galestar · · Score: 1

      Don't try to make it out like I tried to make this political.

      I didn't try to make out like you made it politic. I did however try to point out that you were rejecting his suggestion based on your own political beliefs and hiding it that fact under the guise of "they aren't as needy". Also you lied about its ability to accept tax-deductible donations. You need to learn to accept when you're wrong instead of going on the offense.

      --
      AccountKiller
    8. Re:really? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Also you lied about its ability to accept tax-deductible donations.

      I don't see any indication that he lied. Note that lying is not saying something which isn't true. Lying means saying something of which you think it is not true. That is, if you say wrong things because you believe them, then you are not lying. And if you say the truth under the assumption that it is not the truth, then you are lying, even though you tell the truth. So unless you have any indication that he knew otherwise, you have no base to claim that he lied.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:really? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Donating to OWS is not a charity, it is political fundraising. Not to say that it's bad, just don't misrepresent it for what it ain't.

    10. Re:really? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      It's certainly a charity to help people that need necessities. If you don't agree with the reason they're out there, are you just going to let the freeze and starve? I'd say that's more of a political statement than anything.

    11. Re:really? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's certainly a charity to help people that need necessities. If you don't agree with the reason they're out there, are you just going to let the freeze and starve? I'd say that's more of a political statement than anything.

      Being a leftie, I'm somewhat sympathetic to OWS, so don't try that trick on me. They are out on the streets because they want to be there, not because they have nowhere else to go. As such, they're not a charity. If they don't want to "freeze and starve", they can spend their time on something more conductive towards that goal.

      (Note, this is as it pertains to OWS as a whole. I know that some of the people taking part are poor and homeless. There are many charity organizations that provide relief to that category.)

      What OWS is, is a political protest movement. Which is well and good, but giving to them is merely supporting your political beliefs with your dollars - it has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. Charity is giving when you don't expect to receive anything in return.

    12. Re:really? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      I said "A local occupy movement", not OWS. Local movements have various reasons for being there, and believe it or not, there are plenty of conservatives standing shoulder to shoulder with them.

      OWS, and the various local movements are NOT a political movement, they're a social movement, trying to make social change happen for everyone who's not making millions of dollars, regardless of their political affiliation.

      Sure, Liberals tend to be more drawn to it, but that seems to be largely becuase so many conservatives are brainwashed by fox news into thinking it's the liberal version of tea party rally's.

    13. Re:really? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      believe it or not, there are plenty of conservatives standing shoulder to shoulder with them.

      Well, I've yet to meet one conservative who'd be supportive of the movement. But I've seen weirder things, so fine, I'll take it for granted. So what?

      OWS, and the various local movements are NOT a political movement, they're a social movement, trying to make social change happen for everyone who's not making millions of dollars, regardless of their political affiliation.

      "Making social change" is inherently a political goal. That's why we use political labels such as "conservatives" (those who want keep things the way they are, or the way they used to be) and "progressives" (those that want to change it, usually in some way they consider an advancement over any preceding state).

      You're still trying to redefine what charity is. No matter how you spin it, not OWS nor local "occupy" movements have any semblance or relation to charity organizations.

  7. Trees by ThomasLB · · Score: 2

    I like The Fruit Tree Planting Foundation. It's good for the environment, it creates pretty parks, and it feeds people. http://www.ftpf.org/

  8. Happy Christmas From the Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for being a friend
    Traveled down the road and back again
    your heart is true you're a pal and a cosmonaut

    And if you threw a party
    Invited everyone you knew
    You would see, the biggest gift would be from me
    and the card attached would say,
    Thank you for being a friend

    1. Re:Happy Christmas From the Golden Girls! by bhengh · · Score: 2

      Was Yuri Gagarin one of the Golden Girls?

  9. American Red Cross - worst? by v1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I read recently that the American Red Cross is one of several charities that "carefully walk the line" of being a nonprofit organization, and that 49% of their take goes to "administrative costs". (their "administrative staff" are very well-paid) Can anyone confirm or deny this?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Confirm. My uncle retired from the ARC with a *very* good pension. I'd never give a dime to ARC.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    2. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by heypete · · Score: 3, Informative

      More like 3.9%.

    3. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably something like 50% go towards employees, both administrative and active. I think the CEO earns like $2 million a year.
      On the other hand, the American Red Cross is bigger than 450 of the Fortune 500 companies, and to get someone who can run a company that size, you'll need to pay them well.

    4. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      92.1 percent of revenues for program expenses is very good. So, 49 percent to administrative costs is way off, according to Charity Navigator.

      However, their CEO got paid a million bucks this year - outrageous even by the standards of big name charities. I still wrote them a check, though. I figure they have the scale to get in quickly after disaster (earthquake, tsunami) strikes and make a difference.

      I used to donate every year to Project Hope, but stopped when I found out how much the CEO was making (about $600K, a little less this year). International Rescue Committee is one of the smaller charities I'm now supporting.

    5. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, but what does one person retiring with "a very good pension" say about how high the administrative costs are vs program costs? Charity Navigator says ARC has a 3.9% administrative cost. The parent post claims 49% administrative cost (which is insanely high). If you believe Charity Navigator, he's only off by an order of magnitude.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Interesting

      +4 insightful?

      It must be the Christmas eggnog.

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

      *shakes head sadly*

    7. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you are trolling: Only 3.9% in admin expenses.

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

    8. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 1, Informative

      It should be obvious to someone who posts here. Think about it.

      During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized. What wasn't publicized was the fact that ARC would charge enlisted men a dime for the same thing. When my father learned of this (he was an officer), he demanded that his men be given the same deal. When ARC refused, he gave them their doughnuts and coffee back, and spread the story among the other officers.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    9. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 1

      3.9% sounds low until you figure it out in dollars.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    10. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A quote from the comments section on Charity Navigator:

      I have worked for the ARC for over 11 years now as both a volunteer and a paid staff member. The organization is very top heavy with mostly overpaid executives at the National Headquarters in Washington DC. Generally the volunteers and staff "in the field" are the ones who go to great lengths to serve clients. Many positions in the field have been eliminated in recent years as the executives in the "ivory tower" protect their own salaries and positions. Our Service Members and their families are now served mostly by call centers empoyees who are inexperienced instead of caring employees working alongside our military throughout the world.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    11. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    12. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have a very good history. And it's leadership doesn't show a lot of leadership in the terms of take-home-pay:
      $995,718.00. Gail J. McGovern President, CEO
      From the Better Business Beauro

      $47,005 covers one month of her compensation.

      I have yet to see what the compensation is for the other employees. Clearly the past CEOs were paid well when they mismanaged the Red Cross.

      For just a LITTLE bit of (fairly recent) history (although before the current CEO):

      In addition, the Red Cross’s continued mismanagement of the nation’s blood supply has resulted in penalties of $6.3 million by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) thus far in 2008 alone. The Red Cross reports that it paid out over $20 million in penalties for violations of safety regulations over the past five years.

      References:
      http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/Red_Cross_Pays_Fines.html
      http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277
      http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/human-services/american-red-cross-in-washington-dc-679

    13. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It charged because the Army told it to. C'mon, a 5-digit Slashdotter should know about Snopes.

    14. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Vellmont · · Score: 2


      It should be obvious to someone who posts here. Think about it.

      I did think about it. My conclusion is that anecdotal evidence of one person who doesn't even mention numbers ("very good pension") is completely irrelevant when trying to get a handle on administrative costs vs program costs.

      During WWII, ARC would give away free coffee and doughnuts to officers, and that was well-publicized

      Yes, and as someone else pointed out, ARC was asked to do this by the U.S. Army:

      The request was made in a March 1942 letter from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to Norman H. Davis, chairman of the American Red Cross. Because American soldiers were fighting as part of the Allied Forces, matters had to be considered on a Force-wide rather than solely American basis. The Red Cross was asked to establish club facilities for U.S. servicemen overseas where Allied troops would be welcome. Because English and Australian soldiers were being charged for the use of such facilities, it was deemed unfair that Americans were to get similar benefits for free, especially in light of their pay already being higher than that of their Allied counterparts. For the good of the alliance, the American Red Cross was persuaded to exact nominal charges from American GIs for off-base food and lodging.

      So what's your evidence again?

      --
      AccountKiller
    15. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Grygus · · Score: 1

      C'mon. That exact paragraph could be written by the vast majority of employees everywhere. People always think the ones above them are overpaid and underworked, and they always try to sweeten this stance by pretending to cry on the customer's behalf. The lie is evident in the presentation, though; the customer doesn't care how much people are paid in absolute terms; only results matter to them. So all the comments about the organization being "top heavy" and the saintliness about people "in the field" reveal the entire rant as entirely self-serving. You should not listen to this with any seriousness.

    16. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Grygus · · Score: 1

      I take it you do not understand how percentages work.

    17. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Having spent most of the 2000's working in and amongst charities directly, I'd say the Red Cross is just being (refreshingly) honest with their administrative costs.

      The majority of charities I've encountered roll almost all admin costs in to their programs as a way of hiding the actual figures from casual view, be that from investors, donors, or for purposes of grant applications, or government bureaucracy. Creative accounting at its finest. Running a charity doesn't happen for free, the overheads are the same as for any other business.

      I'd say most charities claiming to use less than 30% of income on admin are simply not being completely forthcoming.

      Having said that, admin costs exist, they are a reality, charities live and die by their ability to manage these figures. It's a poor metric to base your donation on.

    18. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've volunteered for the Red Cross. They do some very good things. But in my experience, they are a bit too interested in keeping too much of what's donated for themselves and their volunteers. That said, when there is a giant problem in another part of the world, I think funneling money through them is probably a good idea...at least you know some of it will make it through.

    19. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Is there a double standard for how we as a society judge pay rates? What is the average take home pay for the private sector CEOs of companies in the same organizational size range? What is the range of payment between lowest paid and highest paid in the non-profit compared to the for-profit sectors?

      With that said, you are perfectly within your rights to decide not to donate to an organization that you think is not doing what you want them to do with your money.

    20. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Yes, but 3.9% of however many dollars it is is *literally* less than the "confirmed" 49% that is being alleged.

      That "confirmed" "fact" got +4 insightful.

      Five seconds on Google clearly shows otherwise. That's all my point is. It could be $5, it could be $5,000,000 dollars, it could be $50,000,000. The point is, it's not 49% of their gross take.

    21. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. American Red Cross SUCKS. I feel really uncomfortable giving money to a "charity" where the CEO makes over 300,000 dollars. DO NOT GIVE THEM MONEY.

    22. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correction...the CEO of American Red Cross makes a salary of over $500,000/year. Without even considering the political agenda of American Red Cross, that salary alone should make someone think twice before giving any money to them. That's just the CEO--the organization is very heavy with upper management. Donate elsewhere.

    23. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm always shocked by how much FUD is spread about the Red Cross. This is a nearly indespensible organization and therefore receives nearly all of my charitable giving.

    24. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a double standard for how we as a society judge pay rates?

      I doubt it. I am personally offended by executives in private organizations who take home what I consider to be too much pay (especially if they abuse their employees and/or their customers). That's why I don't buy Apple products (anymore, although I bought a Mac before the Internet became public and it was easier to learn about immoral corporate greed). I don't use Paypal and I don't use Amazon. Of course most people would demonize me as being some type of Richard Stallman wannabe. It doesn't matter. I've had long hair growing up, and people thought I was some ignorant, uneducated loser. I guess it's part of my personality not to like rich people because I remember people saying that they would never invite me to their house because they are afraid that I might steal something (seeing as that I am poor, and most people in the neighbourhood were middle class). It's also curious that many of these same people would have high school charity dances for, guess what, poor people.

      Nope, I have a definite prejudice against overpaid executives, whether they do their work for charity or not. The "charity" bit just highlights the hypocrisy of it all.

    25. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't actually READ what I posted, did you? ARE was charging enlisted men while giving officers stuff for free. Thats a DIFFERENT issue than you raise, which was American vs. Aussie troops.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    26. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 1

      Until you do a little research. Look into the side of the BOD of ARC and what the executives get paid. It's all public information. I think you'll be surprised.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    27. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 1

      And that assumption would be wrong.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    28. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by erc · · Score: 1

      And you are absolutely correct - given that you are INFORMED as to both sides of the issue. People are easily swayed by emotional appeals presented on TV, which doesn't present the other side of the story nearly as often. People too easily forget the fiasco after 9/11, when the money given by people that was SPECIFICALLY earmarked to be used for 9/11 victims and survivors was instead used to buy a bunch of shiny new comms gear for ARC.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    29. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to do your research rather than spreading this piece of misinformation. You do a phenomenal charity an injustice.

    30. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by xyzzy42 · · Score: 1

      you can go to guidestar.org and look at the actual Form 990 from 2009. Here it is:
      http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2010/530/196/2010-530196605-06d0f01c-9.pdf
      On page 10 you can see their functional expenses. From the totals line you can see where Charity Navigator gets its figures.
      On Schedule J page 2 you can see the salaries and benefits paid to all board members and highly compensated employees.
      This is all public information. Guidestar simply aggregates it.

    31. Re:American Red Cross - worst? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't mind that your money is helping pay their CEO's $500,000/yr. salary.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  10. LiteracyBridge.org by rbowen · · Score: 2

    Www.LiteracyBridge.org - effective use of technology to make life better for real people. Worth your time (they're open source) and money.

    --
    Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
    1. Re:LiteracyBridge.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your posts are still tagged with your "scarlet letter", despite this not being a sponsored Ask Slashdot.

      Well, I *hope* it's not sponsored...

    2. Re:LiteracyBridge.org by rbowen · · Score: 2

      No, it's just there to indicate that I'm an employee of a discount company, and therefore anything I say can be discounted as simply kowtowing to my corporate overlords. Or something like that.

      However, I'm involved in the LiteracyBridge project (documentation) and the founder of it, Cliff Schmidt, is a long-time colleague at the Apache Software Foundation, and one of my heroes.

      --
      Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
    3. Re:LiteracyBridge.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worth your time (they're open source)

      I'm sorry, but my experiences with attempting to dual-boot OpenBSD and Haiku have taught me that open source is never worth my time.

  11. Salvation Army by trout007 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What I like about the Salvation Army is they operate under the principle that people will always donate and they spend the money as it is donated.

    The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared. They take money from big events and hold some of it over for other operations. What bothers me about this is it seems like they don't trust people to donate when something happens.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If only they did not have an anti-gay agenda, I would concur.

    2. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to the following link:

      http://www.charitynavigator.org

      They rate charities based on many factors including over head expenses, financial stability, etc.

      Good Luck!

    3. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I can't mod this up so I'll just add my voice to the comment.
      The Salvation Army is one of the better charities I have come across, I make it a point every year to donate either money, food, clothing or time.

    4. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Have you actually read up on SA? It is called an "Army" for a reason. They consider themselves God's Army. Discriminate lots. Try to convert people. And lots of stuff that sparks debate.

    5. Re:Salvation Army by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It takes time for donations to wind up as available cash to spend on disaster relief. Do you think when you make a credit card donation the money is instantly transferred to the charity? From what I've heard this can sometimes take months.

      I'm no charitable donations expert, but I'd guess that donations don't all come in at once, but slowly over a period of weeks. If a major disaster occurs, do you think a charity should just wait around for the money to come in, or start acting right away? Acting right away requires having money on hand.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Salvation Army by wolvesofthenight · · Score: 2

      Actually, there are budget models other than that of the U.S. government. Many of those models include saving money for anticipated large expenses, or for possible disasters. Some also include spending money where and when it is most needed - even if that requires saving it awhile. Instead of judging them on how quickly they spend donations, I suggest judging them on how effectively they use the money for their stated goals, and be sure to check a time period of at least a decade.

      --
      -WolvesOfTheNight
    7. Re:Salvation Army by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      If only they did not have an anti-gay agenda, I would concur.

      The Salvation Army is not anti-gay. Sure, they are not pro-gay, but that doesn't make the anti-gay.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:Salvation Army by sjashe · · Score: 3

      They always get my money.. I'm on the way out to ring the bell now.

    9. Re:Salvation Army by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      If they didn't have a hypocritical religious bent, I'd donate also. Locally they hang around bars and racetracks but condemn drinking and gambling. It smacks of hypocrisy to me.

    10. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Unfortunately, the Salvation Army has a documented history of refusing to provide shelter to gay couples and families unless the couple first separates. They once threatened to close all their NYC soup kitchens over the city requiring charities to adhere to all their civil rights laws.

    11. Re:Salvation Army by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Your city must be corruptive. Down here, the local RC's are very straight, but pleasantly open and accepting. I wouldn't party with them or even sit an evening's discourse, but I certainly wouldn't disparage them as a group.

      And of course, we all know those who post here aren't hypocritical with any of their own views. You and myself in particular.

    12. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I consider forbidding gay people to work for them to be anti gay.

    13. Re:Salvation Army by gregchang · · Score: 0

      This time of year the Salvation Army is a pest. Their storefront beggars clang their bells too loudly and hurts my ears.

    14. Re:Salvation Army by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, its the whole anti-gay agenda that bothers rational people about the SA as well as they're close relations to their own evangelical arm and partners.

      I give to secular charities, thank you very much.

    15. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've also been known to destroy books and presents which they don't feel reflect their Christian foundation. For this reason I would never, ever give a dime or an hour of my time to the Salvation Army.

    16. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/12/the-salvation-army-ringing-anti-gay-bells-this-holiday-season/

    17. Re:Salvation Army by catbutt · · Score: 1

      Yeah but you are missing the point. The important thing is, the more donations come in to a particular cause, the more money they should be spending on that particular cause. If they have any credit (which obviously, the Red Cross does), they can do this before the "cash" is technically available.

    18. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gandhi believed that charitable organizations should function day-to-day and not save donations. His reasoning was that if people no longer wanted to contribute money, the charity should cease to exist.

      captcha: dissolve

    19. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They won't provide services to gay & lesbian families, and have tried to force gay & lesbian couples to break up before helping them. That's pretty anti-gay.

    20. Re:Salvation Army by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared. "

      No shit?

      Good luck beating donation lag when you need to cut checks for response teams, supplies and other urgent needs immediately!

      http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.1a019a978f421296e81ec89e43181aa0/?vgnextoid=f9efd2a1ac6ae210VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Salvation Army by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who's been down and out more than once, I'd concur that the Salvation Army is far and away .the most helpful organization when it comes to feeding needy people. I always make it a point to help them (if I can), and always tell people that they've helped me when nobody else would. Labelling them as anti-gay is a spurious argument. They ARE a church for goodness sake. Name one church that isn't anti-gay. They still help people.

    22. Re:Salvation Army by Joe+Decker · · Score: 1

      The Salvation Army is not anti-gay. Sure, they are not pro-gay, but that doesn't make the anti-gay.

      Bull. Not providing services to homeless people *because* they're gay? That's anti-gay.

      Threatening to pull out of providing services if they have to honor city laws on employment discrimination? That's anti-gay.

      Get real. Do some research.

    23. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARC is constantly handing out the money that gets donated. House burns down? ARC gets involved to help the now-homeless residents.
      They don't wait for a big disaster. They also get TONS of call from people who have been turned away by everyone else ... including the Salvation Army.

    24. Re:Salvation Army by slaad · · Score: 1

      If only they did not have an anti-gay agenda, I would concur.

      The Salvation Army is not anti-gay. Sure, they are not pro-gay, but that doesn't make the anti-gay.

      Decide for yourself.

      From http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/B6F3F4DF3150F5B585257434004C177D
      (Pick Homosexuality from the sidebar)

      Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

      Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse.

      To me, the expectation for a group of people to remain celibate is demeaning and a way of mistreating them. Sex is a very basic human function. It is unrealistic to expect a group to be able to do so even if they say that they choose to. And for the vast majority that don't choose to, expecting that is flat out demeaning. So to me, this an anti-gay position that they attempt to mask quite poorly.

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    25. Re:Salvation Army by DaveGod · · Score: 1

      The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared.

      This is bad because..?

      With disasters, the critical factor is speed of response. The Red Cross has supply drops touching down before donations have cleared the bank.

    26. Re:Salvation Army by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don't have mod points, but I agree. I'm also an atheist, but I have to say that the Salvation Army does very good work with very low overhead.

    27. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they hang around bars and racetracks but condemn drinking and gambling

      You don't find people to convince to stop drinking and gambling by sitting on your duff in a pew all day.

      And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, âoeWhy does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?â And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, âoeThose who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.â

    28. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. And who isn't an Agnostic these days?

    29. Re:Salvation Army by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They are not the only ones who help people, though, and others who do are not anti-gay.

      I mean, do you seriously want to give money to people who'll use a threat of withholding them to try to force homosexual pairs to break up, or for communities to repeal gay-friendly laws?

    30. Re:Salvation Army by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They explicitly refuse service to gays. At some point they threatened to shut down their soup kitchens in NYC because they didn't like the local law that required them to not discriminate against gays when hiring

      Even though an atheist, I don't mind giving to charities run by religious organizations - some of them are really efficient at what they do, and that's what ultimately counts - but when they use my money to promote their moral agenda, as Salvation Army does, they can go fuck themselves.

    31. Re:Salvation Army by griblik · · Score: 1

      The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared. They take money from big events and hold some of it over for other operations. What bothers me about this is it seems like they don't trust people to donate when something happens.

      I have a friend who used to work for one of the large charitable organisations as a statistician. He always said that his org didn't spend the money donated directly, they invested it. I know that sounds Bad and I didn't like the sound of my charity donations going into stocks, until he pointed out that the return on the investments meant that after a while, this strategy meant they ended up with a lot more to spend on charitable works than they could have done if they had just spent the donations. It made such a difference that it would have been irresponsible of them to just go out and spend.

      So in some cases, it's not a war chest they're building. It's the charity squeezing as much benefit out of your donation as they possibly can and that, I think, is a very good thing.

      By the way, he also said that one-off donations basically just pay for the campaign that solicited them. The campaign also gains them a smaller number of regular payments, and those are what funds good works. So if you're thinking about giving, consider signing up for a monthly payment instead of a one-off. It makes a difference.

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
    32. Re:Salvation Army by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the Red Cross should have a lean, hand-to-mouth budget, then give lots of money to financial institutions in the hopes that said financial institutions will always be there when needed, immediately after a disaster. Then spend money hand-over-fist because of getting lots of money, then return to a lean, hand-to-mouth budget.

      And, somehow, this is better than being financially prepared for a disaster, spending only on what they know will be helpful in a given instance, regardless of how much the instance makes the news, and saving any windfall for the next disaster.

    33. Re:Salvation Army by boudie2 · · Score: 0

      Well, to put it simply, I think gay marriage as a concept is stupid.

    34. Re:Salvation Army by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      I am not aware of any such policy here. But it's not just a different city but a different country so it's possible that its varies from place to place.

      On refusing service to gay in NYC... you mean they have some sort of sexuality text or oath before the soup kitchen will feed someone?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    35. Re:Salvation Army by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      That article is all about an employer-employee dispute it doesn't say "They explicitly refuse service to gays." as you have said. And the article is about what the gay paper reported they might do - back in May 2004 - almost 8 years ago. Perhaps something a little more recent about what they do now as far as service to gays? That's what you were saying - that they denied services to gays which, even from that old article, sounds like it isn't the case.

      On the benefits to partners of gay employees I am surprised that isn't something controlled by state law - I think it would be controlled by Provincial and Federal law here. It seems to me that if gays are allowed to legally marry in NY then wouldn't the law there require their spouses to be given the same treatment as straight spouses?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    36. Re:Salvation Army by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Credit card payments are instant (or a matter of days). It's thanks to this little invention you might have heard of called the Internet.

    37. Re:Salvation Army by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That article is all about an employer-employee dispute it doesn't say "They explicitly refuse service to gays." as you have said.

      That was a reference for the NYC story about soup kitchens, which was not about refusing service to gays.

      For a longer list of how exactly Salvation Army manifests itself as a group of bigots, you might want to start here; but, really, Google and Wikipedia is all you need.

    38. Re:Salvation Army by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      ok so it seems that they did not in fact close down NYC soup kitchens over that issue. I think it would be a mistake for either side of this issue to use homeless, hungry people as bargaining chips.

      My only other comment is that the article you last linked to recommends some alternatives and strictly from the point of view of what happens to your money I wouldn't donate to the Red Cross. I've never seen anything negative about the other three, OTOH none of them deal with the kind of homelessness I see on my city's streets - single men sleeping under bridges, in parks etc. with no food and inadequate clothing for the weather.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    39. Re:Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we can pray that you remain among the folks that they've prejudged as Salvationable... And that you never regret spending your monies and parts of your life supporting said prejudging organizations

    40. Re:Salvation Army by trout007 · · Score: 1

      I give plenty of money to all different organizations. The problem I have with the Red Cross is that they are dishonest. If you want to have cash on hand to prepare for future disasters fine. But at least be honest and open about it. And don't put commercials on TV asking for donations to help victims of some high profile disaster when you know full well that money isn't going towards it.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  12. To Ron Paul's Tea Party Moneybomb of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/

  13. Boys and Girls Clubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I donate to the local Boys and Girls Club directly in my community. They're mission is focused on serving kids in the community that are economically disadvantaged, so I find it to be a very worthy cause. Secondly, when I give directly, I do not incur a processing fee, which would happen if I gave through the United Way.

  14. Cut out the middle man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're just wanting to make a difference to someone, and not the tax write-off, find a family struggling to make ends meet and be their holiday benefactor, or give out sack lunches to the homeless, or volunteer at a soup kitchen. No better way to make sure your kindness does the most good than to do it yourself.

  15. That Mormon welfare program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I dunno what it is called, but I always hear about them after natural disasters, and I'm pretty sure none of donations go to pay anybody's salaries.

    1. Re:That Mormon welfare program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:That Mormon welfare program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's correct. The Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) accepts donations in several categories, with tithing and philanthropic donations being separate. 100% of donations to the philanthropic category are used for philanthropic purposes. Administrative fees are paid out of the tithing category.

      Here's a list of the available charities:
      http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/
      http://lds.org/service/humanitarian/lds-charities?lang=eng

      Here's a place to donate:
      https://secure3.convio.net/ldsp/site/Donation2?df_id=2400&2400.donation=form1&mboxSession=1324149698162-662573

  16. Wikipedia by Rynor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia might be a nice option too, the knowledge they provide to everyone free of charge makes it a good charity in my opinion.

    1. Re:Wikipedia by abigor · · Score: 1

      Agreed, this is one of my charities of choice, the other being the local SPCA, to whom I give on a monthly basis.

    2. Re:Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the only way to improve the situation in 3rd world regions is to shrink those regions by growing the economy on the edge surrounding the region. The best way to expand an economy is education and I think Wikipedia is by far the most efficient way of education, in developed countries but especially in situations where available education is limited to basic reading/writing and math.

      I usually don't give to (big) charity since they spend money so inefficiently (if not outright criminally), but recently I made an exception for Wikipedia for the above reasons, and intent to repeat this regularly.
      Unfortunately the Dutch tax department does not consider Wikipedia a charity, which means I have to pay 42% income tax before making the donations, while the big money wasting charity organizations get subsidized with tax exceptions.

      Even in remote regions it's easy to organize some cheap computers (or just phones) with a copy of the most interesting Wikipedia pages. The challenge is to have a very large amount of knowledge available in a well organized digital format, exactly the mission of Wikipedia.
      Right in the middle of the poorest regions people won't have access to a computer with Internet access, and need food instead of education, but that won't do anything to resolve there situation in a sustainable way.

  17. Save the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Without one, all the starving, deformed, orphaned, homeless, jobless, sick and diseased people are just going to die anyway.

  18. High administrative overhead by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, a lot of charities have obscenely high administrative overheads, which means much of the money goes to lawyers fees, office rental in high rent districts, gala charity donation parties (granted, they pay for themselves) and other PR work. The Economist had a piece on this a while back. Even some of the UN agencies and a Lady Diana Charity Fund were some of the worse offenders.

    Hey, whoever said "Charity begins in the home" was probably right . . . if you give close to home, you'll be able to see for yourself where it is going.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:High administrative overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can confirm this, even on the "local" level charities. I have worked with several "charity" groups doing IT work (NO - I won't name them). Several times it was recovering their financial data files after being corrupted for various reasons. Every time, I about shit myself when I looked at the actual data (had to confirm the data was valid with accountants). The worst I saw was one group that used 5% of their donations for actual recipients, the rest went to "administrative" costs (salaries in the 6 figure range, pension, rent, etc.).

      I've since quit taking any work from charity organizations, and I refuse to donate any money to them.

    2. Re:High administrative overhead by just_a_monkey · · Score: 1

      Even some of the UN agencies ... were some of the worse offenders.

      You sound surprised?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    3. Re:High administrative overhead by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

      After doing some study on charities, I personally refuse to waste my money paying their executives. I prefer to donate to local causes and ignore the 'big boys'.

  19. meta-charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.networkforgood.com/

  20. Gamers Give Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.childsplaycharity.org/

    All donations go to children's hospitals around the world. You can even donate toys instead of money if you don't trust how your donation will be spent.

    1. Re:Gamers Give Back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Gamers Give Back by rnswebx · · Score: 1

      I also would highly recommend Child's Play.

      After essentially living at Children's as a teenager while spending time with my cousin who eventually succumbed to leukemia, I have a very very special place in my heart for the incredible amounts of good being done at these hospitals.

    3. Re:Gamers Give Back by mrxak · · Score: 2

      I give yearly to Child's Play. They're not in it to create a self-sustaining entity, and the cause could not be better. When you're sick, your quality of life can really make a difference in your recovery. If a game can distract a kid from their pain or fears for a little while, that is everything. Their administrative fees are pretty low, and quite reasonable considering what those fees are paying for. I'm sure PayPal and the credit card companies are getting their cut, and there's shipping costs for all those games, art supplies, and DVDs. I believe they only have two employees, and I'm not even sure their salaries come from the donations (they may get their money from Penny Arcade's profitable ventures instead), but either way I doubt they're paid that much. From their website:

      We try our best to have every dollar that comes in go right back to the hospitals, but there is a slight administrative cost that does get paid for with donations (for example, shipping $200,000 worth of Nintendo DSes to dozens of hospitals worldwide is not free, sadly). Historically, these charges have not exceeded 5%. Itâ(TM)s true that weâ(TM)re a non-profit, but unlike most non-profits, weâ(TM)re not in it to create a self-sustainable entity. We do it to give.

      Having spent some time in the hospital myself at various points in childhood, and being a gamer, Child's Play is really important to me. The best part, really, is that you can go right to an Amazon wishlist set up by the hospital of your choice and buy exactly what you want the hospital to get with your money. If you'd rather just give money, you can do that too, of course, but I prefer to know exactly what the kids are getting, give to a local hospital instead of the general pool, and pick out games and movies and stuff that I would want to play myself.

  21. The Plan by epiphani · · Score: 2

    I did some research into this about a year ago - and decided to go with Plan International.

    My criteria:

    • A large percentage of their donations had to go directly to the
    • Non-religious
    • Focused on third world countries
    • Infrastructure and educational projects
    • Long-term investment in specific locations

    I give specifically to their water project. I think that while sponsoring a child is significant, I find that I'd rather put my money specifically into infrastructure. Water and Sanitary systems, in my mind, are more important than education within a community - and I figure many others put money into education.

    --
    .
    1. Re:The Plan by epiphani · · Score: 1

      Hum. Directly to the project, rather.

      --
      .
  22. Help a neighbor by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    100% efficiency. No administrative overhead. Complete certainty that your gift wasn't squandered.

    --
    Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    1. Re:Help a neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I give money to my neighbor, I'm pretty sure she squanders it.

    2. Re:Help a neighbor by brusk · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the gift wasn't squandered?

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    3. Re:Help a neighbor by istartedi · · Score: 1

      How do you know that the gift wasn't squandered?

      They're still living there instead of the house being borded up with a sherrif's notice on the door.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:Help a neighbor by brusk · · Score: 1

      Unless you really trust your neighbor, how do you know he/she didn't receive multiple donations from several people, pocketing the extra?

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    5. Re:Help a neighbor by Lucidus · · Score: 1

      'Help' is not even remotely the same as 'give money to.'

    6. Re:Help a neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This! Except, not tax deductible. But do it anyway! (CAPTCHA: evasive.)

    7. Re:Help a neighbor by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Of course anything is possible; but "people talk". Yes, people get away with things. When this comes up in casual conversation with one person I know, either one of us will turn to the other and say, "karma". I know we've Westernized that word beyond recognition probably. In our vernacular it means, "yes you can get away with things for a while; but it usually catches up with you". LOL, and I'm going to click "no karma bonus" on this one...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    8. Re:Help a neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming my neighbor desires help or charity

  23. Kiva by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    One of the best places to bring your money to if you want to help people: http://www.kiva.org/.

    Microfinance where you can decide yourself which enterpreneur you loan money to. I can heartily recommend it :).

    1. Re:Kiva by Zaldarr · · Score: 1

      He's an AC, but mod him up. Kiva is wonderful, and easily the best value for money. If you put 100$ into Kiva and loan it, it will be paid back to you by your sponsor once their business is up and running, so you can invest it again, either to your sponsor or to another enterprise. It beats the hell out of traditional charities because it encourages self sufficiency and not reliance on aid. (For the record I'm part of Team Flying Spaghetti Monster, currently beating the Mormons for top lender in the religious category by 80k :D)

      --
      I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
    2. Re:Kiva by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also use Kiva, excellent site

  24. hfc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hackers for Charity

  25. My $0.02 by thecrotch · · Score: 1

    I used to give to the Salvation Army, but I've been avoiding them this year because I'm not sure how much of my money is going to help people vs proselytize to them, in fact I've decided to no longer donate to religious charities. Toys for Tots is my new favorite. Giving a teddy bear to a poor kid may not make the biggest impact in the world, but it's going to make that kid's Christmas a lot better.

    1. Re:My $0.02 by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      While I listed one of my favorites elsewhere in this thread, Toys for Tots is another I wholeheartedly support. They do good locally, and make a difference in a child life. The best story I heard about them was from a young Marine, who said while he as growing up, thought Santa wore Marine Dress Blues.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:My $0.02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toy shopping for Toys for Tots is probably the most fun you can have donating to charity, and by donating goods rather than cash you know all your money is going to the kids, and not to administrative overhead.

      Buying dry goods to drop off at a local food bank is another way to make sure your money is all going where you want it to go.

    3. Re:My $0.02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Salvation army is one of the best charities at helping people without wasting money. I never donate to a case I have never volunteered at.

  26. Re:I just give all my Bing points to whatever char by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 1, Troll

    How is the parent offtopic? It's about charity and helping them. Their reward site is here and if you don't want to use the reward points yourself, you can give them to charity.

  27. A Plane Ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you really want to know what to do and who to give your money to, there is absolutely not better way than jumping on a plane and heading there. Anywhere. If you want to help in Haiti, go to Haiti for a few hundred dollars and see for yourself which people are helping and which are not. I've spent some time in a few of the poorer parts of the world and I can tell you with certainty that the bigger the organization that you donate your money to, the less money will end up in the hands of the people you are trying to help.

    Conversely, the highest percentage of help comes from organizations that you've never heard of because they are composed entirely of aid workers and have no one on staff that knows anything about marketing or websites or even blogs. They're just out in the streets every day giving away food and administering medicine and hoping that their family or church back home sends enough for them to live on this month.

    So...go!

    Also, buy fair trade whenever possible. In many cases it has a dramatically better long term effect on communities than aid organizations.

  28. Perhaps use CharityNavigator to evaluate by Doofus · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; ... it invites anarchy. - Brandeis
  29. Tzu Chi Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the only charity that I have see with so many actions taken against everything, from minor event like helping poor people around the country until big event like japan tsunami, taiwan earthquake, china earthquake, and etc. There's Tzu Chi Foundation at lots of countries and they all play the same role. They fund themselves by recycling materials, donation, charity sales and etc. For more information, try google and you can see how much job they have done. :)

  30. Shelterbox is a decent one... by pryoplasm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.shelterboxusa.org/

    Basically, after any kind of disaster, natural or otherwise, they deploy a team out with plastic tubs filled with just about anything a family would need to start getting back on their feet like a tent, some basic food and water purification type things, along with some tools to improve what they have available. They are also constantly tweaking the box as better items become available, or in some instances they tailor the contents to where the boxes are being sent.

    Decent charity that I found out from a friend. I've started to donate to them yearly now, along with some other charities for more personal reasons.

    --
    Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
  31. Heifer International by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a great organization that helps people all over the world: http://www.heifer.org/?msource=magento

    1. Re:Heifer International by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      Seconded.

  32. Stay local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Give to a local church. Do your research and make sure they are a 100% charity. Then get personally involved to help them spend it well. Your time might be a better donation than the money.

  33. Givewell by bluecorn · · Score: 1

    Givewell evaluates charities and they recommend two charities, Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) and Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI). Another good charity is Marie Stopes International, a family planning provider.

  34. Donate to a Charity you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During college, I worked at several excellent nonprofit education programs which were doing fine on their own, but could make themselves more broadly accessible with more funds. I also made several donations to larger charities (planned parenthood, St. Jude, Wikimedia), and came to realize two things. First, I had no clue how much of my money was actually being spent on helping people and how much was going into a bureaucracy. Second, I started getting constant phone calls and mail from St. Jude and Planned Parenthood to donate more money. In Planned Parenthood's case, I only gave them $20 (in college, remember?) to begin with. Most of that $20 apparently went towards sending me junkmail. I understand that these programs have a good cause, and that badgering former donors is probably the most efficient way to make money, but that's still "wrong" in my book, and it left me with a terrible taste in my mouth. Wikimedia didn't spam me, fortunately, and I feel like I owe them after all of the useful information that I got out of their site, so I don't regret those donations. Still, at the end of the day, I still have no clue how money was spent.

    Today, I am not a college student. Like many of you, I work in IT and have way more money than I need or deserve. I make regular charitable donations, but the only two charities that I donate to are the education nonprofits that I personally worked at. They are small and I still know the people there. I know that my money will be put to direct use in making kids smarter, and I know that the one's running the program aren't hobgoblins who will sell my personal info so I can get robocalls about donating to affiliated cause X. Get involved with a local charity, do some good work, get to know the people there, and then donate directly to them. That's my recommendation.

  35. EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donate to save the free internet. It's as good a cause as any.

  36. Amref by apetrelli · · Score: 1

    Amref simply do things. They both help and train professionals on site.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Medical_and_Research_Foundation

  37. The School for Kids In Laos Inc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a very efficient charity that relies entirely on donations and volunteer work to build schools in rural Laos. It's a grassroots organization that raises a lot of it's money within the Lao community and hold benefit concerts all over the globe. If you want to donate to a charity where virtually the entire donation (95% efficiency is their target) goes toward the result, building educational infrastructure for impoverished communities, then I'd recommend you visit http://sklinc.org

  38. It by JustOK · · Score: 2

    It begins at home. My home. Please send money to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay! Eternal happiness is just a dollar away.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:It by martas · · Score: 1

      What state man, WHAT STATE?

    2. Re:It by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      It begins at home. My home. Please send money to Happy Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. Don't delay! Eternal happiness is just a dollar away.

      I'm sorry, but you seem to have got the address of my home incorrect. Don't worry, I know where to send it to myself anyway!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    3. Re:It by JustOK · · Score: 1

      the one that borders Ohio, Nevada, Maine, and Kentucky

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:It by erc · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there someone who did this as a psychology experiment a while back? Took out ads in the Enquirer and WWW saying "Send $1 to..." and an address. I forgot how much money the guy got, but it wasn't trivial, as I recall...

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
  39. 10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, give it to ME. I have zero overhead - I can guarantee that 100% of the net you give me will go to the intended recipient.

    I even accept chocolate!

    Seriously though, if you don't know what to give or where, go ask at:

    1. your local police or fire station. They get to see human misery every day, and they know about those "pockets of need"
    2. your local hospital or clinic. Same thing.
    3. your local animal shelter. Pets are people too, and they're going to need a lot of help dealing with the annual post-christmas "pet dump".
    4. your local schools. The teachers know that there's always some kid who need a winter coat, warm boots, or something.
    5. your local library. It's probably under-funded, and you can make a "donation" by buying old books from them so they can buy new books.
    6. your local church, synagogue or temple - even if you're an atheist, these organizations are still good points of contact for the needy
    7. your local homeless shelter. Obvious reasons
    8. your local media - tv, radio, print ...
    9. your local city counselor, alderman, mayor, or whatever
    10. your friends and neighbors.

    What all these things have in common is that they're all local, they're all just an email or a phone call or a click away, and that they'll have an immediate impact - within days - and they all benefit your community. Charity begins at home.

    1. Re:10 ways - all local by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pets are people too

      yeah, but they taste better.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:10 ways - all local by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Yup, good ideas all.

      When I donate it's to charities I think I may benefit from myself, so being a UK kitesurfer and mountaineer that's the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and my local mountain rescue teams. If I'm doing it as a gift I go for something the recipient has a similar vested interest in.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    3. Re:10 ways - all local by gregchang · · Score: 2

      If you contribute to Al-Qaeda, you can get free room and board for life!

    4. Re:10 ways - all local by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      9. your local city counselor, alderman, mayor, or whatever

      Yes I'm sure that would be spent well.

      Frankly, I'm not for ignoring local needs (ie schools) but there are people elsewhere who need it a lot more.

      I support MSF (Doctors Without Borders) but of course you should choose who you prefer as it's your money at the end of the day,

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If you don't trust your local politicians, then vote them out! It's a lot easier to do at the municipal than the state or federal level.

    6. Re:10 ways - all local by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      What all these things have in common is that they're all local, they're all just an email or a phone call or a click away, and that they'll have an immediate impact - within days - and they all benefit your community. Charity begins at home.

      I think there's a strong argument to be made for charity overseas, because that's where the need is greatest. The typical poor household in America is poor only in relative terms. A typical household at the poverty line will have clean water, electricity, enough to eat, a car, two TVs and cable, a microwave, and a video game system. They are poor in the sense that they have fewer luxuries than the average household, not in the sense that they don't have enough of the essentials.

      There's a huge difference between struggling to pay the cable bill and struggling to find enough food to keep your child alive. That's not to say that everyone in the United States does get enough to eat- but compare the situation to the horn of Africa, where it's estimated that 30,000 children have starved to death, and three quarters of a million are malnourished. UNICEF, which has a pretty good track record as charities go, says they can feed a child there for $1 a day, which is not bad considering the logistical challenges and security threats posed by operating in east Africa. I'd argue that if you've only got $100 to give, those people need that $100 a lot more than just about anyone in your local community, and that $100 donated to UNICEF is going to have a much bigger impact on a much larger number of people.

    7. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      A typical household at the poverty line will have clean water, electricity, enough to eat, a car, two TVs and cable, a microwave, and a video game system.

      Sorry, but that's an outright falsehood. The definition of poverty is "the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."

      And this ignores things like medical needs. There are plenty of people who have to choose between food and medicine.

      This "absolute number of poor" (which ignores medical needs, and doesn't count the "relatively poor"), still shows 14% of the population is living in poverty.

      "The non-profit advocacy group Feeding America has released a study (May 2009) based on 2005-2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Agriculture Department, which claims that 3.5 million children under the age of 5 are at risk of hunger in the United States. The study claims that in 11 states, Louisiana, which has the highest rate, followed by North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas, more than 20 percent of children under 5 are allegedly at risk of going hungry."

      Now, you can quibble about the numbers, but the fact is that more than 45 million Americans are on food stamps. And that number fails to account for those who fell through the safety net, and those who are too proud to ask.

    8. Re:10 ways - all local by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I definitely don't agree with 6 or 8-10.

      6 - I did the finances for a local church and their regional committees. I've also heard from others in different churches. Money hardly goes to the intended recipients, it all remains hanging in the church. Even their charity work, at some point there was construction to be done which was given to a church member who had a contracting business. He 'donated' his time and only charged for the actual materials (off course with a tax receipt) but the items were generously overpriced and some even purchased multiple times. I did multiple projects all over the state and it was the same deal everywhere. The projects were all volunteered but still went 15-25% over budget. That was one of the many reasons I quit the church.

      8 - The media only cares about high story values, not necessarily about those that really need it.
      9 - The politicians do too.

      10 - If you have disposable income and advertise this to friends and family the "charity" will quickly become your family and friends that want you to tide them over for a couple of bucks. I am still expecting $750 back for a family deadbeat who eventually lost his house and everything he had (his own fault) and I have been promised several times now to expect a 'care package' from someone I helped in the past buying a house in a divorce case.

      I don't know if this is interesting to you but if you buy the Humble Indie Bundle's you can give to EFF and Child's Play both charities in nerd culture. Depending on your disposable income you can compete with guys like Notch for the rankings on their website.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:10 ways - all local by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      That is not how poverty is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty is defined in terms of income, not in terms of nutrition, housing, or health. See: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml. And the research suggests that many of the people defined by the U.S. government as living in poverty are actually reasonably well-off in material terms: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/09/how_rich_are_poor_people.html. Poverty is relative. That's not to say that poor people aren't struggling in the U.S. or that we shouldn't help them. But the reality is that what we consider poverty in the United States is a life of luxury compared to what you'll see in many places in the Third World. When's the last time you saw a child in the United States with a belly distended from malnutrition? Have you ever seen that? If you go to Africa, you will. I've seen it. That's real poverty. In fact, one of the biggest problems with nutrition among the poor in the United States is obesity.

    10. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      #6 - I included religious groups because people do join them for honorable motives. As a "born-again fundamentalist atheist" (I make Richard Dawkins look wishy-washy, but that's becausehe ultimately waffles on the question), I do hear you when you complain about the negatives (and have experienced them first hand myself), and there are plenty of valid criticisms, but I won't tar everyone with the same brush.

      You can do what's called a "directed donation" - they can only use the funds for the purpose you choose. So, for example, if the church is running a soup kitchen, it goes there. Any other use then becomes fraudulent conversion. Or you can ask them about making a donation of goods or services, and even help distribute them.

      #8 - Local media is often a lot closer to "the little people" ... I've known a few reporters and editors, and they've been, to a fault, human and humane. A lot of people are attracted to the field because they're idealists - which is why the right complains about the "well-known liberal bias" of the media.

      #9 - You're much more likely to run into your local politicians, such as your local ward or town council member, at the grocery store. Sure, some are jerks - but in that case, why did you vote for them? There are many who are decent people who first got into municipal politics because they wanted to fix a problem, not because of a lust for power, being a control freak, or greed.

      #10 - asking friends or family can be done in a way that doesn't invite abuse.

      Now, in your specific case, even if we start off with the premise that they lost their house entirely through their own fault, does that mean that they can't ever learn anything?

      I used to be a lot more judgmental ... for example, I never in my life smoked *anything* - not the legal stuff, not the illegal stuff. So I would think that people who were hooked on cigarettes were a bit stupid, and really only had themselves to blame.

      However, I've seen how hard they struggle to quit, how crappy they feel about themselves every time they fail, and that they desperately WANT to quit.

      My attitude was ultimately both demeaning and destructive. Demeaning to them as human beings, and demeaning to me. It sucked. So, one day, I made a conscious decision to change my attitude. To acknowledge that they have a tough time, and that just because they made a bad decision in the past doesn't mean "jack sh*t" today or tomorrow. It makes a difference.

      Applying that to your situation, do you really honestly believe that your "family deadbeat" who owes you $750 is happy or proud of that situation, instead of ashamed or embarrassed? And is your "classification" of them as a family deadbeat possibly overshadowing anything positive about them? And how is it affecting your view on life? Positively? Negatively? If negatively, is it worth the "head space" to keep thinking about it? HTH.

    11. Re:10 ways - all local by ChrisUK · · Score: 2

      > Charity begins at home.

      But why? Living near you doesn't seem any more relevant to who you should help than choosing people of your own gender or race would be; it's a morally irrelevant fact. I'd rather choose who to help based on *who needs the most help* and *which help is the most effective per dollar*. Unsurprisingly, this doesn't involve donating to my local area -- everyone there is not starving or dying for silly reasons that could be easily solved with small amounts of money.

    12. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Please re-read what I wrote. The article makes the distinction between the more lenient "relative poverty" index, and the "absolute poverty" index. The government uses both - but the figures I cited were for the absolute poverty index, as based on the definition that includes not having enough food.

      In fact, one of the biggest problems with nutrition among the poor in the United States is obesity.

      A lot of that comes from crappy high-calorie diets because they're the only way for people to make ends meet, because eating healthy means being hungry. A Mac-and-cheese and french fries budget has enough calories to get a body from one day to the next, but over the long term, the obesity you cite is an indicator of the poverty diet.

      In the countries you talk about, there's not as much social stigma attached to being poor if everyone is poor. In North America, if you're poor, there's this mental picture that it's your own fault, that you should somehow be able to bootstrap yourself out of poverty, that it's a character flaw, and that you're a failure as a human being. Now throw in a large dose of shame. Your attitude is both typical and unfortunate. It's also one reason why the poor hide the fact that they are poor. They'd rather go hungry than be judged so harshly.

    13. Re:10 ways - all local by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Pets are people too

      yeah, but they taste better.

      Really? How do you know?

    14. Re:10 ways - all local by plover · · Score: 1

      Barbie didn't say "GIVE to the church" or "GIVE to the politicians", she said "ASK at the church or ASK local politicians". These are people who see others in need, and would have advice for finding local deserving families or neighborhoods.

      --
      John
    15. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Just based on efficiency, it's quicker, easier, and more transparent to work based on the "charity begins at home" concept.

      Also, being forced to acknowledge local needs even exist is a big step. The poor are too often "invisible", because of the shame and stigma that others associate with poverty in North America somehow being the result of a character flaw. Being forced to confront your own prejudices and stereotypes is harder than it is to just give money to some far-away cause.

    16. Re:10 ways - all local by marnues · · Score: 1

      Churchs will want to take the money so they can give it to the charity. At least, the several I attended as a youth did. But I would also trust the church I grew up in to actually hand over the money without a dime removed. I don't care for their religion or morality, but good people nonetheless.

    17. Re:10 ways - all local by Zomalaja · · Score: 1

      That is not funny, not clever and certainly not Informative. WTF

    18. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      A lot of that comes from crappy high-calorie diets because they're the only way for people to make ends meet, because eating healthy means being hungry. A Mac-and-cheese and french fries budget has enough calories to get a body from one day to the next, but over the long term, the obesity you cite is an indicator of the poverty diet.

      This is untrue on many levels. First, you can go on mac-and-cheese diet without becoming obese - you just have to balance calories in with calories out. Second, Mac-and-cheese and french fries isn't cheap, not even per calorie. Rice, milk and canola oil, for example, is cheap and healthy food.

      People eat unhealthily because they don't care much about their health, haven't learned good eating habits or cooking skills, have a problem with delaying gratification and with exercising self restraint. The latter problems also causes poverty since it doesn't make you go for education and make an effort to get better jobs.

      I googled and found a big box of "Kraft Original Macaroni & Cheese Dinner - 12/7.25 oz" for $26. That's about $10/kg or $2.70/1000 kcal. If you are 40 kg overweight, you have overeaten mac-and-cheese to the tune of some $864 and could save a similar amount if you would go on a diet to rid yourself of the excess weight. Tell a Bangladeshi bread-winner that overeating $864 is an indicator of poverty and see what he or she says!

      I also found a 50 pound bag of brown rice for $74, or $3.26/kg or $0.95/1000 kcal. Google "What Does 200 Calories Cost?" btw.

    19. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      A diet of rice, milk, and canola oil is not "healthy". Where are your veggies? The meat? Basics like bread and eggs? To top it off, you're comparing the price of a bulk bag of rice with pre-packaged single units of macaroni, instead of a 2kg or 5kg box of macaroni. That's cheating. I could do the same thing in reverse by looking for expensive single-bag servings of rice. And you'd be eating 6 cups of rice a day to get 1,500 calories.

      And the last time I went shopping, a 2kg bag of frozen fries was $1.99. That would be $80 for 40kg, not $864.00., and a lot cheaper, on a poind-for-pound basis, than the 10-pound bag of rice I bought (I made the mistake once of buying a cheap rice - never again - the stuff doesn't just taste and look like crap - even my dogs wouldn't eat it. Next you'll be suggesting that people save money by buying the corn they feed to pigs).

      Additionally, you make the mistake of confusing all weight gain with additional fat. There's also excess water, brought on by the high sodium content of soft drinks (and water is heavier than fat).

      So, while you're using hypothetical numbers, I'm using real numbers, from the local store. Eating healthy simply costs more, especially in the winter when many stock items are not in season.

    20. Re:10 ways - all local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #10.

      Glad to hear you had that personal revelation.

      Helping your family and friends is crucial and needs to be first and foremost. Even if you suspect them as being monetarily irresponsible, you can still find ways to help them without encouraging dependencies.

      Give to them what will be most effective and beneficial to the person who they are trying to become. None of us making it alone.

    21. Re:10 ways - all local by SFtheWolf · · Score: 1

      I feel obligated to point out how offensive and insulting that one suggestion of yours is.

      I mean seriously, PETA?

    22. Re:10 ways - all local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, to comment on your personal experience. I was the smoker but only quit not just out of *want*, but with constant support and encouragement by those around me. When I had a cigarette, I tried not to see it as a "failure" but told myself , "well, that's only one cigarette for today. tomorrow I will have 0."

      Your judgement and condemnation of that person compounds their existing self-destruction and self-afflicted punishment. It takes a change of mindset for a smoker to quit, and to help facilitate that, one must be surrounded by loving and supportive people.

      Props to you for seeing straight.

      "The one who comes to question himself has cared for mankind." -- Patchen

    23. Re:10 ways - all local by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How do you know it's not Informative? Have you tried one?

    24. Re:10 ways - all local by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Pets are people too

      yeah, but they taste better.

      Do they taste as good as sea-kittens?

    25. Re:10 ways - all local by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      3. your local animal shelter. Pets are people too, and they're going to need a lot of help dealing with the annual post-christmas "pet dump".

      Why do people insist on ruining some real good advice with comments like this? No, pets are not people too. They don't have rights, they are not people. They may hurt and need help, but they are not people too.

    26. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      A diet of rice, milk, and canola oil is not "healthy".

      Yes it is. That would combine to a very complete diet with ok macronutrient proportions, most or all vitamins or minerals, complete proteins, good fats and plenty fibers.

      Where are your veggies? The meat? Basics like bread and eggs?

      Sure, buy some carrots as well. Meat? Why, the milk and rice will give you the protein you need. You certainly don't need bread and eggs either. Bread is more of a problem than a solution to anything.

      To top it off, you're comparing the price of a bulk bag of rice with pre-packaged single units of macaroni, instead of a 2kg or 5kg box of macaroni.

      That was bulk macaroni, 2.5 kg worth.

      And the last time I went shopping, a 2kg bag of frozen fries was $1.99. That would be $80 for 40kg, not $864.00.

      The 40 kg was body fat at a calorie content of some 8000 kcal/kg (body fat is not pure fat). A 2 kg bag of frozen fries would translate to only some 3000 kcal, so you'd need 40*8000/3000 = 106 such bags (in excess of your daily need) to pack on the 40 kg, or $216. (Less if you add fat, of course.)

      I made the mistake once of buying a cheap rice - never again - the stuff doesn't just taste and look like crap - even my dogs wouldn't eat it. Next you'll be suggesting that people save money by buying the corn they feed to pigs.

      Cheap brown rice is good for you, sorry if you don't like it. For a bit of extra cost, still undercutting mac-and-cheese, you could do tasty, nutritious risottos.

      Additionally, you make the mistake of confusing all weight gain with additional fat. There's also excess water, brought on by the high sodium content of soft drinks (and water is heavier than fat).

      That's a nonsense excuse for being fat. Our bodies regulates our sodium content quite precisely by disposing of excess in the urine. And soft drinks, why would you drink that if you're poor, or rich, for that matter. Fat guys are fat, not full of water. Otherwise you could get rid of the excess weight really fast. You can lose a few pounds rapidly the first few days of a diet, but that's mostly emptying carbs in muscles, and the water it bound. Not sodium.

      So, while you're using hypothetical numbers, I'm using real numbers, from the local store.

      Again, nonsense. I used real numbers as well. Let's face it - food, nutritious food, is really, really cheap. Poor people often eat expensive, unhealthy food in excess not because they need to, but for the same reasons they are poor.

    27. Re:10 ways - all local by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      And I do try and do so but strangely enough the ones who replace them aren't any better in the long run....

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    28. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess 9 out of 10 isn't bad. However, I am going to have to disagree with you, not because of what I wrote, but because you've misinterpreted it, implying something I didn't write.

      I didn't say pets were humans ... there's a difference between being a thinking, feeling entity, and being, moe specifically, a "human".

      My dogs are most certainly living beings with personalities and characters, as well as a few characteristics that many humans would do well to emulate, though we mostly fail. There are thinking, acting, feeling, and to a certain extent self-aware consciousnesses inside those skulls. They don't only just learn behaviours, they've invented a few ways to communicate their wants w/o being shown how, and they most certainly engage in negotiating strategies, so it's not simple mimicry. That makes them pretty much functionally equal to many humans at both extremes of the age spectrum.

      What next - claiming that apes who can communicate with us using sign language and tel jokes are not persons? Or dolphins (whose brains are larger than yours, btw) who pass the mirror test for self-awareness.

      You know, people used to apply the same flawed "standard" you're applying to humans based on nothing more than skin colour - "if it don't look like us, ain't really a person, and has no rights. Make it a slave." And there have been court judgments within the last century ruling that women are not "persons" within the meaning of the law, and do not have the same rights as "people" (men).

    29. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So run yourself - or find someone you trust and convince her to run, and help them campaign. The biggest hurdle anyone who isn't "in on the system" has is garnering support from those "outside the system".

    30. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You really shouldn't make an outright lie to try to make your point. When you claim "that was bulk macaroni" - that is a lie. Here is what you wrote

      big box of "Kraft Original Macaroni & Cheese Dinner - 12/7.25 oz" for $26

      That is not "bulk macaroni", so your cost comparison is, as I originally pointed out, cherry-picked. It would be the same as me picking a 12-pack of rice to "prove" that 2kg of rice is more expensive than a 2kg box of macaroni.

      Do you even cook? Or shop? Because if you think that buying a 12-pack of Kraft Dinner is the same as buying a 2kg box of macaroni, I have a hard time believing it.

      Next up:

      "Our bodies regulates our sodium content quite precisely by disposing of excess in the urine."

      No, they don't. That's why women feel bloated on certain days, and why doctors prescribe diuretics and low-sodium diets to people with high blood pressure. It's also why you can't drink sea water - your body will NOT be able to dispose of the excess salt without becoming dehydrated. There are certain species of aminals, such as desert rats, on the other hand, that excrete urine that is 24% urea. Birds? It's a semi-solid, so even less water is lost. We, on the other hand, to get rid of excess salt, need to pee LOTS of water.

      Also, your rice diet will be deficient in vitamin A The milk, being fortified with vitamin A by law, you'd still need to drink 10 glasses a day to get the recommended daily average. Care to throw that number into your budget?

      Eating healthy isn't cheap. Your "let 'em eat cheap rice" argument is absurd. Instead of pretending to shop by googling prices, go to a store and check out the real cost of food, especially fresh produce, fish, and meat. Then ask again why poor people have unhealthy diets.

    31. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1
      I doubt baseless accusations does anything to further the discussion. If you don't think discounted prepared food in large quantities qualifies as "bulk", than that's ok, but it doesn't make me a liar.

      Do you even cook? Or shop? Because if you think that buying a 12-pack of Kraft Dinner is the same as buying a 2kg box of macaroni, I have a hard time believing it.

      I shop, and I cook from basic ingredients, and I never use that type of half-ready stuff. As I Swede, I'm not even that familiar with M&C. However, we were talking about what poor, obese people often do, and you mentioned M&C and FF. If you think the demographics we were talking about is typically making these dishes by using "raw" ingredients, macaroni, cheese, cream, potatoes and so on, then fine. But it is still less nutritious and more costly that a suitable mix of rice, milk, canola and carrots.

      We, on the other hand, to get rid of excess salt, need to pee LOTS of water.

      Again, sure excess salt can make you retain a bit extra water, but not very much. Do a controlled experiment - eat the same amount of calories but cut out all but 500 mg of sodium. How much water do you expect to have lost when at a new equilibrium? 0.5-1 kg?

      Also, your rice diet will be deficient in vitamin A The milk, being fortified with vitamin A by law, you'd still need to drink 10 glasses a day to get the recommended daily average. Care to throw that number into your budget?

      Yes, vitamin A deficiency is common in rice based societies. As I said, eat some carrots. 100 g/day should suffice. Or you could do 10 grams of liver. I don't think any of that would add much to the expenditure. Look, even with a moderate vitamin A deficiency, the diet I'm talking about would make fat people SO much more healthy overall.

      Eating healthy isn't cheap. Your "let 'em eat cheap rice" argument is absurd. Instead of pretending to shop by googling prices, go to a store and check out the real cost of food, especially fresh produce, fish, and meat. Then ask again why poor people have unhealthy diets.

      Americans seems to have such a messed up idea of healthy eating. Again, you don't need meat or fish. How hard is that to understand? And I googled American prices more as a service to you, since I thought you would think it strange if I started quoting Swedish prices.

      Again, junk is expensive. You talked about M&C and FF as stuff poor people had to eat to make ends meet. I pointed out that it is easy to find healthy, cheaper alternatives that doesn't make you fat if you don't really push yourself to overeat. Don't you agree? It seems you are making excuses. Why?

    32. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Look, you lied and you got caught at it. You and I both know that if I had tried to pull the same stunt you did, by (for example) comparing a 12-pack of individual envelopes of bistro rice, with a 2kg box of macaroni, the macaroni would have been way cheaper, and you would have been accusing me of making a misleading apples-to-oranges comparison.

      That you're trying to defend it, even after being caught out, is a bit of an insult, don't you think?

      And now you compound it by implying that I was the one who specified Kraft Dinner. I did not. You were the one who brought that specific brand (and as a consequence, the odd-ball unit packaging) into the discussion. I can't remember the last time I bought that crap, but I know it wasn't this century. A case of KD is not "macaroni in bulk" any more than a 12-pack of Dainty Rice Pilaf is.

      At least you admit that the diet you said was healthy, is now insufficient. But then you try to "excuse" it by saying "throw in a carrot." Well, maybe you should also throw in some beans or another source of complete proteins (as opposed to rice), because a rice-only diet is an incomplete diet.

      And I googled American prices more as a service to you

      Another mistake - I'm not American. 95% of the world is not American.

      Look, all your arguments are insults to the poor. Food is a major expense for the poor, and they often have to make hard choices - food vs medicine, food vs a warm pair of winter boots, food vs transport to and from work, food vs shelter, less for themselves, more for their kids. You can't live on a diet of rice and milk and the occasional carrot - and even that costs money. People leading lives of quiet desperation don't need a "you should be doing this, see how easy it is" from you unless you've been there, done that. I grew up in the slums - I know what being raised poor is like. Do you?

    33. Re:10 ways - all local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? My pet cat, or Grandpa?

    34. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      Look, you lied and you got caught at it.

      The difference between you and me is that you're intent to "win the argument", while I'm trying to provide some info and engage in a fruitful discussion. You talk about an apples-to-oranges comparison, but that was the whole point! Lots of people don't make smart choices, and I pointed out a smarter choice. You talk about poor people eating bad food out of necessity. It isn't necessary at all, and I've shown this. It doesn't matter whether the M&C example was more expensive than one made from the ground up - rice is healthier anyway and as cheap or cheaper.

      And now you compound it by implying that I was the one who specified Kraft Dinner.

      If I were like you, I'd start to shout "lie" here. I don't imply stuff.

      At least you admit that the diet you said was healthy, is now insufficient.

      Good, you didn't find more holes in my diet, so you feel the need to pounce at a previous hole. That's OK.

      Another mistake - I'm not American. 95% of the world is not American.

      Nah, the first mistake, AFAIK. (I think a majority of Barbaras speaking English and talking about mac-and-cheese are American. Also, you started out by refering to a wikipedia article about poverty in the US.)

      Look, all your arguments are insults to the poor.

      I'm not interested in that aspect. I provide information, and if you construe that as insulting, that's your problem.

      Food is a major expense for the poor,

      "Over the past eighty years, the food expenditures at home category declined from 20.3% of income to a paltry 5.6% of income." Before you scream "lie", please note that this is measured for the average or median American. However, it gives some idea of how ridiculously cheap food have become.

      You can't live on a diet of rice and milk and the occasional carrot - and even that costs money.

      Yes you can. I provided a base diet that would meet nutritional needs very well and prevent obesity, as well as being very cheap. That doesn't mean anyone should limit himself to that. You should switch stuff around a bit. Buy cabbage, root veggies and so on when in season and cheap. Add some chicken when you can afford it. Variety is good, but you don't need very much with the diet I suggested.

      People leading lives of quiet desperation don't need a "you should be doing this, see how easy it is" from you unless you've been there, done that.

      I don't agree. I think good information is important for everyone and that it stands on its own. I could be Dracula or Santa Claus, rich or poor, it doesn't matter.

      I grew up in the slums - I know what being raised poor is like. Do you?

      No, I don't. Perhaps that's why I can discuss this rationally, while you seem completely stuck?

    35. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You're the one who engaged in the original invalid comparison, instead of providing real information. Troll much?

    36. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      You win. (You seem to need that, and I don't mind.) Have a nice day.

    37. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a question of "win" - that, again was your interpretation. I pointed out that you presented false "facts" to defend your argument - the price comparisons, by comparing a retail 12-pack of one commodity against a bulk price for another, and that a diet you said was healthy, was in fact not.

      You "lost", if that's how you want to look at it, when you presented false "facts" to bolster your argument. It had nothing to do with anything on my side.

      You cannot expect anyone to believe that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, and canola oil is a healthy diet. And yet, that was one of your original assertions.

      Then you pulled some imaginary 40-kg-overweight person out of thin air to help make your argument - that even if it wasn't a "complete diet", they would be healthier. A lot of poor people are skinny - they don't get enough to eat. Or they can't afford the medication to keep them in good health (for example, uncontrolled diabetes - it can cost a couple hundred dollars a month for test strips, insulin, etc ...) and can't use all the food they eat. How are they, on the same low income, supposed to eat as well as someone who doesn't have that additional expense? The answer, too often, is that they can't. They have to choose between their medication or food. Or maybe it's "rent, food, meds - pick two".

      What you wrote was a bit mean-spirited - that the poor have themselves to blame for not eating right. Eating healthy costs money - money many people just don't have. People don't choose to be poor. You make your plans, do your best, and sometimes stuff happens. Things like job loss. Protracted illness. Divorce. Accident. Crime victim. Death in the family. Are you comfortable telling these people that it's okay - they can live on a diet of milk, rice, and canola oil, and maybe you'll toss in the occasional carrot?

      Are you really that mean?

    38. Re:10 ways - all local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what, the fifth or sixth comment where you go on and on about what you claim was "false facts" in one of my first comments? You completely disregard what I have explained to you several times: The facts were correct and that the apples-to-oranges comparison where valid and apt in the context they were presented. We may disagree about the aptness, but that doesn't make me a liar and doesn't make my facts false. That you cannot stop debating like this really reflects poorly on you. And, again, even if you can do M&C cheaper, rice is still more healthy and at least as cheap as typical home-made M&C. So even if you yap another five comments about my Kraft example, you're still wrong: Poor people doesn't need to eat unhealthy food and get fat to make ends meet.

      You cannot expect anyone to believe that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, and canola oil is a healthy diet.

      Again, you disregard my comments, trying to make my position more extreme than it is, to win. That's sad, since you could engage in a truthful, honest discussion instead and learn something. The basic diet I have provided is quite complete and would need very little variation to close any small micro-nutrient gaps. And yes, I do expect people to believe this, since the verification of my statement requires little effort if you have some basic nutritional knowledge to begin with.

      They have to choose between their medication or food.

      Then they choose food, since else they die. And as they do, they can just as well choose healthy food, since it is as cheap or cheaper than junk.

      What you wrote was a bit mean-spirited - that the poor have themselves to blame for not eating right.

      That's your, quite mean-spirited, interpretation. I just say that it is possible to eat right for the same or lower price as people eat wrong. That's all. I have every sympathy with people whose upbringing hasn't provided them with the cultural tools and knowledge to choose right, and with people who has medical disorders that leave them with little impulse control and with people that are in crises that makes it hard for them to focus on what they eat. And so on. But still, it isn't expensive to eat healthy food. It isn't complex or hard. It may be a bit tedious, though, and deprive one of one of life's great rewards - i.e delicious food.

      Eating healthy costs money - money many people just don't have.

      Again, wrong. Eating healthy is cheap.

      People don't choose to be poor. You make your plans, do your best, and sometimes stuff happens.

      That varies. Many poor people don't do their best regarding earning money. And that's a choice, btw, that I respect. Money isn't everything. But choices have consequences. Most are victims of circumstances, in one sense or the other. But however that may be, I doubt any of these groups would suffer more from knowing healthy, cheap food options.

      Things like job loss. Protracted illness. Divorce. Accident. Crime victim. Death in the family. Are you comfortable telling these people that it's okay - they can live on a diet of milk, rice, and canola oil, and maybe you'll toss in the occasional carrot?

      Or, am I comfortable telling a person who has some acute problems in their life that they could quit smoking and thus be healthier and less poor? No, perhaps that would make me uncomfortable. But it is nevertheless true. Also, what I have done here is not dictating people's diets. I've just proven you wrong with a simple counter-diet, that's all. The false meme you try to spread is damaging. It may be a well-intended excuse for bad nutrition, but it is damaging nevertheless.

    39. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      Don't know how I managed to post that anonymously.

    40. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      "Explaining it" doesn't make it correct. The comparison was grossly inaccurate, because you were basing the costs on two different types of packaging. I pay less for bulk macaroni than I do for bulk rice. If I want to buy cheaper rice, the cost comes to about the same. But really, good rice tastes good all by itself. No need to add any flavouring or seasoning. After all, eating is about more than just "fueling the body."

      Also, any search wrt rice-based diets points out that rice is an incomplete source of proteins, and needs to be supplemented with either a legume (beans, etc) or meat. You could survive, for a time, on the diet you proposed, but then again, you can survive for a time on bread and water. That doesn't make it healthy. And I notice you haven't factored in the cost of 10 glasses of milk a day to get the vitamin A that you need because you're restricted to milk, rice, and canola oil, and only milk has vitamin A added. That more than makes up for any imagined difference between cheap rice and cheap macaroni.

      Now I'm not advocating a pasta diet either, so please do not continue to make it seem that I am - I'm saying that poor people don't have great diets because they don't have the same choices due to economic constraints, not because they WANT to eat crap all the time. So, whether their crappy diet is based on pasta or rice is irrelevant to my point - that they simply can't afford many of the things you take for granted.

      They have to choose between their medication or food.

      Then they choose food, since else they die. And as they do, they can just as well choose healthy food, since it is as cheap or cheaper than junk.

      Wow, must be nice to live in a world where people only take medication because they want to, not because they need to.

      Maybe I should stop wasting $300 a month or more on drugs. Maybe the doctors are lying, and I won't go blind, drop weight until there's nothing left but skin and bones, and ultimately go into a coma and die.

      You don't seem to get it - some people don't have the luxury of choices. They can't do an "either - or". They can't say "I'll skimp on the meds to eat." And yet, that's exactly what they end up having to do. And then they end up in the E.R. Or dead in some jail because a cop thought they were a drunk or druggie passed out and should be put in a cell to "sleep it off."

      This is reality. And this is only one scenario among many. Maybe your budget won't be impacted too much by an extra $300 a month, but for someone who's lost their job, or is stuck in a minimum-wage job, or had to leave home because of abuse, or any one of a number of other scenarios, it's a disaster. Now what if their meds jump to $500 or $600 a month because of new complications, or a new treatment regime, or another disease? Their life is already precarious, and one more shove, one more unexpected bill, one missed day, and they can't recover, they fall through the cracks, and the next thing you know, they're homeless on the street, or couch-surfing, or they kill themselves because they see it's over - there really is no escape, it's just going to get worse.

      But that's okay - as you say, they can stop taking their medication and eat "healthy" instead. "Milk and rice and canola oil, with the occasional carrot".

      So tell me, how is someone on a low-paying job (or no job thanks to downsizing or whatever) in a crappy economy supposed to keep alive when 2/3 of their income goes to shelter, 1/3 to medication, 1/8 to public transit, 1/3 to utilities (no cable, but you have to keep warm and have electricity to cook and hot water to wash, and clean clothes and bedding), oops, we're over 100% w/o food, so look on the bright side - no need to cook, right?

      I am not making any excuses for bad nutrition. Again, you put words in my mouth that I never said. What I have always said is that eating a proper diet is not as cheap as eating crap. A proper

    41. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      "Explaining it" doesn't make it correct. The comparison was grossly inaccurate, because you were basing the costs on two different types of packaging.

      (Is this the seventh time?) There was a point in providing costs for two different types of packaging. (And again, it

      Also, any search wrt rice-based diets points out that rice is an incomplete source of proteins, and needs to be supplemented with either a legume (beans, etc) or meat.

      Or milk.

      You could survive, for a time, on the diet you proposed,

      Then explain what would kill you with the diet I proposed. (Shall we do a complete RDA listing to see if there are any deficiencies in my diet? You do one, I do one, and then we compare?)

      And I notice you haven't factored in the cost of 10 glasses

      Again, a carrot.

      Now I'm not advocating a pasta diet either, so please do not continue to make it seem that I am

      I never have.

      I'm saying that poor people don't have great diets because they don't have the same choices due to economic constraints, not because they WANT to eat crap all the time.

      Which, again, is wrong, since you can build a healthy diet very cheaply. Yes, it's less dull to have a healthy diet if you throw money at it because the money allows for tastier choices and more variety.

      So, whether their crappy diet is based on pasta or rice is irrelevant to my point - that they simply can't afford many of the things you take for granted.

      If they can afford to eat at all, they can afford to eat my healthy variety.

      Wow, must be nice to live in a world where people only take medication because they want to, not because they need to.

      Upgrade your reading comprehension, please. I skip the rest of your medical tirade since it is based on your sloppy reading or intentional misreading.

      But that's okay - as you say, they can stop taking their medication and eat "healthy" instead.

      I don't say that. I say that everybody needs to eat, or death will ensue. And you could just as well eat healthy food, since it is as cheap. This makes medical costs irrelevant to this argument.

      So tell me, how is someone on a low-paying job (or no job thanks to downsizing or whatever) in a crappy economy supposed to keep alive when 2/3 of their income goes to shelter, 1/3 to medication, 1/8 to public transit, 1/3 to utilities (no cable, but you have to keep warm and have electricity to cook and hot water to wash, and clean clothes and bedding), oops, we're over 100% w/o food,

      Again, irrelevant, for the same reason.

      I am not making any excuses for bad nutrition.

      Again and again, you say poor people can't do it for economical reasons. Again and again, you're wrong.

      What I have always said is that eating a proper diet is not as cheap as eating crap.

      Yes, and you've always been wrong. My suggestion for a fruitful discussion is that you open up for delving deeper into this subject instead of trying to portray me as mean. How about it?

    42. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You got caught trying to pull an apple-and-oranges comparison, and you STILL can't admit it? Keep on trying, you only have yourself to blame for how stupid you look.

      As for your claims that milk, rice, canola oil and the occasional carrot are all that a poor person needs to live on, how about if I submit it (and this whole thread) as an "ask slashdot"?

      And we'll let them also judge if you're being a mean cold-hearted SOB while we're at it. How about it?

    43. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      You got caught trying to pull an apple-and-oranges comparison

      Ah, that's the eight time. You are beginning to show some autistic traits here. You simply can't accept that there's another valid point of view, and you can't let it go, can you?

      how about if I submit it (and this whole thread) as an "ask slashdot"?

      Please go ahead. (Btw, poor people have no different nutritional needs than other people, so let's make that "all that a person needs to live on".)

      And we'll let them also judge if you're being a mean cold-hearted SOB while we're at it. How about it?

      I see that your main interest lies in these kinds of judgements. Me, I don't care about that aspect. But I think you might be surprised at who would be labeled a SOB.

    44. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Why would I be surprised? It's an obvious troll account, as anyone can see by this comment

      I can't really fathom why GM thinks electric vehicles would make sense for America. In Europe, gasoline prices are typically doubled by taxes, and we are used to smaller cars, so we are going to get mass market adoption long before the Americans. During this time of crisis, GM should focus on what it does best - providing Americans with ridiculously big and thirsty cars - and leave high tech and innovation to the Japanese and Europeans. GM neither has time nor money to enter new niche markets.

      However, the REAL problem is that there are people who actually believe the nonsense you spout - not only believe it, but really latch onto it (like the Herman Cain followers who thought it was great when he told the protesters to "get a job" - when companies are laying off ...), and there really is too much of a "if you're poor, you're not doing it right - let me tell you how to fix your problems" attitude, so why not take the opportunity to broaden the audience wrt this pernicious, corrosive mindset?

    45. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      You're getting quite obsessive, you know, and you diverge further and further from a fruitful discussion on nutrition and costs - not that you ever seemed very interested in that. For the record, I fully stand by that quote on the American auto industry and the economic crisis. If you feel it is trollish, that's your problem.

    46. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So, if you insist that your posts are legit, then follow through on your extraordinary claim that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot is sufficient. I asked you to name a single country, hospital, or clinic that will state as much. You haven't.

      On the other hand, here are several countries official guidelines.

      And is the one from the World Health Organization

      Not one of them agrees with your claims. The diet you proposed is deficient and unhealthy.

    47. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      So, if you insist that your posts are legit, then follow through on your extraordinary claim that a diet consisting solely of rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot is sufficient. I asked you to name a single country, hospital, or clinic that will state as much

      Did you, I must have missed that? I anticipate another deadlock: I propose we should do the math and compare with the RDAs, and you propose we should battle it out with appeals to authority (that are unlikely to have researched boorish minimalist diets). We won't agree on this, right?

      Not one of them agrees with your claims.

      These things aren't made in a vacuum. Their creators know people aren't going to go for very tedious designed diets, so they try to make nice rules of thumb that will allow people to eat some junk and empty calories, and some of this and some of that, but despite this get a complete diet without too much thinking.

      The diet you proposed is deficient and unhealthy.

      Then show me the deficiency and unhealthiness. You can't back up your claims with facts, can you? (I'll try to get the time to post some numbers later.)

    48. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      You didn't "miss" the post - you just didn't reply to that part of it.

      You are the one making extraordinary claims. You back them up. But you can't, whereas I have backed up my claims that your "diet" is not sufficient. Find a single government body or other authority that proves your point. You can't, whereas I have already done so.

      Keep on, you're just proving you don't have a leg to stand on.

      And no, fish and poultry and eggs and cereals and fruits and vegetables are not "junk". I already proved you wrong, and you had to change it even though you still refuse to admit you were ever wrong, wrt your "diet" being deficient in vitamin A. Classic sign of a know-nothing troll. If you're going to try to troll, at least don't make the mistake of being so obviously dumb - you make the rest of us look stupid.

    49. Re:10 ways - all local by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      I asked you to name a single country, hospital, or clinic that will state as much

      Japan. http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diets-of-world-japanese-diet

      Some choice quotes:

      "Thanks to the relatively healthier Japanese diet and lifestyle, Japanese women and men live longer and healthier than everyone else on Earth," Moriyama tells WebMD. Not only can they expect to live 86 and 79 years respectively (compared to 80 and 75 years for Americans), but they can also anticipate an average of 75 years lived healthy and disability-free, the World Health Organization reports. On top of that, Japanese people enjoy the No. 1 lowest obesity rate in the developed world -- 3% -- versus 11% for the French and 32% for Americans, according to the International Obesity TaskForce. "You might think it's all in our genes," Moriyama says. "But when Japanese people adopt a Western-style diet, they put on weight quickly.""

      "A rice foundation. The Japanese diet includes huge amounts of rice -- six times more per person than the average American's diet,"

      "Veggie delight. " Japan is kind of a vegetable-crazed nation,"

      "A good catch. Fish, especially fatty fish -- like Japanese favorites salmon and fresh tuna, mackerel, sardines, and herring -- are a great source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are known for their heart-health and mood-boosting benefits, Moriyama tells WebMD. And though Japan accounts for only 2% of the world's population, its people eat 10% of the world's fish. The flipside of Japan's fish craze means the Japanese eat less red meat, which contains artery-clogging saturated fat that, if eaten to excess, can lead to obesity and heart disease."

      To sum up, the vast, vast majority of the Japanese diet is rice, and they're some of the healthiest people on the planet. They supplement with veggies and fish. The only debate remaining is how much the fish are attributable to their good health, because it's the only really "expensive" part of their diet. So I'd say the OP is at least partially onto something, however deeply you're concerned with harping on a singular mistake he made.

    50. Re:10 ways - all local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can't, whereas I have backed up my claims that your "diet" is not sufficient.

      No, you haven't. Quoting a number of food pyramid links and stuff like that doesn't invalidate my diet composition.

      Find a single government body or other authority that proves your point.

      I already told you we would get stuck here, and what my alternative is. Are you going to obsess in 7-8 posts about this too?

      And no, fish and poultry and eggs and cereals and fruits and vegetables are not "junk".

      Upgrade your reading comprehension. I didn't say it was.

      I already proved you wrong, and you had to change it even though you still refuse to admit you were ever wrong, wrt your "diet" being deficient in vitamin A.

      I provided a base diet with good macronutrient balance, good balance of fats and lots of micronutrients that wouldn't need much additional variety. I said, and I quote, with additional emphasis: "most or all vitamins or minerals, complete proteins". You pointed out vitamin A-deficiency and I threw in a carrot. To my mind, that doesn't make me "wrong". But to your autistic and very uncharitable mindset, I was. I cannot do anything about that, and you can't do much about me refusing to "admit" I was.

      Classic sign of a know-nothing troll. If you're going to try to troll, at least don't make the mistake of being so obviously dumb - you make the rest of us look stupid.

      As long as you are so very intent on saying I'm evil and stupid, we won't make much progress here.

      I've now done a small spreadsheet with nutritional data to confirm my original rough estimate. It all fits quite well. Amino acid content is no problem, essential fats are ok as should be expected, macronutrient proportions are ok, fiber intake is ok. Vitamins and minerals are mostly ok, but of course requires some table salt to the rice (now you should again scream about how I "lied" earlier), some flouride from the public drinking water, and you should add some orange juice or something. Then a few micronutrients are still a bit low in relation to RDA, but nothing major, and, for instance, most are somewhat deficient in potassium anyway. If you want to be on the safe side, you could throw in a multi-vitamin (whether you follow a diet like this or not).

    51. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Again, you haven't provided ANY 3rd-party proof, aside from your say-so. Why should anyone believe you over the doctors and nutritionists in over 100 countries?

      Keep on, silly troll, You don't have what it takes to run with the big ones.

    52. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      If you want to stop, then that's fine with me. I've done the maths and have proven my estimate to myself, and I've managed to abstain from going along with your attempts to reduce this to an insults-only shouting game, so I'm fairly pleased at where we're at. I can lead a horse to the water, and so on. Merry Christmas to you!

    53. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? You haven't proven a thing, except that you're a fail at trolling.

      Since this *is* Troll Tuesday, here are a few of the rules:

      1. Try to be believable. You fail on that. You need logical arguments, citations, etc. Not just baby-cry hand-waving. Not lameness*11.
      2. Try not to be too obvious until it's time. You fail on that as well. Badly. High UID account, almost no posting history, what there is are mostly crap posts, and the posts you've made in this thread ... well ... you really need to learn "l'art de la troll". Because it is an art - what you're doing ... well, it's just lame.
      3. Try to be educational. A good troll is educational, insightful, funny, amusing - but above all else, educational.
      4. Try not to take it seriously, or personally. Throw it "in the spaces" between things like writing code, or vacuuming, or eating, or other more important stuff. It's only trolling after all.
      5. Try to use the occasions as a chance to enhance your debating skills. Remember, you can't waste much time on it, so you have to be able to type really fast, your google-fu should be awesome, and you should be able to reply w/o either editing or hitting preview, because if you have to edit, you're not there yet!
      6. Feed the lame troll wanna-be. That's what they're there for. It's not personal, and unlike fishing or hunting, PETA isn't going to come screaming at you.

      Those are just some of the rules, off the top of my head.

      YHBT YFI HAND DLTDHYOTAOTWO :-)

    54. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      You seem to know a lot about trolling... My main take-away from this discussion is what I learned when I looked into minimalistic diets as a linear programming problem in preparation for one of my earlier comments. What's your take-away?

    55. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Who says I have to have a take-away? But if you must, one of my take-aways from this is that there are still people who are so stupid, so ignorant, so full of themselves as to think that poverty is a simple problem that can be fixed with simplistic solutions.

      The topic was things you can do to help people. I offered 10 constructive ways. What have you offered, except a modern-day Marie Antoinette "qu'ils mangent du riz"?

      Poverty isn't a joke. It has many causes, and it's a killer - poor people die younger. One of the biggest problems is people's smug, self-satisfied judgmental attitude towards both poverty and the poor. Your focusing on a stupid subsistence diet of only rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot shows that you completely and utterly miss the point, which I have consistently tried to draw the conversation back to - that poverty has many consequences, that, like being handicapped, one of the biggest problems is other peoples' attitudes compounding the problem, that it's not a matter of choice or bad decisions - in fact, it can happen to pretty much anyone.

      That most people are just one critical illness, one accident, one failed relationship, one long-term job loss, one death of a partner or child or parent, from finding out just what being poor really is.

      Poverty isn't just a 3rd-world problem. It doesn't matter whether you're using the absolute scale, or the relative scale, when someone doesn't have the basics - enough to cover medical, shelter, and food - they're poor, no matter where they live.

      So they'll make what to you are "bad choices" - and your solution is that they should just live on a diet of rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot. How does that fix the problem, if they don't have enough to cover the basics, even on a subsistence diet?

      Your answers to that particular question - like when it's at the point that they can't afford both their medication and food - "well, they'll eat, because otherwise they'll die" missed the point entirely. Going off their meds, whether it's for high or low blood pressure, bipolar syndrome, diabetes, depression, or whatever - will also negatively impact their health, and can result in them ending up either in the hospital (which they can't afford, or they would have bought their medication in the first place), or dead.

      You can make all the claims you want to - but you missed the entire point. And you're still missing it. Where are your priorities? We're talking about human beings here. Not animals in a feedlot or rats in a cage.

      I know you won't feel any shame over this ... after all, for you, poverty is someone else's problem. You've said you've never experienced it - which probably explains why you fail to even recognize the real issues, and instead continue to focus on the utterly trivial. And that's a tragedy writ small.

      But keep being a Grinch - after all, 'tis the season.

    56. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      The topic was things you can do to help people. I offered 10 constructive ways. What have you offered, except a modern-day Marie Antoinette "qu'ils mangent du riz"?

      For me, the topic was your claim that poor people can't eat healthy food since it is too expensive. I think such falsehoods are destructive, and so I corrected it.

      Your focusing on a stupid subsistence diet of only rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot shows that you completely and utterly miss the point, which I have consistently tried to draw the conversation back to - that poverty has many consequences,

      I think that focus is yours more than it is mine. I simply provided it as a counter-example to your false statement. You treat my example as were it normative for poor people - it isn't. Nowhere have I said poor people should eat that diet, and nowhere have I said they should be ashamed they don't.

      one of the biggest problems is other peoples' attitudes compounding the problem, that it's not a matter of choice or bad decisions

      Yes, I see that's where you're coming from, and what blinds you in this discussion. You hate people that have a specific attitude towards poor people, and then you make some kind of logical fallacy by assuming that anyone who contradicts you in your claims about the necessity of poor people's choices have that attitude. You simply trigger swiftly, jump to conclusions, and then you refuse to let go of them.

      That most people are just one critical illness, one accident, one failed relationship, one long-term job loss, one death of a partner or child or parent, from finding out just what being poor really is.

      Sure, but don't you take the victim-of-circumstance thing a bit too far? If you say poor people can't help it and they need to eat crap and become obese, haven't you created a self-fulfilling prophesy? In reality, the likelihood of becoming or staying poor varies wildly with attitudes, culture and knowledge.

      So they'll make what to you are "bad choices" - and your solution is that they should just live on a diet of rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot.

      Tell me, how could I have told you that you were wrong about poor people not having the option of a healthy diet, without providing an example and thus have you go ape-shit? How should I have sugar-coated it?

      Your answers to that particular question - like when it's at the point that they can't afford both their medication and food - "well, they'll eat, because otherwise they'll die" missed the point entirely.

      Again, I point out that your idea of food-or-medicine is irrelevant, since healthy food isn't more expensive and so doesn't preclude medicine purchases any more than crap food does. And, of course, lots of medicine is used to fix symptoms of bad diets, smoking and alcohol use.

      You can make all the claims you want to - but you missed the entire point. And you're still missing it. Where are your priorities? We're talking about human beings here. Not animals in a feedlot or rats in a cage.

      My priority is promoting correct information, and what we are talking about is you being wrong about the affordability of healthy diets. Have you seen the xkcd comic "somebody is wrong on the Internet"? That's me, while you're an irrational crusader that prefers falsehoods to admitting something that, in a later association step, could lead to someone thinking poor people should be ashamed of themselves.

      I know you won't feel any shame over this ... after all, for you, poverty is someone else's problem. You've said you've never experienced it - which probably explains why you fail to even recognize the real issues, and instead continue to focus on the utterly trivial.

      If nutritional economics were trivial, I guess you wouldn't keep being wrong about it?

    57. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      TL;DR

      YOUR topic was making an a** out of yourself - and you've succeeded. You have still not presented any independent proof that your diet limited to rice, milk, canola oil and the occasional carrot is a healthy diet.

      It's because you can't.

      Not even one citation.

      Here's a suggestion (based on fact, btw) - try to realize that when you can't even document your first assertion that nobody is going to take anything you build upon it as being worth reading.

      Really. Not. Worth. Reading.

    58. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      I think you did read - you're way to obsessive not to. I know my argumentation is effective when you aren't able to make a stand. You dish out abuse over me being insensitive to the poor, and then when I point out how that's all a figment of your imagination, you flee to safe ground by abusing me for not providing proof in the manner you demand (essentially you ask for the fallacy of "appeal to authority"), and when I answer that, you switch back again.

      No surprise, really. Your combination of being abusive, wrong and dishonest can't ever prevail against calm, correct and honest opposition. The best you can hope for is getting the last word in before this thread is archived.

      Btw, I mentioned my main takeaway from this thread earlier. The biggest laugh, however, was when you implied that you were big fish in this pond. You're a moderately good flame warrior, but you have issues that will prevent you from ever being great.

    59. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I read the first line. The rest of it, you could have written anything you wanted - you've already proven you can't back up anything you write, so what do I care. If I want content-free junk to read, I'll read my spam.

    60. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      Your use of the "pretend ostrich" as an endgame tactic would've been more believable had you not been so obsessive earlier.

    61. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The only one who is being obsessive is you - by refusing to address even the FIRST problem - your total failure to provide any proof - not a single citation - to your very first claim. And your obsession with trying to build a castle atop it, rather than address the real issue, which is poverty.

      Then again, you're unbelievable any way you slice it.

      Demanding you either prove it or STFU is not being obsessive. Demanding that you get back on topic and stop lying is not obsessive. Truth hurts, Chuckles.

    62. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      A diet based on brown rice is quite superior to potato based and wheat based diets - that much should be clear even to you. And you have already looked at deficiencies in rice based societies, and I guess you've stumbled across stuff like this pubmed citation that gives indirect support: There are a few prevalent micronutrient deficiencies in poor rice based societies, and China and others are looking into fortified variants of rice to mitigate that. Another trivial possibility (at least in urban settings), is adding a few cheap complementary foods (and/or a multivitamin) that close the gaps.

      I've made clear that I can present the numbers I've collected, but you reject that and demand proof by appeal to authority on the exact base diet example I provided, and I won't even bother to look for that. So we're stuck with your obsessive lies and abusive tantrums, aren't we?

    63. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Only read up until the first hyphen - now you're "moving the goalposts" - your original claim was that a diet consisting SOLELY of rice, milk, and canola oil was sufficient.

      Then you added an occasional carrot when I pointed out it was deficient in vegetables, meat, cereals, and vitamin A.

      So, are you going to admit you were wrong, or keep on lying and hand-waving? Until then there's nothing that you can write that is of interest, given the source (you) continues to try to mis-represent the facts.

    64. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      "Deficient in vegetables, meat, cereals"? Man, you really don't know the first thing about nutrition, do you? Btw, the "pretend ostrich" seems like a formidable defense, superficially. It enables you to disregard any proof and just keep on being a trolling bitch. However, in the eyes of me and any (very unlikely) bystander, of course, that is all you are.

    65. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Your diet of just "rice, mile, and canola oil" was deficient in vegetables no matter how you slice it. Yor "modified" version, throwing in the occasional carrot, is still deficient.

      So stop the lying. Either provide citations (unlike me, you haven't provided a single one), or admit that you have NO proof to offer, and you're just a liar who got caught.

    66. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      I provided a citation earlier, but your "pretend ostrich" tactic makes you unable to acknowledge it. Btw, there ain't no such thing as "deficient in vegetables". You're looking ever-more ignorant.

    67. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I provided a citation earlier, but your "pretend ostrich" tactic makes you unable to acknowledge it. Btw, there ain't no such thing as "deficient in vegetables". You're looking ever-more ignorant.

      You're such a liar. BTW - it's not just me saying it - The World Health Organization says you a liar.

      Fruit and vegetables are an important component of a healthy diet and, if consumed daily in sufficient amounts, could help prevent major diseases such as CVDs and certain cancers. According to The World Health Report 2002, low fruit and vegetable intake is estimated to cause about 31% of ischaemic heart disease and 11% of stroke worldwide.1 Overall it is estimated that up to 2.7 million lives could potentially be saved each year if fruit and vegetable consumption was sufficiently increased.

      You're such a liar ... No integrity, no shame, and from the look of things, maybe I can count this as a confirmed zombie sighting, because you obviously lack any brains.

    68. Re:10 ways - all local by jeppen · · Score: 1

      Enough is known about nutrition to take a reductionist stand on this matter. Do you think your body need veggies, or do you think it need the fibers and micronutrients that some veggies are abundant sources of? Moderately intelligent and knowledgeable people should be aware of the implicit basics of the WHO text. I'm sorry your school failed to provide you with these tools.

      I can only assume that the reason you keep pounding on your original misinterpretation is the fact that you cannot defend your original claim (that poor people need to eat bad food because they can't afford anything else) against my real stance. I've provided, as a counterexample, a cheap base diet that covers macronutrient needs, fibers and most micronutrients. It needs little variation to cover any micronutrient deficiencies. This diet is based on rice, whereas your examples had a nutritionally inferior potato/wheat base.

      Btw, that's 3 more "liar", now we're at 20.

    69. Re:10 ways - all local by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Again, you have not provided any citations to contest what the World Health Organization says. Who is anyone going to believe - a nutcase on the Internet with a high user ID, a short posting history, who gets caught out in lies and misdirections almost immediately, or the WHO?

      In such a case, who wouldn't believe WHO?

      And no, your diet wasn't "based on rice" - it consisted ONLY of "rice, milk, and canola oil."

      Kepp lying. After all, it's Troll Tuesday again.

  40. Charities by SandyBrownBPK · · Score: 2

    I'd also stay clear of the United Way! I discovered that they had no clue as to where my AUTO-DEDUCTION was going! Add that to the their HIGH salaries, and there are two good reasons to go elsewhere!

    1. Re:Charities by erc · · Score: 2

      The United Way is terrible. They also strong-arm companies into strong-arming their employees into "100% participation". No, thank you.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
  41. UMCOR by ArgumentBoy · · Score: 1

    The United Methodist Committee on Relief does disaster assistance - water, blankets, some meds. They're usually one of the first on the scene. The church donates all the administration, so every dollar you give buys a dollar of relief. Just drop a check off at the closest Methodist Church.

  42. Something small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find a small targeted organization. Understand their goals. Find an organization who won't spend 30+% of your donation on trying to raise more money. The larger the organization, the more fundraising they will be doing and management overhead they have.

    Having said that, finding them is that much more difficult, but your $100 may be closer to 1% of their budget, not 10^-6% of their budget. That 1% has a much larger effect on the goals of the organization.
    The Red Cross is great in a situation where $100m worth of relief supplies are needed now. It doesn't have the long term benefits to a targeted group of people like installing a well, providing anti-malaria bed nets, building a school or countless other projects smaller targeted organizations are doing. The real question is which model you feel is a better use of your money.

    Or if you want even more personalized and targeted consider supporting a micro-lender.

  43. donorschoose.org by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

    donorschoose.org - they support educational projects. I like them because you give to a specific project, can chose the type of project,location, etc, and they clearly lay out the need, what will be supplied, and their administrative fees up front. If you want to support education, they would be a good choice.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  44. Why haven't any of you liberals suggested.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government?

  45. Zero Administrative Overhead by bob_hymee · · Score: 1

    Try Latter-day Saint Charities http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/ Run completely by volunteers. They're the same people you usually see in yellow t-shirts helping to clean up after natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes but they do a lot more than that. And no, the funds don't go to buy tracts to hand out proselyting. They strictly go to those in need.

    1. Re:Zero Administrative Overhead by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was going to say. 100% of funds go to relief. And the relief is handed out to all people regardless of religious affiliation.

  46. Donate Locally by dokebi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Living in the US, I think it's a gross injustice that people in my immediate area don't have enough food to eat. As such, I have decided most of my charity contributions will go to the local community food bank. It's super easy to see how the money is being used (volunteer and meet the people involved, go down and talk to the admins), it improves the lives of people who live near you, and you get a tax deduction.

    National and international organizations are nice, especially for medical causes, but for me local food bank seemed best.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  47. Cross Out Red Cross by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was centrally involved with relief for the Haiti earthquake and observed the Red Cross and many other such organizations in action. Or rather inaction. Their lack of logistical expertise and disaster planning is shocking.

    But one outfit that did seem to have their act together was Doctors without Borders/Medecins sans Frontieres. They just hop on planes and start helping people, no BS. They also seem to have relatively low overhead, which is where the lion's share of every donated dollar goes at most charities. Maybe someone else on /. knows differently, but at least from the outside as a colleague they seemed effective and well deserving of support.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doctors without Borders is among the best and have a fantastic mission.

    2. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give monthly to MSF, and absolutely suggest others do the same.

      If you're a fan of "hop on a plane and get to work", I would also highly recommend All Hands, whose entire purpose is that: to be the guys who hop on a plane and get to work. My sister's done a lot of work with them in Haiti and absolutely loves working with them, and if relatives of internet strangers isn't enough, Charity Navigator gives it five stars.

      That is, if you're looking to donate to international charities. Like everyone else here, I absolutely recommend spending locally first.

    3. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by superdude72 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Doctors without Borders is great, but where are they when an apartment building in your city burns down and its residents need emergency clothing and shelter? I never knew it until they helped a friend of mine, but the Red Cross helps out in all kinds of disasters that are barely mentioned on the news, not just in major disasters and war zones. Comparing the two organizations is like comparing a 747 to a container ship. Both have their uses.

    4. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by tignom · · Score: 1

      I have the utmost respect for Doctors Without Borders and what they do. I'm glad to hear they really have their act together. But I just can't give them any more money after seeing about 25% of what I gave them last year come back to me as full color glossy brochures asking me to give them more money. A simple letter once or twice a year would be fine. A couple emails a year instead is better. But I got enough paper from them to think I was supporting a printing company and the postal service.

    5. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also seem to have relatively low overhead, which is where the lion's share of every donated dollar goes at most charities.

      You criticised the Red Cross - but their overheads are less than 8%. Is that the lion's share?

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

    6. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked with them on the "blunt"/back end, I'd second this - they don't appear to be wasting too much and make pretty effective use of what they do have, at least in the office I've been. Especially not compared with a few other I've seen at the same level.

    7. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard only good things about Médecins Sans Frontières.

    8. Re:Cross Out Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, thats why i just started donating to them on a monthly basis. I like their attitude.

  48. Go Local by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

    While I'll confess I have a fondness for "lending" through KIVA (http://www.kiva.org), you may find that your charity dollars go a lot further with local organizations, some of which are struggling. I live in Baltimore and have several favorites: The Ark, a pre-school that provides special services and a comfortable environment for kids living in homeless shelters; House of Ruth, our local women's shelter; Our Daily Bread, a formidable soup kitchen and feeding operation run by the Catholics. I've also found some fascinating new efforts. One that impresses me greatly is providing clean, properly fitted suits, shirts, shoes, socks, and ties to unemployed men, along with a grooming kit. (Jobless women have long had several "career clothing" options.) The donated suits are suitably altered for their recipients just as they would be if purchased at a clothing store. Charities like The Ark and the clothing operation strike me as effective, creative ways to fill community needs. Charities like House of Ruth and Our Daily Bread have support infrastructures in place that ensure they won't be spending inordinate amounts on fundraising or highly paid executives. Keep your eyes and ears open and you will find similar organizations meeting needs in your own area, and you'll be able to find one that fits your interests, religion or philosophy (or not), and pocketbook. You will also see the dollars you give stretched much further.

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
  49. Check out religious charities by jfmiller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that God is not popular on Slashdot, but even from a rational humanist perspective these charities are very effective. The administrative costs are usually born by regular tithing so any funds given to the charity can be spent 100% on the core mission of the charity. Especially, in the area of disaster relief, these charities also have strong connections with the local congregations who can quickly put resources to use where it is most needed. This in contrast to groups like the Red Cross usually have to spend time "getting in" to places.

    I know there will be some objections voiced that the money will be used to evangelize victims rather then aid them. I cannot speak for other sectors of the religious sphere, but charities associated with Mainline Protestant Christian churches operate in perpetual fear of this accusation and copiously avoid any activity that might be mistaken for proselytizing.

    I will end by plugging the charity of my own Episcopal Church: Episcopal Relief and Development.

    --
    Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
    1. Re:Check out religious charities by makubesu · · Score: 2

      Yes, if you are willing to give to a religious charity I recommend World Vision. They have a gift giving catalog which lets you donate school supplies, livestock, medicine, etc. There are some really unique giving opportunities:
      http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?lpos=top_drp_WaysToGive_Gift+Catalog&go=gift&&section=10389

    2. Re:Check out religious charities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call. These outfits can range from 0% to 7% overhead.
      Compare that with ARC of 49%.

    3. Re:Check out religious charities by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

      They seem to help too (World Vision that is). In Haiti, besides UN and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) vehicles, World Vision is predominant, even in the Central Plateau. Doing the research on local, regional and global agencies goes a long way. Even if you focus on one particular area (Haiti, local homeless, your neighbors, etc.), giving a small portion to other groups is helpful.

    4. Re:Check out religious charities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you cannot speak for others, then you shouldn't. There is no such distinction between tithed funds and donated funds. It's a great PR line, but as most of them are, it is simply a made up story that requires "faith" to fall for.
      I don't have details on every church charity, of course, but I can offer a counter-example anecdote to your one anecdote. My uncle's church (coincidentally also Episcopal) proudly spent donated money on building a church(and airfaire etc for members to get there) in Haiti post-earthquake. Your idea that churches are afraid of people noticing this is preposterous - in their eyes, building a church and converting people is the most important thing they can do for them.

    5. Re:Check out religious charities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  50. Kiva by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you considered Kiva.org? Technically they give the money back but from what I've seen the money goes directly to people who can use it and you can actually track *exactly* who your money is helping.

  51. Just give by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    The work that charities do is all the hard, unglamorous work that needs to get done that isn't being done by anyone else. It is inherently inefficient. This is not even counting the "administrative overhead" worries that people like to complain about.

    You want to avoid administration? Give to something local, run by volunteers, that isn't a registered charity and therefore doesn't need to hire a bookkeeper, accountant, and auditor just to manage their books. Don't bother with whether something is "efficient" or not, look at what they do and see if that's something you think needs to get done.

    Donating money to a local food bank, for example, is a lot more efficient than giving canned foods purchased at market rates. (and many of those are charitable)

    And if you really want to contribute something effective, donate your time and skills. That's far more valuable than a couple hundred dollars once a year, and is often left out of calculations of charities' "efficiency".

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  52. Charity: Water gives 100% by viniosity · · Score: 5, Informative

    I give to Charity: Water. They've got a great proposition where 100% of your donations go directly to the field to fund water projects. They're also a tech saavy group of folks and try to prove that by providing GPS signals and photos of the project you funded. Administrative costs are covered separately by a group of benefactors (who understand they are solely paying for administrative costs).

  53. Here's the link! by khallow · · Score: 5, Funny
    For those wanting to donate to the largest charity (case) in the world, here's the link.

    Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

    Gifts to the United States
    U.S. Department of the Treasury
    Credit Accounting Branch
    3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
    Hyattsville, MD 20782

    Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue ServiceExit the FMS Web site at (800) 829-1040.

    1. Re:Here's the link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago someone put in a FOIA request to find out how many patriotic British taxpayers voluntarily paid extra tax for the good of the UK. From a population of about 60 million, the answer was two!

    2. Re:Here's the link! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why not simply donate all charity to the IRS, and ask them to calculate any tax deductions for charitable giving, if any, and donate those tax deductions to the IRS as well? The best part of this deal is that they are efficient, ruthlessly effective, and know exactly which charities are legal and which are illegal. Nobody will ever call into question the integrity of the donee.

    3. Re:Here's the link! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Apparently US citizens are a bit more generous: click

      Besides, I doubt the FOIA applies to the British government.

    4. Re:Here's the link! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      Whoa!

      "Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of... An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public."

      So, if I owe the government money, I can force them to use my tax dollars to only pay down public debt rather than the more typical pay-for-bombs-to-bomb-the-shit-out-of-some-third-world-country?

      Could this be possibly be applied to the income tax I owe? This requires further research!

    5. Re:Here's the link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, I doubt the FOIA applies to the British government.

      You're completely right: the American FOIA does not apply to the British government. But the British FOIA does! Isn't that incredible?

  54. Help our forgotten Veterans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.hero-dogs.org/

    "Hero Dogs, Inc. is a Maryland 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose purpose is to train and place service dogs with military veterans who have been injured and/or disabled while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

    Hero Dogs, Inc. provides service dogs to disabled veterans at zero cost to the veteran. Our wounded veterans have given enough, please give anything."

    One of my favorite charities! I try to volunteer with them when I have the time. A great organization!

  55. You PEERS: Best. Charity. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I’m sure there is a lot of people in your circle of friends and acquaintances, that you know have a lot of potential but no leverage.
    Support them. Because they know you personally, they will want to make it worth it, and not throw it out the window.
    If you have enough money: Hire them! But allow them nearly complete freedom. With the only rule being, that they come up with something valuable in any way.
    You will be surprised how much people can do in regard to their dreams, if they just have free time and a bit of money.

    Best. "Charity". Ever.

  56. Help a kid in a hospital by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.childsplaycharity.org/

    The guys from penny arcade set this up, you pick a hopsital and you know thats exactly where you money is going.

  57. How about the "Let's Buy Ken a Ferrari" fund? by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

    I'd advise you and others to contribute all you can to the "Let's Buy Ken a Ferrari" fund.

    Rather than wonder where your money went, you'll enjoy the sweet, sweet sound of a V12 will be echoing throughout the concrete canyon as I blast down Main Street. You'll be able to shout "This is my gift to you all!" and feel the admiring glances of those who wish they had contributed as well.

    What could possibly do more to help mankind than to share the sounds of a V12 Ferrari?

    --
    Place nail here >+
  58. Why Charity? by marjancek · · Score: 2

    Why not microfinancing, such as http://kiva.org/ ?

  59. Your time is not valuable - your money is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Giving your time may make you feel better - but when $10 can feed a family for 4 for a day or two, with soups, breads etc., your time is inherently useless. Go use your time to earn money and then pass it on. Barter was fundamentally inefficient - and hence money came to be. Why go backwards ?

    1. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      There's some truth to that, but there are also transaction costs, principal-agent problems, unsavory things hidden by black boxes, bureaucracy, and various other such problems. When you give a non-profit organization $100, they may do a wide range of things. The best case is that they optimally use it in exactly the manner you would've preferred. But since you aren't actually there to see they do, it's hard to be sure. They might divert an unnecessarily large amount of it to staff salaries, travel, perks, PR, or even "fees" paid to local officials in some parts of the world. They also may or may not actually be improving whatever situation they claim to improve, or be basing their work on good science.

    2. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by houghi · · Score: 2

      It depends on what and when. Sometimes extra hands DO help. If you are good at IT, helping people on how to work with a computer might like learning them to fish.
      Just talking to a lonely elder person is better then buying them a TV or even (audio)books.

      Money is not always the answer.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Interesting

      helping people on how to work with a computer might like learning them to fish.

      Except computers are significantly less nutritious. The basic necessities for quality of life (food, medicine, clothes, shelter) are still much more about money than time.

      Using your time to teach (or volunteer in so many other ways) is admirable, but you do also have to look at the opportunity cost. For someone who makes $100+ an hour (or equivalent) working a demanding job and then donating to a charity might be more effective overall than volunteering their time.

      Anyway, you make a good point, not disputing it (the OP saying "your time is not valuable" is just incorrect) - but in many cases you time *is* less valuable than your money...

    4. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by whereissue · · Score: 1

      "your time is inherently useless."

      I volunteer with a group that delivers foodbank items to those who cannot leave their residence for age or health reasons. Time is their sole resource need.

      Don't disregard what you clearly haven't been troubled enough to look for. There are countless groups which have no need for your money, but depend on your time.

      If you are of a mind that $10 can feed a family of four, why not donate both the cash to provide it and time in a shelter's kitchen to prepare it? Because volunteering time is probably not your thing and you can give cash. That's cool. If time is all someone has to offer... that's cool, too.

      When it comes to this sort of stuff, there is no wrong way to give.

      --
      where is sue? sue is idle.
    5. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by fuckface · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I give $10 they will spend that same money trying to solicit me for more. It's impossible to get them to stop. They can't spend my time.

    6. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by dargaud · · Score: 1

      If I give $10 they will spend that same money trying to solicit me for more. It's impossible to get them to stop. They can't spend my time.

      Yeah. As a self-centered asshole, I rarely give, but the few times I gave it came back in the form of snail-mail asking for more money for a DECADE afterwards. And now they are even retorting to marketing techniques that piss me off even more: they send you something _valuable_ in the mail and ask for a donation at the same time. A large world map. A space blanket. A light-reflective emergency jacket. Etc... Just to make you feel guilty of wasting _their_ money if you don't pay it back (plus extra). If I wasn't lazy I'd send it back with some witty message, but I'm just pissed enough to keep it and never give again. Now tell me again, why are charities permitted to hire marketers ?!?

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    7. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by Intropy · · Score: 1

      I think he's referring to efficiency and overstating it for effect. Consider, you make say, $30 an hour. A driver can be hired to drive food around for $8 an hour. You could volunteer your time and drop off the food. Or you could go to work and hire three drivers to do it. Yes, I know you can't just go to work more hours and get more income, and of course I pulled the numbers out of thin air. Your point about preferring to give different ways is a fine one. But GP does have a reasonable point about the most efficient way to support charities as well.

    8. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by j-beda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They largely do it because it works, unfortunately.

      If you send then a note saying something like "take me off your list" or "do not send me anything more than one solicitation per year" it seems likely they would comply. Certainly the small local charities I have been involved in would be happy to not waste their fundraising resources on people unlikely to donate.

      I just recently heard on Freakonomics that an effective tool in fund raising was to include a checkbox on your money request saying "don't contact me again" - it addresses the issue that dargaud has encountered and supposedly also makes the donor feel more in control, more likely to donate, and actually few people actually check the box.

    9. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by schmiddy · · Score: 1

      True this. I try to give anonymously to deserving organization where possible, which helps cut down on the donations begging.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    10. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by unkiereamus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have 10 mod points, and I really wanted to use them on this post, but I think that you've said somethings that really need addressing.

      Before I go any further, I would like to admit right now that there are bad charities out there. One leaps to mind that we saw move in here about 2 years ago. It purported to be "thinking about the children", yet near as I can tell, the only charitable thing it ever did was spend about 5k to throw a christmas party for the kids (admittedly, they did that twice, bringing us to a total charitable contribution of 10k). Meanwhile, the head of this charity lived in a 750k USD house and drove a 90k USD car. Scams happen, I won't say that they don't.

      Next, a bit of background: I'm a paramedic, I have lived and worked for various NPOs in Honduras for the past three years. I tend to tell people that I volunteer down here, and while in the strictest sense, that's not true, in effect, it is. I make about 1/5 of what I could earn if I were working in the states (and if you know anything about EMS payscales, that's saying something.).

      So let's examine your four objections:

      1) Staff Salaries: As I said above, I make about 20% of what I could reasonably expect to make if I were working in the states. Theoretically, then, I should be able to work up there 20% of the time, then volunteer down here the other 80% of the time. Realistically, though, even supposing that I could find an employer willing to do that (Highly unlikely, in my field, though not, perhaps, impossible),, there's a big difference around here between the trust you get from the community from being someone who lives here full time and someone who comes in to spend some time volunteering, and no matter how skewed the numbers as far as how much time you spend where, you'll always be seen in that light. Around here, I'm known by those I work with as "El gringo grande" (I'm 6'8), but that's a term of endearment, rather than the more common "El gringo" that I see applied to many people who come here repeatedly. with the best of intentions.

      2) Travel: I've actually never been offered travel reimbursements, though I've had to turn down a couple of offers because I couldn't afford the travel costs. Now it's entirely possible that those charities found someone else to fill the role who could afford them, and could do it as well or better than I could, but frankly, and without a hint of egotism (no, really!), I'm very good at what I do, not only the actual meat and bones of responding to emergencies, but also in integrating myself into a community and educating without being patronizing. That last is a surprisingly hard task, I've met very few who can do it, and none who are better at it than me in my particular bailiwick...though I will say I've met two who are better at doing it in medicine in general.

      3) Perks: Again, I've never been offered any perks (aside form the medivac service I worked with offering my free coverage should I need their services), however unlike the above, it's never prevented me from taking a position, but then I'm healthy, young (28), and single. There are, I imagine, plenty of other people who couldn't take such a position without some assurance of health coverage, some sort of retirement or education for their kids.

      4) Finally, and in some ways the biggest point: "fees". First off, let's call a spade a spade, they're bribes. Having said that, though, bribes are important to actually getting shit done in most of the world. I've paid bribes, and I'll almost certainly pay more, but that's just the cost of doing business. Corruption has to be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think that it doesn't exist in whatever (presumably, though I could be wrong) developed nation you live in, it's just that around here it's right up front where you can keep an eye on it. And really, it's cheaper and easier, too. If I want to do something around here, I slip a couple hundred bucks to someone in the health ministry, and away

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    11. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by unkiereamus · · Score: 1

      Oh, crap, I missed PR. Sorry about that, been a rather long day, I'm not quite all here.

      Anyhow, let's address that real quick: Obviously, charities live and die by the donations they receive, and the donations the receive are dependent on their public awareness. If spending 500 dollars on a website gets you 5k in donations, or 500k on a TV commercial campaign gets you 5 million, then it's money well spent. Let's expand that a bit and say that if you spend 500 bucks on a website, and you get 501 dollars in donations, you're still ahead. Having said all that, let me go ahead and quote John Wanamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half.".

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    12. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by anyGould · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a bit of both - the food bank needs both cash (to buy food), and labour (to sort, distribute, etc.) Sure, they can spend the money to hire people to do the labour, but people who volunteer time are "cheaper" - not to mention that a lot of users of those charities are the ones who can donate time, but not money. (Which brings us back to the implied "go get a job ya bum" argument.)

    13. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by anyGould · · Score: 1

      4) Finally, and in some ways the biggest point: "fees". First off, let's call a spade a spade, they're bribes. Having said that, though, bribes are important to actually getting shit done in most of the world. I've paid bribes, and I'll almost certainly pay more, but that's just the cost of doing business. Corruption has to be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism. You're kidding yourself if you think that it doesn't exist in whatever (presumably, though I could be wrong) developed nation you live in, it's just that around here it's right up front where you can keep an eye on it. And really, it's cheaper and easier, too. If I want to do something around here, I slip a couple hundred bucks to someone in the health ministry, and away I go, in the states, I've have to donate a few hundred thousand dollars to an assortment of senators, then wait a year while they finagle a few laws through.

      Of course, today's the day I don't have mod points - I'm always amused when people decry "corruption and bribes", but have no problem with their local pols taking huge cash from corporations. While it would be nice if there wasn't either, there's a point to be made for a system where everyone can afford to get special treatment, instead of what we have...

    14. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I think he's referring to efficiency and overstating it for effect. Consider, you make say, $30 an hour. A driver can be hired to drive food around for $8 an hour. You could volunteer your time and drop off the food. Or you could go to work and hire three drivers to do it. Yes, I know you can't just go to work more hours and get more income, and of course I pulled the numbers out of thin air. Your point about preferring to give different ways is a fine one. But GP does have a reasonable point about the most efficient way to support charities as well.

      Yeah, I guessed you were pulling numbers out of thin air when you said you could hire a commercial driver for $8/hr.

      I work in a field, and if you want to hire someone to do deliveries, you're looking at around $15 per drop. If you want a three-ton truck and driver, figure around $65 per hour.

      Food bank deliveries are big - you can't get a kid in an old compact to do it.

    15. Re:Your time is not valuable - your money is by Intropy · · Score: 1

      First, I was thinking not about big food deliveries to a food bank, but rather driving individual meals from the food bank to shut-ins, which is more in line with something I could do personally. Second, in any case, I admit to not knowing how much this stuff costs, but I thought it would be easier to follow the reasoning with an example than just abstract figures. Third, thanks for the data about delivery costs.

  60. Depends on the definition of "Charity" by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    It really depends on your definition of "charity", and your intent - it can be defined as anything that's non-profit and tax deductible, which has a rather large scope.

    Lots of things are non-profit and seen as charity donations - art museum and symphony, sports teams (kids soccer and baseball), research towards medicine (aids, MS), EFF and lawyer advocate associations, and so on.

    All of these enrich our lives and make the world a better place. Donating directly instead of through a charity organization makes better sense because more of the money goes directly to the organization.

    Your local Rotary club, for instance, is manned by locals who donate their time and would better know your community needs.

    If your intent is to reduce the suffering of people directly, might I suggest Plan USA.

    Plan USA chooses a needy child somewhere in the world and uses your donations to help them grow up. Their administrative overhead is relatively low, and you get periodic feedback showing how your monies are used. They also sponsor village improvements, such as sanitation, clean water, &c.

    In addition, your donation is year round instead of just during the holidays. IIRC sponsoring a child is on the order of $325 a year.

  61. An alternative by cheebie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I may suggest an alternative, give micro loans through kiva.org instead. You can just keep recycling the money into new loans as you get paid back. The good gets multiplied many times over and communities get built up.

    1. Re:An alternative by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      I do really like Kiva.

      The overhead of big charities bugs me; even if they do serve a needed purpose. Big, organized charities are important during big disasters, and don't get me wrong-- things like Red Cross and the like are important to have. But they only go so far. They help those in the most immediate, most horrible need -- but they don't seem very good at seriously improving the world. Some try, but things just get bogged down, and more then a little bit of the money just seems to go to waste despite their best efforts.

      But giving a little bit of money to a lot of people and building a better world from the bottom up seems a good approach to me. I focus on women (though not exclusively), education, food/health stuff.

      And better yet, its a "gift" which keeps on giving. I put a bit more money in every month or three, and everything that is returned I put back out. So the amount of money I'm loaning out is continuing to grow.

    2. Re:An alternative by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Presumably a pyramid also builds up?

  62. Copenhagen Consensus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Copenhagen Consensus is group of economists that grapple with this question. Where do you allocate money to have the greatest impact on human suffering?
    http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

    Apparently micro-nutrients are dollar for dollar your best bet. At least as of a few years ago.. they had a new meeting in 2011.

    1. Re:Copenhagen Consensus by j-beda · · Score: 1

      The Copenhagen Consensus is group of economists that grapple with this question. Where do you allocate money to have the greatest impact on human suffering?
      http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

      Apparently micro-nutrients are dollar for dollar your best bet. At least as of a few years ago.. they had a new meeting in 2011.

      Very interesting.

  63. Direct Relief International by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

    DRI's been at the top of the list (compiled by Forbes) 9 out of the last 10 years. They do work in the US and around the world.

  64. Re:How about the "Let's Buy Ken a Ferrari" fund? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    You might actually be able to pitch this to the city council as a "city beautification" project. Tell them you are going to drive it through downtown every day and stop for morning coffee at a different shop each day. I used to live in the suburbs and there was a forest green lambo parked out front of our local starbucks 3 days a week, people were always very happy to see it out and about.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  65. Join me in helping Hawa Akther Jui by SteveFoerster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I want to help Hawa Akther Jui, a Bangladeshi woman whose husband disfigured her right hand when she dared to pursue higher education against his wishes. She's determined to continue learning by training her left hand to write, and I admire her persistence. Anyone who wants to join me is more than welcome, details in my linked blog post.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  66. Salvation Army by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm an atheist, but, I'm still a big fan of the Salvation Army. I tend to stuff $20.00 bills in their buckets around the holidays. I know many, many people who have been helped by them in their time of need. And I mean, REAL help! With no strings attached. Things like paying for someone to stay in a motel for a few nights in the middle of winter when they didn't have any place to stay.

  67. Don't send it by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go to your local soup kitchen and ask what they need. Then buy it and give them the goods.
    Also don't just do it because it is Christmas. Ask what they need all year around and give food or whatever they need monthly or even on a weekly basis.

    Time is also something that they can use. Take time to talk to lonely elderly people. The downside is that you won't get rid of your money and get back more then you give away.

    Do not buy yourself a good conscience. Earn it.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Don't send it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! The soup kitchen can make much, much more efficient use of the money you spent buying stuff for them themselves. Give them the money and volunteer your time. They negotiate very cash efficient volume buys.

    2. Re:Don't send it by brusk · · Score: 2

      Actually it's far better to give the soup kitchen cash. They buy food at wholesale prices, you're wasting money buying it retail. See this article.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    3. Re:Don't send it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time is also something that they can use. Take time to talk to lonely elderly people. The downside is that you won't get rid of your money and get back more then you give away.

      How much can you make per hour of talking to elderly people? Maybe this could be a viable business model. I see your point: because the elderly are statistically nearer to death, they value time more than money. Makes sense: we could pair them up with some kids who are in the precisely opposite condition (need money more than time). We could charge, say, 15% overhead for facilitating the connection.

    4. Re:Don't send it by bastion_xx · · Score: 1

      Economically it may be more efficient to donate money, but the personal effort and involvement goes a long way. And, you can do both. A local food pantry we assist has seen a 600% increase since late 2008. Besides time and personal donations bought at Wal-Mart or Target, the donations are used by the pantry to buy in bulk things such as masa harina, sugar and such, and then packaged for individual families. Tis the season to be giving....

  68. Donate stuff, not money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donate food, blankets, toiletries, etc to the needy. Find a local shelter or food bank. Go to your local grocer and buy a tons of stuff (earn reward points). Donate to food bank and get a receipt. Deduct donation from taxes. Between the tax deduction and the rewards points you should be able to justify buy a little more to help out. Win-win.

  69. Charity Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United Methodist Committee on Relief (www.umcor.org) guarantees that 100% of all donations go directly to the cause that the donation supports. All operational expenses are paid by the Methodist Conference, not taken from donations. They have a variety of different causes that they are supporting, (last I checked, it varies from time to time between 50-200), to which one can donate through them. They *are* a religious organization, obviously, but the majority of the causes are not handing out Bibles and yelling about Jesus when people need food and clean water. Most of the causes are very "Red-Cross-esque," but the Red Cross doesn't send 100% of your donation to a cause. If you don't object to working through a Christian organization doing some practical good, there's no way to be more efficient with donations than they are.

    Disclaimer - I am not a United Methodist.

  70. $1 buys 2 meals at Second Harvest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chances are this wouldn't apply to you, but I've been a donor to a local non-profit in Toronto called Second Harvest for years and thought it'd be worth a mention. They are a very transparent organization and really smart about communication. They run pretty lean and for every $1 donated they are able to provide food for 2 meals, a metric which has always resonated with me because of its simplicity and preciseness.

    If you want to help the hungry in Toronto, please check em out.

  71. If you give a man a fish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I take that quote to heart, sure you can donate to a charity that will feed 100 people in the developing world for a week with your donation. Or you can donate to a charity that will use your donation educate 3 or 4 kids in the developing world which will have an impact over those kids entire life and in relation make their community stronger and more likely to feed itself in the future.

    Thats the problem with most charities today in my opinion, they only look at the immediate need instead of looking at the best way they can affect that community even if it means 10, 20, even 30 years down the line.

    Sadly I've never been in the position to be able to hand out money so can't point you in the right direction but I know they are our there.

    1. Re:If you give a man a fish... by Oligonicella · · Score: 0

      "Sadly I've never been in the position to be able to hand out money..."

      Then you have no skin in the game and your self-anointed grace at living up to not giving a man a fish because you feel education is more important is just posturing.

      Due to the condescension, I'd have to say pompous posturing.

    2. Re:If you give a man a fish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you -twice. Starvation signifies an immediate need that if not met preempts the ability to get an education.

      You speak english and are using a computer- I bet at some point in your life you had a bit of currency in your hand and chose to spend it on something rather than give it away. You've never considered the suffering of others to outweigh your own immediate wants.

         

  72. The best charity around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you considered JPMorgan?

  73. Give to something you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went to Uganda with an NGO and was sickened by how inefficient many NGOs are, the NGO I was with had plenty of money but no effective place for it so it just ended up building a chicken house to a nice man we knew (who was pretty on top of things already). The only organizations that seemed to be accomplishing their objectives were religious ones (mainly because they don't have to adapt their goals to find funding). There are so many problems with NGO's I have discovered that the only way to make your money effective avoid any form of beauracracy.

    Find a need and fill it. If you know someone struggling to pay the bills, leave an envelope in their mail. If you don't know of any needs go to the schools. Ask a teacher what his or her needs are for the class, many times basic supplies and playground equipment can be running short. The teachers are also a great source to connect to the community, they will probably know of a child or family that could use some sponsorship.

    If you don't have the time to discover local needs I would recommend Latter-day Saint Charities.

  74. Catholic Relief Organization.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints / Mormon). My church has 13 million members and thus is certainly large enough to run its own charities and relief organizations quite efficiently. However, they donate SIGNIFICANT amounts of money to the Catholic Relief Organization as it is so efficient that it would be hard to beat. Whether you are religious or not, I would urge you to look at the CRO or similar as much of the labor is done voluntarily and the administrative costs are low. Large churches already have a world-wide structure and organization and the administrative costs are low. As I recall the Catholic Relief Organization has only about 5% of overhead -- the other 95% actually goes to help people.

  75. wheel chairs - artificial limbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hard to weaponize through distribution, Establishing something awful through status and trust is about the worst of it.
    Can add to that eye glasses, basic prescriptions, dental care.

    We tend to export our bigotry and corruption to the third world, giving new reasons to fight (often defensively...to not do so is to be murdered). No easy answers unless you go yourself

  76. EFF by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    The Electronic Frontiers Foundation has always pleased me. It doesn't give the sense of helping the underprivileged, admittedly, but they are working to improve the future for everyone. If we don't pull out of our rapid dive into censorship and authoritarianism, we will significantly hobble future generations from all economic castes.

    There's a bit of mental gymnastics there, to be sure, but to me it is valid. JM2C

  77. Re:I just give all my Bing points to whatever char by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 2

    Did you ever consider that maybe some people are M$ fans without being shills? I don't necessarily like M$, but I still accept the realistic fact that some people do.

  78. Seal of quality? by jperl · · Score: 1

    Don't you have any independent seals of quality in the US?
    In Europe seals of quality exist, which guarantee that 100% of the donation is transferred to the relief projects. This way you could be sure, that no money is wasted.

    Another possibility is to directly donate food or clothes.

  79. Local by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It never gets better utilized than local. A local church or community center or health service. Direct to the service you like best, even.

    You don't need a middle-man.

    1. Re:Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my neighborhood churches are jokes. The priest use the curch's money to change his car every year.
      Maybe in your country it's different and priests are actually good person...

    2. Re:Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know exactly what you're taking about.

      There are some, however, offering food and shelter to the homeless. Ask a homeless person where they go.

  80. givewell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.givewell.org

  81. Support your local organizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Local Food Banks cannot keep enough food to help the poor.

  82. LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by dbrueck · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pretty much as efficient as you can get: 100% of the proceeds go to help those in need. The LDS Church doesn't even deduct the cost of administering the donations, so literally *everything* you donate ends up helping the needy.

    http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/ldsp/about/

    If you donate online, just enter the amount in the "humanitarian services" field - that goes to disaster relief and other efforts. If you call them you can have it applied more specifically. For example there is a program they are doing to supply wheelchairs to those in need, to help dig water wells to villages in Africa, etc. and you can ask that your money go specifically to one of those programs if you want.

    1. Re:LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Help dig water wells and sponsor an evangelical mission at the very same time. Wait, thats not chairitable, they are expanding an enterprise using charity as a foot in the door to get their people transported, situated and empowered into remote areas. Why would someone give them money to do that? Who needs to give to them when liturgical strings attached to charity,?

    2. Re:LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't trust a crazy cult with my money though.

    3. Re:LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you even remotely support LGBT rights, please don't donate to these people.

    4. Re:LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by dbrueck · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's an incredibly jaded viewpoint. I'm kind of thinking that the women that no longer have to spend hours each day hauling dirty water to their villages would disagree with you.

      Can you cite any evidence at all that there are any liturgical strings attached to this charity? Are you so cynical that you disbelieve that there are people (religious and not) who just help others out of sheer goodwill? How does this "sponsor an evangelical mission at the very same time" anyway? Merry Christmas, I guess.

    5. Re:LDS Philanthropies - one of the few 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I was going to suggest. You beat me to it. The LDS Church has an army of volunteers all around the world, so every dollar that is donated goes directly to those in need.

  83. Some overhead is necessary by Hazelfield · · Score: 2

    I see a lot of comments bashing the overhead costs of different charity organisations. Granted, some of it might be unnecessary, but not all of it. The logistics needed for a relief operation in a catastrophe site is a huge and difficult challenge, and only a sufficiently large and professional organisation can handle it. You need materials, food, shelter, trucks, people with different skill sets, lawyers and diplomats to ensure the cooperation of the local government, and so on. It can be quite chaotic, and of course it's going to be inefficient form time to time - but it helps. Without the people who are handling the economics and the logistics, there would be no food or shelter for the workers in the field to hand out.

    1. Re:Some overhead is necessary by zwei2stein · · Score: 1

      That is not overhead, that is normal operation.

      Problem is that there are charities where leadership recieves executive-grade paychecks, get nice company car, have offices in expensive districts, etc... They are being ran as for-profit company that is doing extremelly well and can waste money.

      I once recieved snail-mail letter from (unicef or doctors without borders, i do not remember which, materials had touching pictures of starving children), all neighbours recieved the same letter. It contained brochure, refilled money transfer order, leaflet, letter, all high quality prints ... it must have cost about 3$ to send this kind of stuff.

      Needless to say, I was pretty disgusted. It was pretty obvious that friend of someone higher-up in that charity got pretty profitable comision. And that is not mentioning prefilled money transfer order in that mail (and snail-mail spam).

      Sickening approach. I hoped it was some scammer hoping people will simply send him money without checking bank account, but it was not the case.

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
  84. Effectiveness by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc.

    So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile. If it was me I'd give to groups that did things I knew about even if they weren't the most worthy groups in the world, which would include geeky groups like the EFF, or maybe local organizations.

    I also agree with others that volunteering your time is a bad idea. Use your time to earn money and donate the money. We have division of labor for a reason. People like volunteering because it's more personal, but "more personal" and "helps people more" aren't necessarily the same thing.

    1. Re:Effectiveness by andrew_d_allen · · Score: 1

      Sure, but "deservingness" is rather subjective. Which is why it's good to get a diversity of opinions, so you can find the organization that _you_ find the most deserving.

    2. Re:Effectiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money...

      The bane of our age. The idea that "there can be only one". That one size fits all (or worse, two opposing sides) and that nothing else counts.

      Different people not only have different concepts of what's "deserving", their ideas of what's "deserving" change.

      Binary is for computers. People should be superior. There are better choices and there are worse choices, and choices whose "betterness" is subjective to the person choosing. There isn't - or shouldn't be - a simplistic one-dimensional rating scale, and the whole idea of "The Best" is a joke best played on the sophomore. One of the things that denotes maturity is the understanding that simplicity all too often means idiocy. If everything should be as simple as possible, the telling part of that adage is "but no simpler".

      Just like picking an investment portfolio, make up a charity portfolio and hedge your bets. Re-evaluate it periodically to ensure that your investments meet your standards, and add or drop as your determination of their worthiness changes.

  85. Re:I just give all my Bing points to whatever char by InsightIn140Bytes · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - You are a stupid fucking idiot and a Microsoft shill. I'm surprised you still have enough karma in your sockpuppet accounts to upmod your comments.

    What would that even have to do with the issue at hand? I was just purely stating facts - when you search on Bing you get rewards which you can then use for charity. Fanboyism needs an opinion, that is just an easily verifiable fact.

  86. If you have to ask... by MikeV · · Score: 1

    ...you may want to rethink your motives. There are opportunities to help people all around you. Giving money is good when given wisely, but it's not the only way to help people. How about getting connected with your community and getting an idea of who can't afford a Christmas dinner and making it happen? Or grab a few friends and repair a widow's broken down home? If you want to do good in a way that's meaningful, it's more than just writing a check and sending it to some anonymous charity. Find a need and fill it.

    1. Re:If you have to ask... by brusk · · Score: 1

      Two reasons not to do that. One, charities are, in principle, experts at spotting and filling such needs, and I am not. Second, if I spend more time working at my job and give that income to charity, it could pay for someone who makes less than I do to work for even longer. If I make $20/hr doing whatever it is I do and the charity pays someone $10/hr to fix someone's house, for every hour of additional labor I put in the charity gets two hours of labor, probably from someone more competent than I at that task.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
  87. Check givewell.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could want to check these guys:

    http://www.givewell.org/

    "Thousands of hours have gone into finding our top-rated charities. They're proven, cost-effective, underfunded, and outstanding."

  88. quick fix or root cause? by Ana6 · · Score: 2

    The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. I would donate to them. Or wikipedia. Change the world, don't just react to it.

  89. CharityWatch by WhiteSpade · · Score: 1

    Charity Watch (aka American Institute of Philanthropy) has been doing this for years and does a damn good job of it. You can subscribe to their ratings guide and always have it on hand if you're interested.

    ---Alex

  90. Don't listen to the Grinch by deanklear · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of very well respected and efficient charities that do amazing work across the globe. I donate to Oxfam, but choosing your charity is an important part of the process. If you believe that giving food contributes to long term economic problems, find a charity that helps communities start local businesses, or start farms, or dig wells.

    For the most part, finding local volunteers is not a problem in the United States. We have plenty of leisure time, and many Americans spend it helping others. What people across the world need is a buffer to protect themselves against natural disasters, because they have been living on the edge of subsistence for a long time.

    An hour of your pay can go a long way in the hands of an established charity. If you have limited time to donate, there's no way you can outperform a trained volunteer.

  91. Child's Play by HalAtWork · · Score: 4, Informative

    Child's Play seems to be a good one, they help kids with severe problems suffer less and recover faster.

    1. Re:Child's Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my experience Child's Play is a waste. I've found it to be little more than an embezzling program for Amazon. At least it does no harm. Locks For Love, for example, essentially says to kids: "Make your parents spend hundreds of dollars on this hair piece because you look ugly!". Not to mention the discrimination of only providing white styles of hair.

    2. Re:Child's Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me heartless, but I think there are better causes then giving kids Gameboys and Playstations.

    3. Re:Child's Play by Tyrion+Moath · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the Humble Bundle! Get yourself a few games, donate all the money to Child's Play. They work on all platforms, and are DRM free. They do new bundles throughout the year too, so you can donate year round.

    4. Re:Child's Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one.

    5. Re:Child's Play by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      I'm interested in hearing more about this as I'm sure Mike and Jerry are...

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    6. Re:Child's Play by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Think about what it's like to be a kid stuck in a hospital with a serious illness, perhaps even terminal. Long days, in pain or otherwise miserable, with nothing but worry and boredom. Having spent some time in the hospital myself as a kid, it's rather awful.

      If a Gameboy or Playstation (or DVD, or art supplies, or other things they provide) can distract them for even a little while? That's worth it. The nurses and doctors who work in those children's wards that are lucky enough to have these sorts of programs all say that recovery is faster, that kids have a higher quality of life, and gives them some normalcy in their otherwise scary and painful lives.

  92. Please define your fitness function by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking about making a holiday donation to a charity, but I'm not sure where to give it. I've looked at organizations such as the Red Cross and Village Reach that promote disaster relief and health in the developing world. I want my money to have the biggest possible impact, so where should I send it?

    Without knowing what, to you, qualifies something as a "big impact", or differentiates the magnitude of "big impact A" from that of "big impact B", you are going to get nothing but people pimping their favorite charity, or other people denigrating particular charites, as responses to your question.

    For all we know, what you are actually asking for is which one will allow you to deduct it from your taxes with the lowest taxable administrative hold-out, giving you the biggest impact on your tax deduction.

    -- Terry

  93. World Bicycle Relief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.worldbicyclerelief.org/index.php

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/opinion/16kristof.html?hp

    That's the target of my traditional cash giving. We give pretty heavily to our PTA- a lot of self-interest there.

    And yes, time is a good gift always.

    I also find that there is never a shortage of homeless people who will have a dramatically better day if you just give them a few bucks. Don't "take them to buy a sandwich so they don't buy booze or drugs." That kind of paternalistic crap isn't charity, it's the wielding of economic advantage to impose your own values. Some people are out there because they have real mental health problems and drugs and alcohol make it a little less horrible. Some people are really just hungry and will indeed go buy some food. Anyway, stop ask them how they're doing, talk to them like a human being for ten minutes and quietly give them a few bucks. You will have made a tangible dent in the world human misery level for the day.

  94. Not the Red Cross by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

    Time is better, but money is important too.

    Courtney's House is good--small local shelter in DC for trafficking victims. Or Talk to Polaris Project, either to donate to them or to ask where the closest place to you is that offers safe shelter for trafficking victims--there aren't many in the country, compared with tens of thousands of victims.

    In the alternative, look for someplace that is underfunded and does good work. Unpopular but important causes, for example--legal aid, or someplace that does legal or psych aid for criminal defendants. Or find an agency that does legal aid for asylum seekers--unpopular, but incredibly important, because when it's wrongly denied, we're sending someone home to a country where they're at high risk for political persecution.

    Do not give to the red cross. They have lots of money and I have heard that their fundraising practices are unethical. I've heard this from people who have worked there and from others--that they basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing. This is hearsay, but I have heard it from more than one individual, and there are so many good and less well-known charities that need support that it makes no sense to give to them.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  95. Givewell.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest you check Givewell.org which has much stricter assessment than Charity Navigator. Givewell has recently recommended a Anti-Malaria program, a public health in Haiti program, and others. They, to my knowledge, have not highly recommended micro loan programs. And they don't consider environmental programs. Extremely good site.

  96. Hire... by Shark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give work to someone who needs it. It's probably the most efficient use of your money that I can think of.

    --
    Mind the frickin' laser...
    1. Re:Hire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. This is the single best thing you can give any man or head of household, a job. It all trickles down from there. I recently had a 2 year unemployment, then an old friend gave me a job. I will never forget him.

      I run a charity. Soon we will use donations to hire drivers. Simple honorable work.

      Stop stupid speeding tickets.

      Speed-limit aware brain gift.

  97. Support your local hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find a local prostitute in your area. Pay for her (or him) to be with you the whole night long. Take her (or him) to a nice secluded hotel room somewhere.

    Order room service. Have dinner. Have a nice conversation.

    Don't fuck them.

    Reminding someone in that situation that there's people left in the world who don't just want them for their warm holes has got to be a worthwhile thing.

  98. GiveWell by augi01 · · Score: 1
    --
    No yesterday, no tomorrow, and no today.
  99. Amnesty by Talla · · Score: 1

    I've come to the conclusion that the best long term charity is Amnesty International. Sure, feeding the hungry saves more people in the short run, but I believe that democracy and freedom of speech is the only way to stop hunger and famine to return to the same areas again and again.

  100. The Museum of Art and Digital Entertainment by VonGuard · · Score: 1

    If you want your money to go really, really far, I have to recommend the videogame museum we started here in downtown Oakland. We raised $20,000 on Kickstarter and 100% of that money has gone to rent, Internet, and insurance. We've not spent a dime on anything except those expenses. Everything else in the museum is donated, save for the meager tables and shelves we have, which we purchased via funds donated by people visiting the museum (About $400).

    Any funds donated to the MADE will be used to continue to keep the doors open. Why is that important? Because we are offering free programming classes for local inner city kids. We currently only have 2 teachers, but we're looking for more. Those teachers spend 1 hour teaching the kids MIT Scratch, then a second hour teaching Python.

    Of course, we also have exhibits, events, talks, and adult classes, but all of those are just icing on the cake for our "everything playable" videogame museum. The real change the world part of our organization are our classes. We've only been open since November, but with some more monetary donations and volunteers, we'll be able to expand our classes in 2012, and maybe even offer after school programs instead of just weekend classes.

    Oh, and we're 100% volunteer run.

    http://www.themade.org/

    --
    Don't Crease the Weasel!
  101. High impact support for homeless in LA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.thegivingspirit.org/

  102. And local slashdottirs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was a post none too longago, a slashdotter who visited, what? Praha I think, where he helpfully relieved a pussy every day for a two weeks straight. Mind you, not just any pussy, they were all in 9-10 range and none cost more than $100 to help out. Well there's a worthy cause methinks!

  103. Public radio and TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There no investment more effective and fair than making education available to those who seek it.

  104. wikimedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only 40 employees, 10Ks of volunteers, but over 450 000 000 readers.

  105. LDS Humanitarian Aid Fund by bfwebster · · Score: 1

    The LDS Church has a very active worldwide charity organization that has provided over $1 billion in humanitarian aid (cash, goods, services) in the past 25 years. The LDS Church itself covers all administrative costs, so 100% of any donation goes to actual use. Here are some of the projects currently being funded. ..bruce..

    --
    Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
  106. Giving What We Can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend of a friend of mine set up Giving What We Can, which aims to persuade people to give a portion of their salary to charity and also recommend charities which will make the most difference. They end up recommending the following three charities equally:

    Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)
    Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI)
    Deworm the World

    http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/recommended-charities.php

  107. Child's Play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't necessarily agree with the guys, personally, but Child's Play gives games and toys to sick kids. It's the Pax/Penny Arcade people who run it.
    http://www.childsplaycharity.org/

    Get Perfect Me, my Hitchhiker's Guide tribute novella for free:
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6848623/Perfect_Me_By_Jason_Z._Christie

  108. Is there a better metric than overhead? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Trouble with this is if a charity replaces outside contractors with volunteers, their overheads go up. Volunteers aren't totally free. Likewise, if you hire a negotiator to drive costs down, overheads go up even though the negotiator may well more than pay for themselves.

    We need to find a metric to measure the success of a charity.

  109. Do not give without being involved by Coeurderoy · · Score: 1

    There is no compelling proof that any charity giving to people in the developing world did anything really worthwhile.
    In most case it is very similar to the 19th century "charities" where bored rich wife of industrialist would give money to "deserving" people that where robbed of the just reward of their work by the donor's husband.
    In most cases these charities are "photo op" opportunities for people who need some positive press, and help make sure that the problems that generated the need for the charity are not solved ever.

    Now there are some project that are helping people survive "right now" while hopefully something is done for the underling problem, but the only ones I know would not take money from somebody they do not know.

    So if you want to donate, first donate enough time to make sure the people running the show are actually doing something useful (the issue is not so much the ration admin cost/vs project cost, but will it really work, for example one project I'm familiar with help poor people to go to school, "hooray", but since it does not help the schools to get more teachers, the result is that less people graduate.... oups...(but the photoops are cute, and it soo help to push "policies",like the ones that helped boost the teenage pregnancies in the US...)

    If you do not have the time, give to the local homeless person, s/he will help the booze industry and be happyier (for a short time, but that's better than being sad this time...)
    Just think that with a 100$ "donnation" you can give 5$ to two homeless people about once a month, and just the fact that somebody seems to care enough to do this severall time, is probably worth a lot of "karma points" !

  110. SOS Childrens Villages by siDDis · · Score: 1
  111. Kiva by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Instead of charity, ever think of micro loans for people in third world countries.

    http://www.kiva.org/

  112. Mayan Families by Azetkt · · Score: 1

    I have sponsored a child through http://www.mayanfamilies.org/ for several years. They are a tiny organization of just a few people, making a real difference. See their reviews at http://greatnonprofits.org/reviews/profile2/mayan-families

  113. write me a big fat check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have extra money or if "all that money" is giving you a headache...
    Then Write me a CHECK! When it clears the bank I will thank you for it and enjoy every penny of it.
    IF THE AMOUNT is large enough then you will also create many continuous donations which will give every year.
    For this you must have DEEP POCKETS and a real desire to GIVE.
    The donations will come from ME at that point and will keep on giving because they will be setup to give out money every year at a certain percentage so as the invested money grows it pays out X percent forever!
    And as the money grows......the amount also grows...because the percent remains constant.
    The basic needs will be met for the recipients
    Food
    Clothing
    Shelter
    Education.
    Medical assistance
    Humor(it makes the world go round)

  114. Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Giving to charity isn't about helping out. It's about bragging to people you know about how kind hearted you are. So choose the charity that the people you know give to, and then give more than they do and shove it in their face next time you see them.

  115. Efficiency does not necessarily mean Effectiveness by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

    I've worked as a "professional volunteer" for the past ten years with several of the big, international NGOs.

    "Administrative cost" in percentages is a terrible measure and organizations with high admin costs are just the ones that haven't been around long enough to set their accounting to move as much as possible into their field project budgets.

    Even for extremely well set-up organizations with good, well meaning people, maximizing administrative efficiency isn't necessarily the thing that the person who donated money to you would have wanted you to do if he or she were standing there. Responding to humanitarian emergencies, such as natural disasters, outbreaks or conflicts is an enormously expensive task. If you donated money to my organization and I failed by not being quick enough, then you'd be pretty upset. You and other like minded people are donating a little bit each to put me in a position where I can be effective. Sometimes, efficiency is the trade-off.

    Find a cause you like with what you believe to be trustworthy people, then donate.

  116. Ronald McDonald by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aside from finding someone in need yourself, which will be a far more satisfying experience, I'd recommend local food banks.
    If you need something big, go with the Ronald McDonald House. They consistently use 98-99% of funds (according to the stats provided yearly to the Combined Federal Campaign) for the purpose that you gave them. Every other charity uses too much money getting more money! My two cents.....

  117. Raise human consciousness & well being (ISHA) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isha Foundation is a non-religious, non-profit, public service organization, which addresses all aspects of human wellbeing. They are running many global projects and few are project green hands and rural rejuvenation where they did great work and its world guinness record also.

    Months of ceaseless toil by the volunteers of Isha Foundation bore fruits with the planting of 852,587 saplings on 17th October, 2006, surpassing their own target of 700,000 saplings. The project seeks to increase the green cover of Tamil Nadu from a mere 17.5% to an ideal of 33% by planting a total of 114 million trees by the year 2016.

    Action for Rural Rejuvenation (ARR) is a multi-pronged, multi-phased, holistic, outreach program whose primary objective is to improve the overall health and quality of life of the rural poor. ARR is a unique, well-defined philanthropic effort, which enhances existing development schemes by supporting indigenous models of health, disease prevention and community participatory governance, while offering primary health care services and allopathic treatment through its dedicated team of qualified and trained personnel.

      Sadhguru, a yogi and profound mystic of our times, is a visionary humanitarian and a prominent spiritual leader. Sadhguru speaks at some of the world's most prominent international leadership forums. In January 2007, he participated in four panels at the World Economic Forum and spoke on issues ranging from diplomacy and economic development, to education and the environment.Sadhguru's vision and understanding of modern social and economic issues have led to interviews with BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, CNNfn, and Newsweek International.

    For more information about global projects, please visit http://www.ishafoundation.org/Global-Action/overview-an-integrated-development-approach.isa

    Isha Foundation, Inc.
    Isha Institute of Inner Sciences (USA)
    951 Isha Lane,
    McMinnville, TN - 37110, USA
    Telephone: 931-668-1900
    Email: usa@ishafoundation.org

    Thanks for considering us and have a nice day !

  118. Consider Open Source Ecology by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    http://opensourceecology.org/

    They are working on an open source set of machines to bootstrap modern civilization for anyone who wants it. The founder lives in a cordwood hut, so I don't think there is much in the way of overhead. I've contributed to the wiki, and am starting a local Do-it-yourself association/hackerspace ( http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Community_DIY_Gadsden ) to bootstrap the tool set in my area (between Atlanta & Birmingham). I like that people can participate, not just write a check and forget about it till next year, and empowering post-scarcity economics in the physical world is a worthy goal.

  119. Voluntary work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a day or two off and do some voluntary work directly with those in need. In my opinion, that is the only way you can be certain that the money/effort you put into it isn't wasted on somebody who's already well paid.

  120. Doing your research by jmactacular · · Score: 1

    Efficiency is generally measured by administrative costs vs program costs, and can be found on Charity Navigator. But I would say pick a cause that really matters to you, then take the time to do your research into what the best solutions are out there, and then pick the charity that focuses on those solutions.

    For me, I am passionate about poverty relief. Specifically, clean water and feeding starving human beings. I like Thirst Relief International for clean water. And for feeding starving people, I did some research and found one of the biggest problems was that for many years programs used a dry-milk based food that required mixing with water, which going back to the need for clean water, is hard to come by in these parts of the world.

    Turns out there was a breakthrough in France, that eliminated the need for this. The new treatment called Plumpy Nut, is a peanut butter based RUTF (Ready to Use Therapeutic Food) for children who are suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition, that literally saves kids who are on the brink of death. There is a powerful video that rocked my world reported by Anderson Cooper for 60 minutes.
    Story:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml
    Video:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4201082n

    In addition to other poverty relief charities like Feeding America, my local food bank, and Heifer International, I give now to charities that specifically distribute peanut-butter based RUTFs. These include:

    UNICEF (Niger)
    You can buy the PB RUTFs specifically:
    https://secure.unicefusa.org/site/Ecommerce/1369610601?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=2320&store_id=4221

    Project Peanut Butter (Malawi, Sierra Leone)
    http://www.projectpeanutbutter.org/

    Meds and Food for Kids (Haiti)
    http://www.mfkhaiti.org/

    1. Re:Doing your research by odoketa · · Score: 1

      If you're lucky, you might be able to donate both globally and locally - the above post references Heifer Int'l, which is HQ'd 30 miles from my house. So I can simultaneously fight poverty far away, and ensure a local employer keeps being a local employer. YMMV, but it's worth thinking about.

  121. Remember the cacti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    British Cactus and Succulent Society: these are the only plants which will grow after climate change

  122. Salvation Army by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1
    They are my usual choice. Some people don't like it because they are religion based (Christian) but what I see is this:
    1. the people who work there live very austere lives, low income, few luxuries, which is a) a good attitude and b) it is efficient with the money you donate
    2. they genuinely want to help people
    3. they provide basic needed assistance such as shelters, soup kitchens, donated clothing, help to find work
    4. they help people without regard to whether the person is religious or not
    5. they don't require the people they help to listen to a spiel on religion etc.

    Where I live these are the people who stand on street corners or in front of stores (the ones that will let them) doing nothing but standing there with a donation pot - no hassles, no pressure, just there if you feel like giving.

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  123. MSF?? by nyargh · · Score: 1

    I can't believe no one has mentioned Doctors Without Borders (MSF)!

    They do incredible work and consistently have one of the lowest administrative costs out of major charities, are secular and are not politically aligned.

  124. Most worthwile -- look no further than your nose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most efficient, worthwhile charity is yourself.You'll get a much bigger kick from helping someone else out than from paying someone to do it for you.

  125. Folding@home by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    This does not exactly answer the question, but I just wanted to remind about Folding@home as another way of helping humanity if you don't want to directly donate money.

    1. Re:Folding@home by NikeHerc · · Score: 0

      Folding@home

      Folding@home is a subset of World Community Grid (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/). One of my Linux boxes at home is constantly working on protein folding or AIDS or related topics.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  126. MSF are one of the best by janek78 · · Score: 1

    Several of my colleagues work/have worked for Doctors without Borders and through them I have met some of their non-medical personnel as well (esp. the logisticians). They strike me as one of the most deserving charities who provide relief without agenda (they are secular). I occasionally donate to other charities as well, but MSF are my No. 1 and I admire their work.

  127. Go Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look in your neighborhood. Give local and you will find that you might get a more efficient bang for your buck. I doubt that a local charity pays its director the seven figure salaries some pull down...

  128. Re: Autocorrect ... by rbowen · · Score: 1

    It's fascinating what autocorrect can come up with. An employee of THE PARENT COMPANY. Sheesh.

    --
    Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
  129. My 2 by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Open Door Mission in Rochester, NY.
    Salvation Army
    and yes, I had to look up the ASCII code for the cents symbol, but it does not display.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:My 2 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      and yes, I had to look up the ASCII code for the cents symbol, but it does not display.

      Well, there is no ASCII code for the cent symbol.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  130. Military Care Packages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The men and women in the US Military always need those little comfort items that we take for granted. The war in Iraq might be over but plenty of soldiers are still deployed in Afghanistan and other bases around the world. There are zero administrative costs involved because all you buy the items personally, take it down to the local post office or UPS-type store, and send it right to them. You know exactly where every cent you paid went to.

    Anysoldier.com is a great site to get in contact personally with a specific unit who will give you a short list of things they would like at ZERO cost to you. Usually items like extra blankets and pillows, hygiene products like soap and baby wipes, clothing items like extra brown t-shirts and green boot socks, and notebooks and letters to write home are on the top of the list. Occasionally little comforts are listed too such as beef jerky, microwave junk foods, and playing cards are requested but the moral pick-me-ups like cards and letters are always appreciated.

  131. Shriners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are really good people. They build hospitals for kids , staff them with the best specialists , and give that to the needy kids.
    No man stands as tall a sa man that stoops to help a child. What i seen with my eyes has changed my life.
    The boyos in front of the parades in little bikes ? guys that bring in millions in contributions for the children's care.
    Bless their souls.

  132. Go local by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    Go down to your local food kitchen and donate time. Give the money to local programs that help abused women. A lot of newspapers run articles this time of year about local programs that help needy people. You can often ask that your money go to particular people in the articles. Organizations like the Masons and Order of the Eastern Star often have programs where they donate money to local groups in terms of scholarships, the aforementioned food kitchens and first responders, etc.

    The point is, think globally, act locally. Plus if you're worried about how much of the charity is going to the cause, it's much easier to follow-up on locally created charities to see if the money is being used properly.

    (If you do want to do something at a more national level, there's Toys for Tots. Also, a lot of local police stations have similar programs for local needy kids).

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  133. military care packages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100% of your money will go towards them since you know exactly what you are buying! ZERO administrative costs! Plenty of men and women are still out there serving in Afghanistan and around the world and need those little comfort items we take for granted like soap, extra clothing, and notebooks to write letters home with.

    Anysoldier.com is a great website to get in contact with individual units on deployment and will give you a list of what they requested personally and the address you need to send items to.

  134. Red Cross saves lives by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    [The Red Cross] basically raise money during every disaster, and while they send support, the impression they give during fundraising that, for example, your money goes to help with X disaster, is not what they are really doing.

    You're right, because when a disaster strikes, the Red Cross is there from day one (or often even before day one, if it's predictable), and so those assets were funded *months* or even *years* in advance. Otherwise it would take six months to get the aid there, and everyone would already be dead.

    When you see a disaster on TV and make a donation, that actually ends up paying for the *next* disaster. That's not a bad thing. Especially since the next disaster might be where you are.

    The Red Cross saves lives every damn day. Not just the big disasters that make the news, but when someone's house burns down, or needs blood for a live-saving operation (Red Cross runs a lot of blood drives), or any number of other things.

    Sorry if this doesn't fit with your world view, but disaster relief isn't like buying books on Amazon. It's a wee bit more complicated.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Red Cross saves lives by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      Here was a CNN story reflecting a Congressional Probe into misrepresentations to donors over the 9/11 funding. For example.

      I did not say they didn't do good work--I said I'd heard that they were incredible unethical in their donor practices.

      If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.

      Fine, it's complicated. Does that give you a right to lie to someone to get their money? There's a word for that: fraud. Fraud for a good cause is still fraud. Do they engage in it? I don't know. But I've heard bad things, and that makes me more likely to donate elsewhere. It's not like there's a shortage of public interest causes that need support.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    2. Re:Red Cross saves lives by anyGould · · Score: 1

      If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.

      If it makes you feel better, look at it this way - the Red Cross has their emergency fund. Disaster X strikes. They start spending the money, and start fundraising to pay for those expenditures. If they don't make enough, the loss comes out of the emergency fund.

      Yeah, they're putting some spin on it, but that's fundraising - no-one donates to the "someday there might be a problem - help us" fund.

  135. A difficult optimization problem by rqvillan · · Score: 1

    While it's human nature to try to optimize an outcome (doubly true for the Slashdot crowd) charitable giving isn't something that can be effectively optimized due to its intangible nature. One cannot prove that feeding the homeless is any more noble than rescuing abused animals or supporting artists to improve the local culture. They are all incomparable and they are all noble (YMMV depending on your values.) Numerical comparisons are problematic as well. One could isolate only those charities with low overhead (and thereby maximizing the impact of the donation), but there are many noble charities that may not have the most efficient operations (either they lack skilled management, or the nature of their operations are simply costly.) To solve the problem of optimizing your giving, I propose this: - Assume that all charities are incomparable and thus, more or less equal (unless, of course, they are scam charities. Try to weed those out.) - Give more to fewer. By reducing the number of recipients for your donations your increased amount is probably more meaningful for each receipent. Also, you'll have less paperwork for doing your tax deductions (not to mention that small donations (usually those $50) get you no tax receipts.) - Choose charities that are meaningful to you. Whichever ones you choose will be the right ones. - Don't fret about the ones that weren't chosen.

  136. Consider Doctors without Borders instead of ARC by 3count · · Score: 1

    One more for Doctors without Borders / MSF. I ditched ARC in favor of Doctors without Borders about a decade ago after one of the many publicized cases of mismanagement at the ARC. Hey, try this: I just googled '"american red cross" mismanagement' and '"doctors without borders" mismanagement". The results for the ARC are about problems at the ARC. The results for MSF are how their services are needed due to others' mismanagement. If you like the kind of work that Doctors without Borders does, then they are deserving of your support.

  137. Being prepared is bad? by DragonHawk · · Score: 2

    The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared.

    And this is bad why?

    Disaster relief is complicated, and thus expensive. You need supplies, equipment, and people with training. Between getting people to donate, getting funds to where they need to be, getting goods procured, getting people trained, and then moving it all to where it needs to be, the lead time is non-trivial. This isn't a hard drive; you can't just order it from NewEgg and have it there next day.

    I don't get this objection to disaster relief organizations being prepared for disasters.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  138. IdEA by Rutulian · · Score: 1

    If you are interested in something a little bit different from "the usual," I would have a look at the International diaspora Engagement Alliance. It is an interesting project, with the potential to have real economic impact in developing nations. There are multiple ways to be involved. Philanthropy is only one of them.

  139. Fund research by Intropy · · Score: 2

    I like to fund medical research, most frequently cancer. I do so for two reasons. First, I like to think that I'm making things better forever. Research doesn't get used up, so whatever I donate we're now that farther ahead in science than we would be otherwise. Second, selfishly, I think someday I just might need to benefit directly from what that research produces.

    There is frequently a lot of hue and cry here about the evil drug companies overcharging for medicines they have patents on. Don't want them to have those patents? Fund medical research yourself with a charity who puts the results into the public domain. I know it's not perfect since someone is free to use those results commercially as well, but it's an improvement.

  140. Named Scholarships for the Orphan Foundation by Dimwit · · Score: 1

    The National Orphan Foundation (www.orphan.org) has a named scholarship program. If you donate to the program, 100% of your donation goes directly to the students. You can dictate the requirements for the recipients of the scholarship (four year school, public/private school, major, religion, whatever). Every student in the program aged out of the foster system, meaning that they did not have a family at the time of their eighteenth birthday and therefore don't have a support network.

    --
    ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
  141. Rant: The Horror of Administrative Costs by griffjon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've spent the better part of my career as a nonprofit tech warrior, from serving in the Peace Corps to a variety of domestic and internationally focused NGOs and non-profits, small and large, contract, full-time and pro-bono.

    I hate the constant drive that non-profits feel towards minimizing anything that could be counted as "overhead." It's misleading, and eventually kills efficiency. Not having someone to answer phones, not having a budget to roll out a website, penny-pinching on every single thing that's not directly program-related does a variety of things. It burns staff out at an alarming rate, as they spend their often-unreported and uncompensated overtime to balance the lack of budget to hire additional staff or contractors. Second, it causes cost-cutting in ways that often lead to waste or additional in the long run. It suppresses wages and pushes good staff out of the sector entirely. Finally, it causes a donor-driven view of accounting, where every dollar must be accountable to some chunk of some program, instead of being broadly useful to the health of the organization and its mission.

    This hurts the organizations, obviously - but as a donor, that's less important - you (like those working at the organization) care about the cause. And year-end campaigns are a huge benefit to organizations - providing them with unrestricted funds that they can use for the health of the organization, instead of funds driven by grant projects.

    So give - as others have noted, find a local cause you're familiar with. Use CharityNavigator to weed out suspicious/dubious causes, but please - do not be turned off by high overheads. They're healthy. They mean the organization has a longer-term view on its role in making change.

    Even better - find a social enterprise - an organization that has a double or triple bottom line, creating a profit or self-sustaining funding situation by selling products or services which also help them lift up a community through employment, skills training, and so on.

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  142. Rational Responders by X10 · · Score: 1

    Rational responders

    If you don't like ignorance and/or hypocrisy.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
  143. Because they won't feed gay disaster victims or..? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

    If you even remotely support LGBT rights, please don't donate to these people.

    Yes, they actively campaign against gay marriage. Are you saying that negates the worthiness of their charity work? Do you think they spit on gay disaster victims instead of giving them food, or what?

    Grow up, and realize that not all worthwhile organizations and benevolent acts must be 100% in line with your beliefs to be worthwhile or benevolent.

  144. That would be *very* effective by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

    If everyone who gave to charity gave to the one who deserves it the most, then all causes in the world except for the most worthy one would receive no money, until that most worthy cause was completely paid for, in which case the second most worthy cause would receive all the money, etc. So I'd think a bit before giving to the most worthwhile.

    Actually, I think it would be great to massively over-fund the best organizations, and then move on down the line of 'worthiness'.

    When I've read about charities it's striking that more than half of charitable organizations never cross $10,000 in donations and/or never get enough money to truly achieve any of their aims. Even successful charities spend so much time stressing out about money; begging for donations, underfunding their projects, struggling to keep their recipients from getting worse as opposed to making their lives entirely better.

    I'd love to see the best charities funded straight into full operating endowments, even at the cost of eliminating several other charities for each one that becomes fully funded. We'd get a lot more work done in the long run, with the best doing far more work in a more effective way, and weak or ineffecient charities dying off entirely (and thus ceasing to draw donations away from the best viable charities).

  145. Proven Impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recommend Innovations for Poverty Action: http://www.poverty-action.org/

    In their own words:

    Innovations for Poverty Action is a nonprofit dedicated to discovering what works to help the world's poor. We design and evaluate programs in real contexts with real people, and provide hands-on assistance to bring successful programs to scale.

    They operate two funds - a research fund and their 'Proven Impact' fund. The Proven Impact fund is what you are asking for and is

    dedicated to ensuring that charitable giving is increasingly focused on those ideas that have been proven to work through rigorous evaluation in the real world

    Both definitely worth a look. However, in defiance of what you are asking for I would urge you to donate to their research fund, not their proven impact fund. Aid and development efficacy is in its infancy, and there is not enough work done on proving the impact of interventions. IPA does it by the bucketload, with high-quality research hopefully leading to better outcomes for all. We need to have more interventions added to the 'proven impact' with high-quality research at the core of applying interventions.

    Additionally I recommend you read Poor Economics, and excellent book on the economics of poverty. Very readable and informative, from some of the leaders in evaluating development and aid efficacy. Possibly should be required reading.

    I am not involved or affiliated with IPA in any way, merely interested in the area of development and aid efficacy. I wrote a post about them here, though I am loathe to suggest you read it: http://iangoggin.com/writings/166/innovations-for-poverty-action/

    p

  146. Convoy of Hope by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

    Some others to consider - http://www.convoyofhope.org/ uses its donations to help feed children and help in disasters. Their website reports administration expenses of 5% and fund raising expenses of 6% of donations in 2010. 89% of donations go toward food, with corporate food donations matching at a 7 to 1 ratio at last report. Every dollar donated provides seven dollars of food.

    If you want something more personal, http://www.missionofmercy.org/ provides sponsorship of individual children around the world. This organization has a Christian focus, but also provides education, nutrition and health monitoring services for sponsored kids (40,000 kids in 16 countries). Their goal is an 80% donation rate - last stats were 84%.

    Support your local shelters for abused children or spouses.

    Donate through local churches. For most main-line denominational churches, the local staff salary is supported by the local members and attendees. Any money that comes in that is ear-marked for a particular purpose that the church supports will go 100% to that purpose. Just call to see what is available as an avenue through each church.

    Our local church provides a food bank, for example, and provides toys, school supplies, and other gifts for local school children or families that are in need. If you don't know of anyone yourself who is in need, you can be sure that local churches have been contacted routinely by those who need help. Some churches in town collect items and take them directly to elementary schools for the office to distribute to kids that don't have winter coats, shoes, or the like. Your donations to the church for local relief programs can make a direct difference in your community with virtually no overhead at any good sized church. Most also have guest speakers over the course of the year who are active in doing relief work as missionaries. They are spreading the gospel, but many are also helping to provide clean water by digging wells and providing pumps, helping with medical training, and many other things while doing their first calling.

    In addition, all major denominations have relief and outreach organizations associated with them. You can send earmarked money directly to these organizations and know that a high percentage of the donation - 100% in some cases - will be used to reach those in need, whether in the United States or around the world. http://ag.org/ - Assemblies of God - for example lists Center for the Blind, Compassion Link, Convoy of Hope, Global HIV/AIDS, and Healthcare ministries. Regardless of your opinions on mixing religion and relief, if you aren't willing to do any relief yourself, you should consider donating to those who are at least trying to make a difference, even if not in the way you would do it, if you ever did.

  147. ReactOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it to ReactOS Foundation, then your money will really help making a revolution in everyday life.

  148. In the Pacific Northwest... by forkfail · · Score: 1

    .. you might consider Northwest Harvest. Not a lot of strings attached, but good at getting food to folks who really need it.

    --
    Check your premises.
  149. Charity: Water by tjmcgee · · Score: 1

    Start a campaign here: www.mycharitywater.org Or just make a flat donation: www.charitywater.org 100% of the money you donate goes to the field. They get their operations money from other sources. Lack of potable water is probably the most significant problem humanity faces. Solving this issue could bring millions of people out of poverty.

  150. Check the "overhead" figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most charities have a certain percentage of "overhead"; this is simply how much of your dollar goes to paying the light bill at the charity. It's really amazing to see "charities" with 80-95% overhead. Money magazine used to run a comparison article each year; perhaps Google can find it. They listed the charities with the smallest overhead, so donators could be sure they weren't just paying for some suits.

    One charity, Lutheran Brotherhood, was on that list every year. The reason is simple: they have zero overhead. For each dollar you donate, one full dollar goes out to their mission. Typically funding schools, water projects, blankets, that sort of thing. I know there's a large contingent of atheists here, but you asked about "efficient", and churches can be very good at this sort of thing. Before you reject a charity because it's religious, see what they _do_ with the money. You may find just the right charity for you.

  151. MSF by ze_nexus · · Score: 1

    Doctors without borders does a lot of work all over the world to deliver medicines and necessities to people in need. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

  152. best charity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    methuselah mouse and singularity institute..

    enough said

  153. World Food Programme by jaruz · · Score: 1

    http://www.wfp.org/ - WFP is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger. WFP is funded entirely through voluntary donations.

  154. UMCOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    United Methodist Committee On Relief They are one of the first responders in most disasters. They don't advertise. They depend on contributions United Methodist Churches and others.

  155. Here's a thought. by joshd · · Score: 1

    Try this suggestion: Why not invest a bit of your time along with some of your money?
    In every city in the western world, there's homeless people. Go find one. But don't just give him (or her) money.
    Start talking to him. Tell him you want to take him out for a meal, you'll pay. Find out more about his story, where he's from, and how he ended up on the street.
    I'm not saying become friends with the guy, but by merely investing a small amount of time, you'll get some insight as to what some of these people on the street really do face, you'll come away from it with a better sense of fulfilment knowing that your money has been spent well, with a greater understanding and increased concern for an issue like this that is right on our doorstep, and a realization that homeless people are really not that much different from you and I.
    Just a thought.

  156. Most efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As has been brought up about a thousand times looking at what percent of your contribution goes to the charitable activities is a terrible way to measure efficiency. Efficiency measurements should be dependent on what the charity is trying to accomplish. If one charity can teach 3 children to read for $100 and another charity can teach 4 children to read for that same $100, to me it is clear which charity is getting my money regardless of administrative costs. Unfortunately evaluating overall program efficiency is extremely tough so not many charities do it. I set out a couple of years ago to find the charity most efficient at saving human lives. I was only able to find a couple of charities with those statistics, and the charity with the lowest per life cost was TAMTAM (http://tamtamafrica.org/). They give away mosquito nets to pregnant women and children and estimate that in areas of high malaria incidents they save a life for $441 (http://www.econ.ucla.edu/pdupas/TAMTAMpaper07.11.05.pdf).

  157. Médecins sans Frontières by belmolis · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), an organization known for both efficiency and heroism. They provide medical care where it is badly needed, including war zones.

    1. Re:Médecins sans Frontières by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been mentioned several times in multiple threads. The consensus seems to be overwhelmingly supportive.

  158. The mormons ... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    Surprise, surprise, but one of the world's fastest growing "cults" provides a lay-ministry and completely transparent (as far as tax laws) organization that spends 100% of donations on charitable process. I suppose you could claim that someone is making money somewhere, but the IRS can't find anyone making money off donations ... so I doubt it is happening. The IRS ... you know, the guys who took down Al Capone. Now that's an impressive credential.

    1. Re:The mormons ... by cochito · · Score: 1

      It's a ministry, not a charity.

  159. Re:Because they won't feed gay disaster victims or by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    If you even remotely support LGBT rights, please don't donate to these people.

    Yes, they actively campaign against gay marriage. Are you saying that negates the worthiness of their charity work? Do you think they spit on gay disaster victims instead of giving them food, or what? Grow up, and realize that not all worthwhile organizations and benevolent acts must be 100% in line with your beliefs to be worthwhile or benevolent.

    ... what if I'm anti-gay marriage and accept help from an LGBT charity? Does that mean the LGBT charity isn't doing their job?

  160. "Solidarity network" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't an answer to your question, but I wanted to share this concept with other Slashdoters of the world.

    In 1995, one guy with his wife and friends created here a wonderful "charity" called Red Solidaria (Solidarity Network). The idea is this: they don't receive any money. What they do is to contact people, for example: suppose that you have computers to donate, so you call them, so they take note of it. If the other institution needs computers also call them, so they put you both in contact. This is just an example, they do this in practically any area: contacting people with low resources that needs medication, organizing donations in case of disasters, etc.

    They never receive money or other donations, they contact donators and people who needs them directly.

    The "Solidarity Network" has grown all across the country since 1995, they made possible a lot of things but they are just a few (more or less 50 people)!! All the the "power" is in the people helping each other.

    It would be great something like this at a global level, check it: http://www.redsolidaria.org.ar/

  161. volunteer-run services.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..have the advantage of lower overhead costs.

    Catholic Relief Services is one of my favorites. Their administrative costs are only about 0.5% of total donations.

  162. "His Libraries, 12,000 So Far, Change Lives" by NikeHerc · · Score: 0

    The NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinion/sunday/kristof-his-libraries-12000-so-far-change-lives.html?ref=nicholasdkristof) recently wrote about John Wood's opening of more than 12,000 libraries around the world. I have no direct knowledge of his charity (Room to Read), but it sounds worthy.

    If you are interested, see http://www.roomtoread.org/.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  163. Happy Festivus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To celebrate the holiday season, a charitable donation in your name has been made to: The Human Fund "Money for People"

  164. Charity DFTW.org builds homes in devastated areas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A charity I support is called Domes For The World at dftw.org... They have a small but effective group of people getting their donations directly applied to teaching and simultaneously building homes using all local labor and resources as much as possible, doing so, in order to create jobs and stimulate the local economy on multiple levels. They have built in some cases entire villages in New Nglepen Indonesia or just one house at a time as revenues permit in places like Ethiopa, Haiti, Mexico and Chunox, Belize. Check them out please !

  165. Teach a man to fish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Money going to big charities often filters down through its high paid administrators ($1.2 million per year for UNICEF CEO, etc.) and often funds pet projects. Best to find something close to home and donate time and talents to help neighbors and those in your community. If we all did that, then the world would be a much better place.

  166. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The LDS church is by far the best charity to give for. Whatever value you donate to them will turn into a good that will be given by their humanitarian program. All costs with managing, handling, shipping and costs that are not goods to be donates are afforded by member's tithing. This means, if you give 1 dollar, it will that this 1 dollar will become a good that will be delivered to those who need it. Anywhere else, the 1 dollar will be split into managing, handling, shipping, salaries, and only 20 cents or so would actually become a good to be donated. I always donate to them because of that.
    Other huge upside is that they're present worldwide, and they respond to disasters much faster than any other humanitarian organizations. Since they have branches and stakes in just about all around the globe, they can respond to disasters like locals.
    If you want to donate to the LDS church, look for a bishop on any of their branches: http://lds.org/maps
    You'll fill in a form with the value, put the money or check and it will be registered as a donation, and you'll keep a receipt for your records. All donations on all branches are audited twice a year, and they're very serious and responsible with the money you donate. More about their humanitarian program: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEt721ZwACI

  167. Engineers without borders by Qbertino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Engineers without borders might be interesting:
    http://www.ewb-usa.org/

    I like the fact that they have established a way of dealing with their charity faliures , which makes them a respectable charity in my book. ... And adds some credibility to the profession of engineering, imho.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  168. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want your money to go to something useful and not be wasted on activities involved in raising more money, give it to one of the few charities that doesn't *need* more money.

    Warren Buffet decided not to set up his own philanthropic vehicle, he just gave his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

  169. Do NOT do skilled work for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work for a non-profit. We offered steeply discounted services (subsidized by government funding) to small local businesses. Occasionally, we'd do something for free. It was always a disaster. People after "free stuff" were the most demanding, rude and unpleasant customers I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with.

    One new independent shop asked us to create them an e-commerce website - their business plan called for 50% of their profits to come from walk in sales, and 50% through their website. They had spent about $40k on shop fitting, and budgeted $0 for their website. They then made up about half of my support calls for the next year, including the only abusive emails that I ever got at that job, because their brand new website wasn't on the first page for generic search terms along with the big national chain stores.

    A few years later I did another freebie as a favour for a friend of a friend, and still haven't heard the end of it. By contrast I've done a lot of "nearly free" or "mate's rates" jobs and people are always very pleased that they are getting such a good deal - I usually get what I asked for and a bottle of something nice too. It's weird, but there seems to be a mindset that if you're willing to do something for free, then your time must be worthless.

  170. Military Care Packages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why has no one suggested this? Anysoldier.com is a way to read what an individual US Military unit deployed somewhere in the world needs. If your not in the US I'm sure there are similar programs out there for other country's armed forces that provide for similar gifts. They write a short list of things they'd like, basic comforts are always on the list, such as extra boot socks, snacks, soap, and notebooks and postcards to write home with. You go out and buy the items yourself so there are no administrative fees to worry about, and ship it off to the address they supply you with.

    Whether you're for or against war, there is no harm in giving back to those who are willing to give their lives for their country.

  171. Ask veterans about direct access to overseas orgs. by JPoodle · · Score: 1

    It would make a vet's day to be able to point some money towards some school/clinic/micro-loan/etc. helping locals somewhere really ugly. A colonel returning from Haiti turned our whole parish on to an orphanage/school there, where money could be sent directly to the director. Be aware that money does not work the same way in these kids of places. My sister has been a nurse in the D.R.Congo for 40 years, and things are absurdly expensive relative to income, mail and luggage are pilfered, and aid disbursement is complicated by 3rd world economics. I had to build her crazy spreadsheets simply for cash flow dealing with multiple agency disbursement requirements, high inflation, multiple-currencies with dynamic exchange rates, etc. I tell donors to send her friends/coworkers money, then they buy supplies here, and smuggle them in when they visit/return. I don't know what their overhead is, but Médecins Sans Frontières gets it DONE.

  172. Humble Bundle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 vote for The Humble Indie Bundle #4.

    You get a bunch of great games, pay what you want, and support charity. Child's Play Charity and American Red Cross...

  173. Biggest possible impact? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Walk into your nearest church (or school or whatnot). Ask if there is a struggling family. Whip out your checkbook (assuming you have one - I think I still do but the last check I wrote was months ago but I digress) and tell them you want to pay for the kids of that family to get medical or dental visits.

    That is impact.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  174. Re:Amnesty - No way by jginspace · · Score: 1

    I've come to the conclusion that the best long term charity is Amnesty International. Sure, feeding the hungry saves more people in the short run, but I believe that democracy and freedom of speech is the only way to stop hunger and famine to return to the same areas again and again.

    No way. http://asiancorrespondent.com/49045/amnesty-international-and-the-us1-37million-pay-off/

  175. GiveWell.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're looking for an excellent organization that reviews and ranks the effectiveness of many different charities, you should have a look at www.givewell.com. They're also pretty transparent about how they do their research, so you can see if you agree with their results.

  176. $ to get healthy educated new adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After some investigation some years ago, I chose to support Compassion as the best way to grow children to be adults that will train others & break the cycle of poverty, ignorance & disease. www.compassion.com
    Compassion International asks $38/month for each child to get tutoring, 1 good meal per day, medical care, clothes, teachers & more. I am paid till April 2013 for 3 children in Tanzania, Ethiopia & India.
    $16 will buy chickens & training in chicken care for 1 family. You can donate a little once or more often.
    Compassion is audited at least annually with excellent documented performance.

    Jesusfilm.org also gets my $.

  177. Internationale Humanitaere Hilfsorganisatio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internationale Humanitaere Hilfsorganisatio has very little overhead.

  178. E-books let kids choose the books they want by NobodyKnows · · Score: 1

    I can't let this question go by without talking about the social enterprise I've founded called Worldreader (www.worldreader.org.) We use e-readers to get local and international books to children in Africa. What we find-- and we measure this obsessively-- is that the kids read far more (I've met girls who have 90 books in a year!) and better (as measured by standardized tests vs. control schools) as a result. In a way, it's not surprising: what I learned as an Amazon guy is that when you make things easier and less expensive, people do more of it. See also: cell phones in the developing world.

    As for the efficiency question, I can only say that we're super-focused on keeping costs low, but maybe not in the way you think. We get donations from everyone from international publishers (Random House, Penguin, etc.), hardware partners (mEdge donates the cases that protect the e-readers), software partners (Dropbox gives us free licenses), and even local African publishers who let us use their books for nearly no cost. Heck, the hotel where we stay in Accra, Ghana, even gives us lots of nights for free. But at the same time, I do pay many of our employees a salary-- after all, this is their full-time job, and they've got to make money somehow. I volunteer all of my time, but not everyone is in a position to do so. And beyond that, we take trips (flying coach!) to countries like Ghana and Kenya to train the teachers, work with the students, and generally make sure things are going well. Are these costs worth it? You bet: there're the only way we can have the impact we have.

    Speaking of impact, if you have 90 seconds and think reading is important, take a look at some of the kids in our program in Africa as they talk about what they're getting out of reading, and how they want to become a doctor or soccer player as a result: http://youtu.be/uhAuD65WYnk (We have lots more video at youtube.com/worldreaders if you enjoy seeing kids and teachers reading and improving their lives.) Or visit Worldreader.org to find out more.

    OK, I know this is an ad, but that's part of what running a social enterprise means: believing in your cause enough to tell other about it... and doing it in a way that doesn't cost money! Thanks, Slashdot!

  179. It Varies by glorybe · · Score: 1

    Try to stay local. In my area the Catholic Church is about the best at feeding the homeless and similar acts of charity. Ask a couple of homeless people in your area where they get the most help and support that charity. If you have more time than money then doctor visit rides for those in need is a great way to help people.

  180. WBAL Kids Campaign -- 100% goes to kids by Mike · · Score: 1

    I like to give to the WBAT Kids Campaign

    http://www.wbal.com/kids/

    100% of your donation goes directly to needy kids in one form or another. The radio station assumed all of the administrative costs.

    Can't get any better than that!

  181. the smile train (www.smiletrain.org) by serbanp · · Score: 1

    This Charity's effort impact is beyond huge.

  182. Most efficient charity is SAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Society for the Advancement of Me.

  183. Asha For Education: 0% Overhead on Donations by sup2100 · · Score: 1

    I recommend Asha for Education: http://www.ashanet.org/ They have 0% overhead on donations (overhead comes from volunteer donations). This means that you know your donations will not be going to pay some administrator's salary. They directly support schools and other education projects in India. I think education is the best way to make a lasting change. "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime"

  184. My house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "so where should I send it?"

    Duh, send it to my house.

  185. K-Mart? by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

    Apparently it's all the rage to go into K-Mart and pay off someone's layaway. (See multiple news stories.)

    It sounds like the layaway department people are willing to find you someone who meets your profile.

    Toys for young children and an account that is behind on payments is reportedly a popular profile.

    The trick is apparently to pay it down so only a little is left due - if you pay it off, someone has to take the stuff.

    --
    The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
  186. Your Local Food Bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a trip to Costco, local grocery store, etc. Buy the food, Give to the Food Bank. So many families around you need the help so badly. Your gift of a meal or two for a bunch of people will brighten their day and make them go that much further.

    Food Banks are also great places to volunteer your time to help out too!! Our Cub Scout pack made short work of repackaging 2000 lbs of potatos into 5 lbs sacks for them on a Saturday (only took 2 hours!!)!!!!!!

  187. UMCOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UMCOR has ZERO administration costs.
    = United Methodist Committee on Relief.
    It's a mission of the United Methodist Church. Each year there is a special offering in the churches that pays the administration costs. That means that every dollar you give to a UMCOR project goes to the project.

    There are a variety of projects so you can actual dictate WHERE your giving goes. Last year we gave a lot to the Tsunami Relief in Japan.

    The Red Cross comes in with food and emergency shelter then leaves. UMCOR shifts into high gear working to rebuild people's lives. How can we help people restart their businesses that were wiped out? How can we help a mom with kids find a home? How do we empower people to help themselves?

    We build a lot of schools for that reason etc.

    Check it out.

    umcor.org
    or
    http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umcor/

  188. Buy Animal = Self-Sufficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised no one mentioned heifer

    You can buy an animal for a family, or help buy an animal, so they can sell what it makes for self-sufficiency.

    Ie you can buy some poor family a chicken, and they are taught how to take care of the animal so they can sell it's eggs.

    Buy a cow and sell it's milk, etc.

    www.heifer.org

  189. Buy Animal = Self-Sufficiency. by CryoKeen · · Score: 1

    Surprised no one mentioned heifer You can buy an animal for a family, or help buy an animal, so they can sell what it makes for self-sufficiency. Ie you can buy some poor family a chicken, and they are taught how to take care of the animal so they can sell it's eggs. Buy a cow and sell it's milk, etc. www.heifer.org

  190. Tragedy of the Commons by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    If you are raising money for the next disaster, you should say "We were there from day one at X," not "Help support the victims of X." You shouldn't deceive donors about the money.

    The thing is, donating does help the victims. It just isn't as simple as going into Wal-Mart and buying a Band-Aid. If people didn't donate during the X-1 disaster, then there would be no resources for X. If people don't donate during the X disaster, there will be no resources for X+1. The Red Cross responds to disasters around the clock -- it's a continuous, non-stop, all-the-time operation. You can't just earmark funds for *one* thing, and trying to do so makes no sense -- by the time the money gets there, it will be too late.

    It appears some people just can't wrap their heads around this fact. It's the Tragedy of the Commons, all over again.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  191. Remote Area Medical by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 1

    These guys are extremely efficient. They came to a town near me when I was in medical school, and believe me, they make a huge difference on a tiny budget. http://www.ramusa.org/

  192. Go Local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I give money to my local homeless shelter. Frankly I am amazed with the quantity and quality of services it is able to offer with such limited resources - completely beats every corporation I've ever worked for. If those people decided to take over the world I'm sure they could. Other noble causes would be your local humane society....I'm sure there are many others locally that could use the help, but stay local. It will matter more to you in the end.

    As an aside, I also volunteer at that homeless shelter one day per week. For a moment let's say that the time vs. money argument is irrelevant. You can't beat the feeling you get to look the person you're helping in the eye and they say "thanks". That's worth more than money. You'll do good for a person in your community and you get some feedback for what you're doing. It makes your 'donation' seem more meaningful to you, which encourages you to donate more time, and before you know it you're talking your friends into doing it.

    Forget your money, donate your time.

    Also, don't be one of those holiday donors. do it all year 'round. Celebrities work the serving line on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Do it in July.

  193. Red Cross...? please read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in case you think about Red Cross... for your reference... Red Cross was at the root of the HIV spread for more than 10 years, 'cause it was too expensive to screen donators/donations... http://pelourinho.com/downloads/BadBlood1.pdf

  194. Road to Hell by on+the+8ball · · Score: 1

    I suggest reading this book before making any donations:

    The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid and International Charity (Michael Maren)

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684828006/ref=oh_o00_s01_i00_details

    From the amazon review: "Before you mail another check to Save the Children or join the Peace Corps, read this book. Michael Maren shows that the international aid industry is a big business more concerned with winning its next big government contract than helping needy people."

    --
    Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment â" Buddha
  195. World Vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World Vision has a Maximum Impact fund that helps meet crises, and a section where other agencies have pledged to multiply your donation with their resources: http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=10680.

    They also post their financial accountability info online if you're interested: http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/ar-financials#FinancialAssementAndOutlook.

  196. Hamas, Hizbullah and FSF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recommend Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation. You can donate money to him, so that he can work to liberate all software - the way the Soviets worked to liberate all the downtrodden proletariats of the world.

    Other than that, other excellent charities to donate to would be Hamas and Hizbullah, both of which run social services in Gaza and Lebanon. Such charities will have no middle men, and be 100% efficient. The proof of their work can be seen in the mandates that they've won from their voters in both countries.

  197. Re:Amnesty - No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No way.
    http://asiancorrespondent.com/49045/amnesty-international-and-the-us1-37million-pay-off/

    Unfortunately you'll be able to find examples like that in any large organzation and more small ones than people would like to think. In the big picture $1.37million is a drop in the ocean, and they don't seem to think it's ok. If this is all you can come up with against such a huge organization I think my money is very well spent.

  198. The Helios Project: http://linuxlock.blogspot.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Helios Project at http://linuxlock.blogspot.com/ gives out computers to poor kids. It's a small scale operation, but they do real fieldwork and they do need all the help they can get. CHeck out their blog and you'll be convinced!

  199. Crowd funding by Quazion · · Score: 1

    I suggest you fund a noble project to crowd fund. This way you can also monitor what is happening with your money. And if you really invest in something you might even have a small influence of where this project is heading. Companies are often way more transparent then charity is.

    Personally I put some money in the www.wakawakalight.com project, which is designing cheap solar powered lights for the third world. You can either buy equity at www.symbid.com or donate at www.kickstarter.com

  200. Re:Amnesty - No way by jginspace · · Score: 1

    If this is all you can come up with against such a huge organization I think my money is very well spent.

    People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/

  201. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    During my previous job I met several NGOs and for my opinion Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières - MSF) is the most efficient big charity. Once I had the opportunity to visit their (German) headquarter where just very few people were working. The actual doctors and nurses get very basic "salary" so effectively they are working for free. Also MSF is usually the last NGO working in a war zone after the other NGOs have left because of danger. They do a very good job.

  202. Re:Amnesty - No way by Talla · · Score: 1

    People who are being persecuted in Thailand might wonder how it's being spent: http://asiancorrespondent.com/42468/whats-the-point-of-amnesty-international-in-thailand/

    Yes, Amnesty is clearly ignoring everything that goes on in Thailand: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/thailand
    And yes, that was sarcasm.

  203. Pathfinder International by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Well, I work there (and donate some of my salary back) so I'm biased.

    However, I work there, as a biologist at heart, because family planning and reproductive health work at the heart of the problem rather than treating symptoms (deforestation, famine, species extinction, wars). The best correlation to improved social outcomes is the education level of women. The number one block to women's education: having children when you're 11. That simple.

  204. Re:Amnesty - No way by jginspace · · Score: 1

    23 November 2011, 27 September 2011, 31 July 2011, 17 February 2011 - my gawd they're being a proper pain in the backside over there aren't they? (Yes, sarcasm)

  205. My bank account. by sergiol · · Score: 1

    My bank account. Really. I can give you the IBAN number in a private message.

  206. Tomato Router Project for the 3rd World. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys [www.relieflabs.org] are working on a new version of the Tomato firmware to help non-technical (ie, your mom) users in NGOs, schools, and hospitals uses have per computer or per computer group access control of their very limited bandwidth and overtaxed internet connections. It is a really simplified visual interface with clear documentation and will only be supported on one router (my mom would be terrified of picking which build to get). It's a pretty cool project and badly needed overseas where there is very limited knowledge, money, and bandwidth.

    Anyway, its a more tech/nerdy slashdot kinda thing to give to.

  207. Economics of charity by jirikivaari · · Score: 1

    By investing in something (that's not a fraud) you're doing charity aswell. Nothing has increased our living standards as much as increase in productivity that only investment in better production can bring. Basic Adam Smith. Maybe investing in developing countries is marginally more "charitable". Basic charity, while it can provide temporary relief with high marginal benefit, usually does not have this effect (externalities are not simple but ahem).

    Another thing you can do is just not use the money, which will increase the purchasing power of other people equally. There was an article on slate about this.

    Put a dollar in the bank and you'll bid down the interest rate by just enough so someone somewhere can afford an extra dollar's worth of vacation or home improvement. Put a dollar in your mattress and (by effectively reducing the money supply) you'll drive down prices by just enough so someone somewhere can have an extra dollar's worth of coffee with his dinner. Scrooge, no doubt a canny investor, lent his money at interest. His less conventional namesake Scrooge McDuck filled a vault with dollar bills to roll around in. No matter. Ebenezer Scrooge lowered interest rates. Scrooge McDuck lowered prices. Each Scrooge enriched his neighbors as much as any Lord Mayor who invited the town in for a Christmas meal.

    Investing or saving works, probably much better than charity, but of course it isn't as high social status as charity and you won't get the warm feeling of helping someone. But if you want to go with charity, give money the recipients weren't expecting (advice I got from one economist). Helping the poorest of the poor might be better than helping the poorest of Western country. Helping children and people who are in bad position of no fault of their own is probably better too. But other commenters have better opinions on different charities so I'll leave it at that.

  208. On what? by dpdannemiller · · Score: 1

    "I want my money to have the biggest possible impact" On what? What do you value? Your decision on what organization to support should be based on your own values. Others can offer ideas, but in the end only you can make the decision that is "right" for you.

  209. Re:Help a neighbor But be carefull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since my first above minimum wage check I have been helping those around me. I spent a number of years at the bottom of the wage scale before returning to school and I still identify most with those at that level.

    You will be taken.
    You will be scammed
    People will steal from you.

    If you cannot face those realities, put your money into a charity. I recommend The Salvation Army. They will always be there to help you. They do have an agenda. But when you have nothing they are a place where you can turn.

  210. Go where the rubber meets the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to maximize your charity dollars, go as close to the source as possible. Look for a local church with a food pantry, and give them food. If you donate elsewhere, you'll end up having some of your cash saved away for administrative fees, paying for delivery trucks, and rent. Granted, a lot of these organizations are very efficient, but rent isn't free. Also the type of food you give makes a huge difference. Rice & Beans can be purchased in bulk, and are some of the few items that food pantries are allowed to break up (they are not allowed by law to split turkeys and most other food items). If you want to feed the most people possible per dollar spent, grab a 50lb bag of rice and a 50lb bag of beans, let the church food pantry break it up into 100lbs of rice and beans in cheep bags, and you've fed a lot of people.

  211. Salvation Army by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

    My christmas donation goes to the Salvation Army.

    1. Their staff are pretty dedicated, working for small salaries, hence low overhead.

    2. They take care of a real need.

    3. It's local.

    --
    Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  212. Re:How about the "Let's Buy Ken a Ferrari" fund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheaper than you think!
    1997 Ferrari 456, V12, low miles, $48,900.

  213. Re:Amnesty - No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you prefer frequent cheap shots on a blog to thoroughly researched reports then I guess Amnesty is not for you.

  214. Direct Relief International by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No admin costs for the last several years, Just ships stuff that is needed regardless of location:
    http://www.directrelief.org/AboutUs/History/History.aspx
    Highly rated by a lot of groups (ex. Charity Navigator).

  215. Rescue Squads and Fire Departments by grimarr · · Score: 1

    If you are in an area that has a volunteer rescue squad or fire department, I recommend them for your donations. I've been affiliated with one for 25 years, and our overhead is almost non-existent. We have no paid employees, we contract out bookkeeping/tax/auditing work, and do everything else ourselves. I estimate that 98% of our income gets spent on equipment, supplies, utilities, and other direct operating expenses. And as far as I can tell, the other organizations around here are just as lean.

  216. Modest Needs by Grant+Root · · Score: 1

    Try Modest Needs (http://www.modestneeds.org/). They provide small, one-time grants to keep individuals and families from sliding from self-sufficiency into homelessness. Applications are carefully vetted, and donors get to decide what applications they fund. Typical grants are for medical needs, basic transportation, catching up on house payments, or the like. The administrative staff and overhead is very small.

    1. Re:Modest Needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that this is the only reply for Modest Needs. Modest Needs is a great organization and one of the only that I support since I know exactly where the money is going.

  217. Re:I just give all my Bing points to whatever char by NicknameOne · · Score: 0

    Yes I did consider that. Did you read the post history of the person I was replying to? His posts are 90% lies. I doubt if a true Microsoft fan would do that. This person sounds like he's doing it for money.

  218. FoodForThePoor.org by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    There are a couple like this that I've heard of. Their commitment is to get as much traction as possible out of every dollar by minimizing administrative costs, etc. This one claims upward of 96% going to feed the hungry around the world: http://www.foodforthepoor.org/

  219. Planned Parenthood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sexual education and access to birth control helps prevent unwanted pregnancies, which can have a huge ripple effect. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

  220. Charities I personally recommend by przemekklosowski · · Score: 1
    FWIW, my favorite charities, in the order of how much I donate:
    • Doctors Without Borders -- because they just go and help
    • Amnesty Inernational -- because they have a track record of defending human rights
    • EFF -- doesn't need explanation here
    • WAMU -- local public radio station
    • Miriam's kitchen -- local homeless food
    • local community child care for their need-based grant fund
  221. Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    That's not the same as a diet that consists ONLY of rice, milk, canola oil, and the occasional carrot. NO other veggies. No fish or other meat. (And the carrot was only added after I pointed out that there were serious vitamin A problems).

    So, want to try again? Because Japan doesn't cut it.

  222. one day's wages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one day's wages: http://www.onedayswages.org/

    simple idea: getting people to donate one day's worth of their annual wages to fight global poverty

    to your question: they have committed to making sure that 100% of all donations go directly to small/medium sized organizations around the world that are already fighting global poverty. in short, ODW does the research and legwork for you.

  223. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

    I don't believe the OP meant his "eat rice" comment to be as superlative as you're making it out to be. By "Eat a carrot", I read that as "supplement with veggies" rather than "eat an occasional carrot". Regardless of what the intention was, it doesn't change the fact that the Japanese diet is an affordable diet -- by what claim do you believe they don't meet the yardstick? Mostly rice with veggies and a smattering of fish (when you can afford it) is a perfectly healthy diet. It may not be the healthiest diet, but it's certainly leagues better than mac-n-cheese and fast food, for pretty close to the same cost. Hell, if you factor in all the healthcare bills you'd be saving for not having obesity issues, I'd say it's far cheaper in the long run.

  224. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    I don't believe the OP meant his "eat rice" comment to be as superlative as you're making it out to be.

    That word doesn't mean what you think it means. And yes, if you read the comments, they meant it literally. No veggies whatsoever, until I pointed out the vitamin A problem - then it's "oh 100 grams of carrots once in a while". And no meat. Fresh produce is expensive in the winter months, and this whole thing is about poor people having to make hard choices, not about how long someone can live on a subsistence diet before they end up in the emergency ward.

    Also, there are plenty of obese people in Asia - what do you think sumo wrestlers eat - people?

    My point, as always, has been that poor people have to make hard choices, and that eating a proper balanced diet becomes "optional" when they're looking at a "food, rent, utilities, meds, warm clothing - pick 2". For anyone to say "so let them eat a diet of rice, milk, and canola oil - it has everything they need and it's cheaper" misses the point. It is not healthy. Read where I asked "where's the veggies? Where's the fish or poultry?" See the response - the poster claims none of that is needed, with the exception of the occasional carrot.

    Ridiculous? Extremely.

  225. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    Thanks, I was a bit surprised that anyone else read this subthread. I think Barbara's rather, well, narrow perspective on how a discussion should be conducted made us lose sight of the big picture, and you lead us back to it. We seem to agree that there is no economic reason for people to have unhealthy diets, contrary to Barbara's original claims.

    And yes, my intention was to supplement the diet with some cheap veggies to close any micronutrient gaps. But it was also the case that I got a bit caught up in the idea of how to construct a minimal healthy diet as a sort of linear programming problem. I did the math and now I know the idea holds water.

  226. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    Read where I asked "where's the veggies? Where's the fish or poultry?" See the response - the poster claims none of that is needed, with the exception of the occasional carrot.

    Now you lie, blatantly. I answered "sure, buy some carrots as well". I didn't say that nothing else is needed. The diet was intended as a base that would need little extra to close micro-nutrient gaps. I've told you so repeatedly, but you refuse to listen.

    My point, as always, has been that poor people have to make hard choices, and that eating a proper balanced diet becomes "optional" when they're looking at a "food, rent, utilities, meds, warm clothing - pick 2".

    They obviously pick food as one of two, since else they'd die. Now if they pick M&C and french fries, as you suggested, instead of a rice based diet with some additions, then they don't do that for economic reasons. Why, then? One issue is how our evolutionary history set us up with regard to preferences of sweet and fat foods. Another issue is culture.

  227. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    *I* lie? You're the one who originally claimed that *ALL* that was neede was rice, milk, and canola oil. NO veggies.

    Liar.

  228. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    So childish. We both know I'm right, and that's good enough for me. I won't do a back-and-forth of "you lie, no you".

  229. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    You still haven't shown a single reference to prove it. As they say, [citation needed]. I provided a bunch, you provided ... hand-waving. So, you continue to lie. What is it to me? Nothing. Just a way to fill in some time while I wait for my coffee.

  230. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    I guess I was a bit too polite and subtle when I pointed out your references were irrelevant. My bad.

  231. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    The references were entirely relevant - but even if they weren't, you haven't been able to provide a single one to back up your claims, so what's your problem? If you don't like being called out as a stupid lying jerk, then maybe you shouldn't lie so much, silly. Not that anyone cares anyway ... except you, of course - your pride is aw gee whiz so wounded that nobody wants to take you at your word when you lie and can't produce a single citation to back it up.

    Like the saying goes - don't go away mad - just go away. Or not - I don't care. I'll just throw the truth back in your lying face every once in a while when I need a break.

  232. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    It's a bit funny/sad to see how violently you react when exposed as a liar. And even sadder to see you talk about MY pride. You should see yourself.

  233. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Keep lying ... you're the one who failed to provide a SINGLE citation to try to back up your lie when you got called on it. And now, in another part of the discussion, you're trying to move the goalposts rather than admit that you were wrong, and then lied to try to cover it up.

    My pride is intact - after all, I'm not the one who foolishly claimed that people only needed to eat rice, milk, and canola oil - no veggies, no meat, nothing else.

  234. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    That really proved my point. I hope your dysfunctionality doesn't show very often IRL.

  235. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    No, it proves that you'll resort to anything to avoid admitting that you can't provide a single citation. Absent any sort of proof to your claim that a diet exclusively consisting of rice, milk and canola oil (with an occasional carrot) is a healthy diet, you're STILL a liar.

    And your attempts to try to make it about me, instead of about how you have NO proof to your claims, and have continually tried to avoid providing any, kind of proves my point. You're STILL a liar.

  236. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    Again, you prove my point. Do you know how many times you have said I lie or called me liar? I counted to 17, but I probably missed some. You should seek help, both for you obsessive behaviour and for your sadistic streak (not that I hurt much, but anyway). And you should read up on nutrition.

  237. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    Just keep on lying ... the only one who looks stupid in this mess is you, just like your original lie - that a diet consisting of only rice, milk, and canola oil was a complete and healthy diet.

    But keep it up - you just look stupider with every post you make.

  238. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by jeppen · · Score: 1

    You have stereotypically repeated your misrepresentation of my stance more than a dozen times. With your other post, you're up to at least 22 claims of me being a "liar" in total, and you're adding up to a (not so) respectable number of variations on "stupid" too. I'm beginning to feel bad, actually. Whether your disorder is obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, borderline or something else I can't say, but nothing good can come from me agitating it. I'm out of here.

  239. Re:Bzzt! Try again (but read first) by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    You lied again in another post - you claimed that your diet was "rice-based", as opposed to it being EXCLUSIVELY "rice, milk, and canola oil."

    I'm out of here.

    You said as much before, and kept on posting (without providing proper citations to reputable organizations, unlike the links I provided to government standards and the World Health Organization) ... you lied then too.