2 ms·

https://my.charitywater.org/ https://my.charitywater.org/ has done an amazing thing in recognizing that a lot of people see this corruption and give up on the w

by cschep 8y ago

https://my.charitywater.org/ https://my.charitywater.org/ has done an amazing thing in recognizing that a lot of people see this corruption and give up on the whole thing. They donate 100% of what you give. They get separate donations to cover operating costs, even using separate money to cover visa fees so that if you give 100$ on your credit card, 100$ goes to getting water to people. I find their work very impressive!

benj111 8y ago
I'm not sure that's an improvement. Charity X: 95% of money donated goes to the cause. Charity Y: 100% of money donated goes to the cause ( but we get an extra 20% from some where else). Charity X, incentives are aligned to minimise administration spend. Charity Y obscures that link.
- falsedan 8y ago
  Who cares if their admin spend is high if as a individual donator none of my donation goes to that spend? I imaging the admin is covered by corporate donors/payment processors waiving fees and claiming it all back on tax
  - benj111 8y ago
    Because those corporate donors would have donated anyway. In fact just like people they probably want their money going to good causes rather than admin. And you start getting all kinds of perverse situations. What happens if they have funding to take $1 million in donations, but they get $2 million? Do they return donations? What happens if they can't get enough admin donations? Do they stop work? Regardless of how much money they have in the bank, waiting to go to good causes? Then there's the issue of splitting your fund raising efforts. Instead of telling everyone 5% of their donation is going to admin. You have to have a distinct team of admin fund raisers. So to answer your question I would care if their admin spend was high. And the current set up obscures what that spend is.

2 ms·

https://my.charitywater.org/ https://my.charitywater.org/ has done an amazing thing in recognizing that a lot of people see this corruption and give up on the w

by cschep 8y ago

benj111 8y ago
I'm not sure that's an improvement. Charity X: 95% of money donated goes to the cause. Charity Y: 100% of money donated goes to the cause ( but we get an extra 20% from some where else). Charity X, incentives are aligned to minimise administration spend. Charity Y obscures that link.
- falsedan 8y ago
  Who cares if their admin spend is high if as a individual donator none of my donation goes to that spend? I imaging the admin is covered by corporate donors/payment processors waiving fees and claiming it all back on tax
  - benj111 8y ago
    Because those corporate donors would have donated anyway. In fact just like people they probably want their money going to good causes rather than admin. And you start getting all kinds of perverse situations. What happens if they have funding to take $1 million in donations, but they get $2 million? Do they return donations? What happens if they can't get enough admin donations? Do they stop work? Regardless of how much money they have in the bank, waiting to go to good causes? Then there's the issue of splitting your fund raising efforts. Instead of telling everyone 5% of their donation is going to admin. You have to have a distinct team of admin fund raisers. So to answer your question I would care if their admin spend was high. And the current set up obscures what that spend is.