4 ms·

This is called "ineffective charities" If it costs internet points to say that saving several hundred times more lives per dollar is better than not doing that

This is called "ineffective charities" If it costs internet points to say that saving several hundred times more lives per dollar is better than not doing that, that's alright.

Terretta 6y ago
On the contrary, church managed charities are often among the more effective when ranked by global impact then measured as funds put to use versus overhead. For instance: "For every cent donated to ADRA Indonesia, 87% is used for programs that benefit children, families and the community 5% will be used for administration and 8% will be used again for fundraising. We always strive to keep overhead costs low and use the funds collected fully for those in need." https://adraindonesia.org/donation/en/ https://adraindonesia.org/donation/en/ Global 2018 annual report (not just Indonesia) is at 83.5% programs: https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-2018.pdf https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-20... Part of the reason is a global pool of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of readily available volunteers.
- henryaj 6y ago
  > measured as funds put to use versus overhead This is generally a poor way to measure the 'effectiveness' of a charity. The amount of overhead is irrelevant; if a charity is doing 100x more good per dollar than the next best charity, you should donate to it regardless of how much the CEO earns.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    See the report (p. 14) and look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). ADRA has spent decades building, and continues to build, a flywheel. https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-2018.pdf https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-20... // Disclosure: I lived in Africa for a decade, observed and participated in work by multiple humanitarian organizations “on the ground”.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

This is called "ineffective charities" If it costs internet points to say that saving several hundred times more lives per dollar is better than not doing that, that's alright.

Terretta 6y ago

On the contrary, church managed charities are often among the more effective when ranked by global impact then measured as funds put to use versus overhead. For instance: "For every cent donated to ADRA Indonesia, 87% is used for programs that benefit children, families and the community 5% will be used for administration and 8% will be used again for fundraising. We always strive to keep overhead costs low and use the funds collected fully for those in need." https://adraindonesia.org/donation/en/ https://adraindonesia.org/donation/en/ Global 2018 annual report (not just Indonesia) is at 83.5% programs: https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-2018.pdf https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-20... Part of the reason is a global pool of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of readily available volunteers.

henryaj 6y ago
> measured as funds put to use versus overhead This is generally a poor way to measure the 'effectiveness' of a charity. The amount of overhead is irrelevant; if a charity is doing 100x more good per dollar than the next best charity, you should donate to it regardless of how much the CEO earns.
- Terretta 6y ago
  See the report (p. 14) and look at the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). ADRA has spent decades building, and continues to build, a flywheel. https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-2018.pdf https://adra.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Annual-Report-20... // Disclosure: I lived in Africa for a decade, observed and participated in work by multiple humanitarian organizations “on the ground”.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]