Title says it all, really.
Of course, the Red Cross is an obvious option, but I have seen it bandied about that it might be better to donate directly to a local area charity or at least an organization experienced with the area.
Recommendations (including go with the Red Cross) gladly accepted!
With many charities, the money that you donate will be partially sucked away to pay for things like overhead costs.
If it’s just a small sum of money that you plan on giving, then give it as directly as possible with as few middlemen in between as you can, especially if you personally know the person in need.
I always give to the Salvation Army. The reason is most of the monies get to the people.
Two of my favorite disaster-related charities are:
There is an existing thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20451733
Every organization (government, for profit corporation or non-profit organization) has overhead costs. So what is the alternative?
Sorry for the duplicate thread; I’ll ask a mod to close it.
I think I will go with The United Way of Greater Houston. Thanks everyone for your suggestions!
It’s a question of bang for the buck; a large percent of charitable organizations spend a large fraction of expenses on overhead.
Let’s say that there are two charities that try to improve life for people in a very poor part of the world. One just buys food and goods like mosquito nets and ships it there for distribution by whatever means possible. It has low overhead. The other does detailed analyses of various programs, both ones that are just proposed and others that are underway, to determine their effectiveness. As a result, this group has a higher level of overhead. If you’re just judging organizations by the level of overhead, you’d donate to the first group, even if the second is more effective overall.
I would go Sallies as well. I still hold a grudge against the Red Cross and a couple of the other biggies from the experiences of a couple relatives as POWs in WW II. The Sallies were the only ones above reproach in their experience and that still means something to me even though all of them are long gone.
Mercy Corps.
Think it’s 83 cents of 1.00 donation goes to those in need.
My wife has colleagues in Houston animal rescue/shelters, so she ordered $100 of pet supplies (notably 6-foot leashes/leads) from Amazon and it’s being delivered there as we speak.
Not to derail the thread but this sounds like an interesting story, would you like to elaborate?
As I said in the other thread, I wouldn’t. I mean, I’ve given to the Red Cross and Mercy Coprps before (and I honestly need to budget a little better and start giving to charity more regularly), but I would avoid earmarking my donation for the latest disaster that happens to be on the tv. After 9/11, families of victims got huge payouts from the Red Cross while important relief efforts around the world starved for funds because so many people earmarked their donations, and it became a PR nightmare when the RC said they wanted to reserve the right to spend money where it was needed most.