5 ms·

This is unfortunately also one of the biggest problems with donating to NGOs that operate in many foreign countries. Much of the aid money gets stolen by corrup

by nradov 5mo ago

This is unfortunately also one of the biggest problems with donating to NGOs that operate in many foreign countries. Much of the aid money gets stolen by corrupt officials and local criminals. Donors have to check carefully that NGOs are legitimately benefiting the intended recipients.

MichaelZuo 5mo ago
If the implication is true… Shouldn’t people stop helping further entrench these shady practices? If Ugandan decision makers know the people will effectively always be underwritten to receive some bread and water… no matter what happens… Then what exactly is stopping them from piling on more and more nonsense?
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- jrumbut 5mo ago
  The boundary on this is kind of fuzzy. You obviously wouldn't donate if 100% of it was stolen, but also if you wait until the world is in a perfected state before helping anyone you'll never help anyone.
- virgildotcodes 5mo ago
  Better 20% of your money reaches a starving child than 0%.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ekianjo 5mo ago
    You have no way to know its higher than zero though
    - virgildotcodes 5mo ago
      There are many ways of knowing if you actually want to find out. Third party auditors, evaluations, reputation… just… reading reports and looking at evidence of field work. Too many people use this as an excuse to throw up their hands and say “well I guess I have no choice but to keep all my money for myself and donate nothing, damn, darn, totally not the conclusion I was secretly hoping to reach, not at all, oh man, damn.”
      - ekianjo 5mo ago
        The same problem applies to auditors and third parties. Unless you join a field audit ultimately you have to trust an opaque party. If you think corruption cannot go very deep then you may be too trustful.
        codeforafrica 5mo ago
        But you are proving the point of the parent comment: well I guess I have no choice but to keep all my money for myself and donate nothing You can't donate without trust. By your reckoning any trust at all is to much trust. So you are saying: Never trust anyone. And you are not wrong. I am actually following that advice. In general, I never donate money, but, I do donate my time. That is, I rather work less, and earn less money in order to have time to volunteer. That applies double now that I live in Africa. I do support some children that can't afford to go to school. But I know all these children in person. I see how they actually live, and in most cases, I give the money directly to the schools the children go to, because I could not even trust the children or the parents. In most cases that lack of trust was unnecessary, but in at least one case it turned out to be warranted. That child is not getting help from me anymore. Now, once I started to ask people to help me supporting the children here, it became clear that anyone helping me has no way of verifying how the money is used. They have to trust me. And not only do they have to trust that the money goes to the children's school expenses but also that these children actually need the money. It is to easy to build up a narrative on how poor everyone here is. and unfortunately the whole charity industry (or however you want to call that) is built on those narratives. That's one reason why I came here. To find out what is the actual reality. What is the truth. And, ultimately, what is really the best way to help. I don't know the answer yet. My interim conclusion so far is to invest, buy, bring money into the local economy, ever which way. Most of it will not go to the neediest. But, actually, I believe only helping the neediest is not going to move the needle anyways. Sending money to the neediest will allow them to buy food, but sending money to the government will allow it to build infrastructure which will also benefit the neediest because it may give them access to clean water, electricity, internet, streets, which for example make it easier for those children to go to school. People talk about the trickle-down effect, and how it does not work. But that's not what I mean here. At least not directly. The trickle-down effect assumes that giving money to the rich automatically leads to actions that benefit the poor. That's obviously not the case. What I mean is to actively invest into things that benefit everyone, including the poor, and give money to those who are building those things. That in turn is also easier to verify than any charity that helps individuals which you can not track. That's my theory for now. Over time I hope I will learn more get a better understanding. I am unfortunately not in the position to make any investments myself, to test if my guess here is true. But I will keep observing and and learning, and I'll share what I learn in the comments here.
- whiddershins 5mo ago
  You are right, the downvotes people gave this comment are wrong, the replies to you are wrong. Feeding evil in the hopes you will also feed a little good is not only bad morally, but bad practically, bad in a utilitarian calculus, and just dumb.
- mikepurvis 5mo ago
  I don't pretend to have all the answers, but what I've decided works for me personally is supporting a handful of hyper-focused charities that run very lean in terms of western staff and employ local skilled labour. One example is the Canadian charity One4Another which performs surgeries to reverse some common birth defects in kids and babies in Uganda. They're not trying to feed the world, they're not interfering with the local economy; in fact they're employing doctors and nurses to perform a one-time intervention that changes the life of thousands of kids a year in the catchment area of their facility. Obviously there are things that a group like this can't do but a massive NGO can, and that's great too, but for what I have to give, I feel very good about the impact per dollar of this.
  - rexpop 5mo ago
    OP is talking about corrupt officials, not charity workers, so how does "running lean" evade or obviate corruption? Edit: my point is just that bribery and blackmail aren't the same as Global Northerners treating charities as synecures.
    - mikepurvis 5mo ago
      Yes, fair, maybe it doesn't. But I think several factors do work in favour of the smaller organization in terms of it being a smaller target, having the operation based more on local relationships and trust networks, and being accountable for an overall smaller budget— it's harder to ignore 10k in bribes of if it's only half a million or so per year coming in from the west. Anyway as I say it's not everything but I thought it seemed relevant to the GP post talking about NGOs and charity efficiency.
overfeed 5mo ago
Which is why, naturally, the American Red Cross is the gold standard for NGO donation efficiency.
- mig39 5mo ago
  Do you mean the ICRC?
- nothercastle 5mo ago
  They can’t even operate efficiently in the USA was that intended as sarcasm
  - overfeed 5mo ago
    https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
    - gloflo 5mo ago
      Please don't be sarcastic here.
      - overfeed 5mo ago
        No thank you.
- zeafoamrun 5mo ago
  You're joking about this right? An old colleague did a lot of work with them and he told me how incredibly corrupt they are and to stay away.
  - SSLy 5mo ago
    Yeah, they were sarcastic.
RobinL 5mo ago
Yes, but it's important to note that just because a lot of aid is ineffective doesn't mean it all is. If you want to give to very poor people and be confident most (85%+) actually gets to them I encourage you to take a look at https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/. Full disclosure, I'm an unpaid trustee of the UK sister charity
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
goobatrooba 5mo ago
"much" is an unqualified and unjustified word here. It definitely happens but this would at most affect a tiny fraction of donor money. Many of the NGOs have strict no-bribery policies, else they would not receive support from bodies like the EU (which is the biggest humanitarian donor on the planet). In some cases the choice may be between "letting people starve" and "feeding people but the local warlord extracts some benefits" but these are rare and only the worst crisis contexts (think South Sudan, DRC).
- trhway 5mo ago
  >a tiny fraction of donor money. that is not what happened for example in Gaza. UNRWA sent billions to Gaza where that aid was hijacked by HAMAS, and even when the aid was distributed to people outside of HAMAS, HAMAS directly controlled the distribution of that aid. And i don't see UN operating any different at the other places too. Or like Rubio said: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/10/24/unrwa-is-subsidiary-of-hamas-rubio-asserts-un-agency-will-play-no-role-in-gazas-future/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/10/24/unrwa-is-subsidiary-... "U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) of being “a subsidiary of Hamas” "
  - l23k4 5mo ago
    UNRWA sustains life in Gaza. HAMAS mostly exists in Gaza. Therefore UNRWA perhaps sustains HAMAS by delaying the indiscriminate mass murder of Gazans through manmade famine. I don't really see how this would make UNRWA a subsidiary of HAMAS even if it happened to be true that the existence of HAMAS was predicated on the existence of UNRWA. In practice, the only way to prevent this aid from reaching HAMAS is to prevent it from reaching anyone in Gaza.
    - trhway 5mo ago
      Even if we go with your logic, what you described is HAMAS using Gazans as hostage - HAMAS threatening "the indiscriminate mass murder of Gazans through manmade famine" until the aid is given to and through HAMAS (and by using civilian population that way HAMAS does commit a crime against humanity). In such a case UNRWA at least should have publicly stated the issue and let the UN as a whole to decide. Quietly sending the aid to HAMAS makes UNRWA at minimum an accomplice. Financing a terrorist organization in response to its blackmail is pretty much a crime almost everywhere. And given the number of UNRWA employees being HAMAS members, some even openly participated in Oct 7 attack, it is definitely more than just an accomplice. >UNRWA sustains life in Gaza. and that doesn't seem true to me. Looking at pre-war Gaza - it seems that the regular Gazans have existed on their own, not much affected by UNRWA. There were businesses, trade, construction, some worked in Israel. Look at pre-war satellite photos - how much solar panels were on roofs there. I remember some Gazans even started to appear here on HN. And there was HAMAS fed by UNRWA. Removing HAMAS from the equation, there pretty much wouldn't be a need for UNRWA.
interludead 5mo ago
A polished website and audited reports don't always tell you whether aid is reaching people effectively on the ground
fvdessen 5mo ago
I do some work in Africa and that's not what i've seen. The NGOs have their own separate supply chains and are quite resistant to corrupt officials and local criminals. The problem with NGOs is that they're mostly regular business masquerading as 'aid' and out competing local businesses who dont have access to their infrastructure and subsidies. There's actually much more demand for NGOs from the West than from their recipients. African governments are trying to clamp down on NGOs, but there's a lot of pressure from the west for the status quo.

by nradov 5mo ago

MichaelZuo 5mo ago

If the implication is true… Shouldn’t people stop helping further entrench these shady practices? If Ugandan decision makers know the people will effectively always be underwritten to receive some bread and water… no matter what happens… Then what exactly is stopping them from piling on more and more nonsense?

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
jrumbut 5mo ago
The boundary on this is kind of fuzzy. You obviously wouldn't donate if 100% of it was stolen, but also if you wait until the world is in a perfected state before helping anyone you'll never help anyone.
virgildotcodes 5mo ago
Better 20% of your money reaches a starving child than 0%.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 5mo ago
  You have no way to know its higher than zero though
  - virgildotcodes 5mo ago
    There are many ways of knowing if you actually want to find out. Third party auditors, evaluations, reputation… just… reading reports and looking at evidence of field work. Too many people use this as an excuse to throw up their hands and say “well I guess I have no choice but to keep all my money for myself and donate nothing, damn, darn, totally not the conclusion I was secretly hoping to reach, not at all, oh man, damn.”
    - ekianjo 5mo ago
      The same problem applies to auditors and third parties. Unless you join a field audit ultimately you have to trust an opaque party. If you think corruption cannot go very deep then you may be too trustful.
      - codeforafrica 5mo ago
        But you are proving the point of the parent comment: well I guess I have no choice but to keep all my money for myself and donate nothing You can't donate without trust. By your reckoning any trust at all is to much trust. So you are saying: Never trust anyone. And you are not wrong. I am actually following that advice. In general, I never donate money, but, I do donate my time. That is, I rather work less, and earn less money in order to have time to volunteer. That applies double now that I live in Africa. I do support some children that can't afford to go to school. But I know all these children in person. I see how they actually live, and in most cases, I give the money directly to the schools the children go to, because I could not even trust the children or the parents. In most cases that lack of trust was unnecessary, but in at least one case it turned out to be warranted. That child is not getting help from me anymore. Now, once I started to ask people to help me supporting the children here, it became clear that anyone helping me has no way of verifying how the money is used. They have to trust me. And not only do they have to trust that the money goes to the children's school expenses but also that these children actually need the money. It is to easy to build up a narrative on how poor everyone here is. and unfortunately the whole charity industry (or however you want to call that) is built on those narratives. That's one reason why I came here. To find out what is the actual reality. What is the truth. And, ultimately, what is really the best way to help. I don't know the answer yet. My interim conclusion so far is to invest, buy, bring money into the local economy, ever which way. Most of it will not go to the neediest. But, actually, I believe only helping the neediest is not going to move the needle anyways. Sending money to the neediest will allow them to buy food, but sending money to the government will allow it to build infrastructure which will also benefit the neediest because it may give them access to clean water, electricity, internet, streets, which for example make it easier for those children to go to school. People talk about the trickle-down effect, and how it does not work. But that's not what I mean here. At least not directly. The trickle-down effect assumes that giving money to the rich automatically leads to actions that benefit the poor. That's obviously not the case. What I mean is to actively invest into things that benefit everyone, including the poor, and give money to those who are building those things. That in turn is also easier to verify than any charity that helps individuals which you can not track. That's my theory for now. Over time I hope I will learn more get a better understanding. I am unfortunately not in the position to make any investments myself, to test if my guess here is true. But I will keep observing and and learning, and I'll share what I learn in the comments here.
whiddershins 5mo ago
You are right, the downvotes people gave this comment are wrong, the replies to you are wrong. Feeding evil in the hopes you will also feed a little good is not only bad morally, but bad practically, bad in a utilitarian calculus, and just dumb.
mikepurvis 5mo ago
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but what I've decided works for me personally is supporting a handful of hyper-focused charities that run very lean in terms of western staff and employ local skilled labour. One example is the Canadian charity One4Another which performs surgeries to reverse some common birth defects in kids and babies in Uganda. They're not trying to feed the world, they're not interfering with the local economy; in fact they're employing doctors and nurses to perform a one-time intervention that changes the life of thousands of kids a year in the catchment area of their facility. Obviously there are things that a group like this can't do but a massive NGO can, and that's great too, but for what I have to give, I feel very good about the impact per dollar of this.
- rexpop 5mo ago
  OP is talking about corrupt officials, not charity workers, so how does "running lean" evade or obviate corruption? Edit: my point is just that bribery and blackmail aren't the same as Global Northerners treating charities as synecures.
  - mikepurvis 5mo ago
    Yes, fair, maybe it doesn't. But I think several factors do work in favour of the smaller organization in terms of it being a smaller target, having the operation based more on local relationships and trust networks, and being accountable for an overall smaller budget— it's harder to ignore 10k in bribes of if it's only half a million or so per year coming in from the west. Anyway as I say it's not everything but I thought it seemed relevant to the GP post talking about NGOs and charity efficiency.

overfeed 5mo ago

Which is why, naturally, the American Red Cross is the gold standard for NGO donation efficiency.

mig39 5mo ago
Do you mean the ICRC?
nothercastle 5mo ago
They can’t even operate efficiently in the USA was that intended as sarcasm
- overfeed 5mo ago
  https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-...
  - gloflo 5mo ago
    Please don't be sarcastic here.
    - overfeed 5mo ago
      No thank you.
zeafoamrun 5mo ago
You're joking about this right? An old colleague did a lot of work with them and he told me how incredibly corrupt they are and to stay away.
- SSLy 5mo ago
  Yeah, they were sarcastic.

RobinL 5mo ago

Yes, but it's important to note that just because a lot of aid is ineffective doesn't mean it all is. If you want to give to very poor people and be confident most (85%+) actually gets to them I encourage you to take a look at https://www.givedirectly.org/ https://www.givedirectly.org/. Full disclosure, I'm an unpaid trustee of the UK sister charity

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

goobatrooba 5mo ago

"much" is an unqualified and unjustified word here. It definitely happens but this would at most affect a tiny fraction of donor money. Many of the NGOs have strict no-bribery policies, else they would not receive support from bodies like the EU (which is the biggest humanitarian donor on the planet). In some cases the choice may be between "letting people starve" and "feeding people but the local warlord extracts some benefits" but these are rare and only the worst crisis contexts (think South Sudan, DRC).

trhway 5mo ago
>a tiny fraction of donor money. that is not what happened for example in Gaza. UNRWA sent billions to Gaza where that aid was hijacked by HAMAS, and even when the aid was distributed to people outside of HAMAS, HAMAS directly controlled the distribution of that aid. And i don't see UN operating any different at the other places too. Or like Rubio said: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/10/24/unrwa-is-subsidiary-of-hamas-rubio-asserts-un-agency-will-play-no-role-in-gazas-future/ https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/10/24/unrwa-is-subsidiary-... "U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) of being “a subsidiary of Hamas” "
- l23k4 5mo ago
  UNRWA sustains life in Gaza. HAMAS mostly exists in Gaza. Therefore UNRWA perhaps sustains HAMAS by delaying the indiscriminate mass murder of Gazans through manmade famine. I don't really see how this would make UNRWA a subsidiary of HAMAS even if it happened to be true that the existence of HAMAS was predicated on the existence of UNRWA. In practice, the only way to prevent this aid from reaching HAMAS is to prevent it from reaching anyone in Gaza.
  - trhway 5mo ago
    Even if we go with your logic, what you described is HAMAS using Gazans as hostage - HAMAS threatening "the indiscriminate mass murder of Gazans through manmade famine" until the aid is given to and through HAMAS (and by using civilian population that way HAMAS does commit a crime against humanity). In such a case UNRWA at least should have publicly stated the issue and let the UN as a whole to decide. Quietly sending the aid to HAMAS makes UNRWA at minimum an accomplice. Financing a terrorist organization in response to its blackmail is pretty much a crime almost everywhere. And given the number of UNRWA employees being HAMAS members, some even openly participated in Oct 7 attack, it is definitely more than just an accomplice. >UNRWA sustains life in Gaza. and that doesn't seem true to me. Looking at pre-war Gaza - it seems that the regular Gazans have existed on their own, not much affected by UNRWA. There were businesses, trade, construction, some worked in Israel. Look at pre-war satellite photos - how much solar panels were on roofs there. I remember some Gazans even started to appear here on HN. And there was HAMAS fed by UNRWA. Removing HAMAS from the equation, there pretty much wouldn't be a need for UNRWA.

interludead 5mo ago

A polished website and audited reports don't always tell you whether aid is reaching people effectively on the ground

fvdessen 5mo ago

I do some work in Africa and that's not what i've seen. The NGOs have their own separate supply chains and are quite resistant to corrupt officials and local criminals. The problem with NGOs is that they're mostly regular business masquerading as 'aid' and out competing local businesses who dont have access to their infrastructure and subsidies. There's actually much more demand for NGOs from the West than from their recipients. African governments are trying to clamp down on NGOs, but there's a lot of pressure from the west for the status quo.