In a :::ahem::: previous thread, someone asked me what my criteria for a worthwhile charity was, since I expressed the lack of them in the United States.
My criteria, personally, for charities that are asking for my dollars, are:
It addresses a worthwhile problem
The problem is likely to get better if you give the charity the dollars it seeks
The charity maximizes the lack of suffering or happiness, given the use of those dollars.
Criteria 1 and 2 are easy: for instance, relief of African hunger and stopping intra-African slavery both match criteria #1, but fail to deliver on #2, as delivering food and catching slavers is a political problem.
#3 is more difficult. There don’t seem to be many in America that deliver versus internationally. After all, the worst cases are taken by the welfare state.
Can you point to cases where #1#2 and #3 are fulfilled, especialyl in America? And, what’s your criteria for a charity asking for money?
(I’ve had bad experienced volunteering my labor, but that’s a whole other thread.)
If they’re fighting a disease that’s trying to kill or cripple me or my wife, or killed my parents, I’ll write a check. That means the Am. Heart Assn., the Cancer Soc., the Arthritis Foundation, and the Am. Lung Assn.
If they’re a solid organization working to fight poverty or domestic violence, I’ll write a check. Around here that’s the Salv. Army, the local food bank, and Alternatives, Inc.
The Indianapolis Star says the State Police Assn., the Sherriffs Assn, and all the veterans charities use professional fundraisers that only turn over about 15% of the money to the charities. (Some of the vets groups apparently gave no money at all to the vets.) I read the fine print in the Amvets brochure, and they sell the clothes they gather by the pound as rags. I give them nothing.
The Universities where my wife got two degrees and where I studied for a year and a half get yearly checks.
I’ve gotten all my cats from the local Humane Soc., so I send them something every year.
Habitat for Humanity seems to be entirely honorable, and they’ve built several houses here in town. They get a check.
Local schools get a few bucks.
The rest of it is political; feminism, civil liberties, state-level environmental, and such.
Sometimes I give to our local fire dept or rescue squad.
Last year we also gave to a Chernobyl childrens’ fund and to Anysoldier.com.
I like to check out charities on the Charity Navigator site. Interestingly, they give the American Heart Association only two stars out of a possible 5. The AHA spends about 23% of their funds on administrative expenses and fund raising.
The Himalayan Cataract Project, in contrast, gets 5 stars; they spend almost 93% of their funds directly on the program and about 7% on administration and fund-raising. Their mission is stated as:
Maybe I’ll throw some bucks in their direction this year.
Some other big-name charities that don’t get a good Charity Navigator rating are March of Dimes (one star) and Habitat for Humanity International (one star, although the regional Habitats are often rated very highly). I usually support Dress For Success (four stars), Mercy Corps (four stars), and individual Habitat projects.
I consider Heiffer International to be the greatest possible effect per dollar given. Not only does it offer a means toward hunger relief and longterm self-support, but it requires recipients to “pay it forward”, expanding the effect throughout the community.
…Sir Edmund Hillary, often refered to as one of the greatest New Zealanders of all time, is an honourary chairperson, and has spoken about the charity often over here. Undoubtably a good cause… http://www.cureblindness.org/who/hillary.html