Tell me what charity to donate to

November 19, 2008 12:10 PM

Where would you donate, or what is the best overall charity to donate to, where every dollar goes towards helping the end result in the best possible way? DIT.

I'm asking for a friend who is looking to donate around $200,000 this year to a great charitable cause.
Where would this money best be suited to go towards? Should it be spread out between multiple charities to do the most good or just go to one?

Areas of personal interest are just helping the overall world as much as possible. Maybe something that involves helping children, something that helps preserving\replanting trees.

FYI: I did a quick search and really didn't see anything similar. Because of the specific amount of money and how these things change from time to time I thought it would be appropriate to ask where everyone thought would be the most worthwhile cause anyway.

Thanks very much in advance!

posted by zephyr_words to Society & Culture (19 answers total)

Response by poster: After he read this he said he'd rather it be focused towards hunger / curable diseases.
posted by zephyr_words at 12:15 PM on November 19, 2008

If your friend is in or near Baltimore, Bea Gaddy's Family Center is a worthwhile cause and they could really use the help after recent events.
posted by jaimystery at 12:21 PM on November 19, 2008

If it were me, and I wanted to focus on hunger, I'd give it to the Lutheran Church's World Hunger Relief Campaign. But, I'm Lutheran.
posted by dpx.mfx at 12:21 PM on November 19, 2008

Possibly the Gates Foundation. They make curing disease in third world countries a major focus.
posted by uxo at 12:24 PM on November 19, 2008

(Disclaimer: I do not know the logistics of this.) In my experience direct private donations to the specific person/group actually doing the work is the best way to know how it's going to be used. In a lot of charities, donations higher up the chain can get watered down and sent to a number of places. For example, rather than donate money to a group that says they provide vaccinations for children, find someone in charge of a specific hospital or clinic in an area you think you can make a difference in, and give them the money so they can buy specifically what they need to do their work in their clinic. For instance, they might get a certain, let's say, band-aid stipend, but they have plenty of band-aids. That money can't be used for anything but band-aids, though, and they really need new bed sheets. What I would do is give the money to the people most directly involved. They know firsthand where the money needs to go.
posted by phunniemee at 12:27 PM on November 19, 2008

Doctors Without Borders/Medicins Sans Frontieres is, dollar for dollar, one of the best, if not the best. It says here that 86% of their donations goes towards program services, 13% towards fundraising, and 1% (!) towards management. And they publish their financial reports on their website.
posted by number9dream at 12:33 PM on November 19, 2008 [2 favorites]

One of my favorite charities is Direct Relief International. According to this site, less than 1% of donations go towards administrative costs/fundraising and I believe it. I used to live in the town they are HQed in and my former boss was on their board. You obviously don't know my boss but he was really anal about making sure our company's ($750k to $1m) annual charity money actually did some good rather than going to administrative things.

They aren't disease specific but definitely healthcare related. From their site: "Direct Relief focuses on strengthening existing, fragile health systems in poor areas with resources that enable the trained health workers already there to address the tremendous needs." They also go in with medicine and supplies and healthcare workers after disasters and any money donated for a specific disaster goes fully and directly to helping with that disaster.
posted by magnetsphere at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2008

World Hunger Year is another great one that focuses on community based solutions for hunger and poverty.
posted by langeNU at 1:09 PM on November 19, 2008

Give.org is a great tool for researching the donation rate that actually goes to programs - it will give you full profiles and statistics for any charity from a nonpartisan source.

That said, the hunger relief organization America's Second Harvest/Feeding America applies around 98% of their donations directly to program support.
posted by susanvance at 1:16 PM on November 19, 2008

I've been working over in Africa with an organization called World Vision(read about what they've been doing in Goma regarding the crisis in Congo recently) for the last year and a half or so (I'm not there now but plan to return shortly). So, I can personally testify to the work they are doing with children over there - I work in supply chain management - getting the goods and services being administered by the field offices from the donors to beneficiaries. World Vision is a relief, development, and advocacy organisation funded primarily through child sponsorship. I really believe in the work they are doing. If your friend would like to know more details, please feel free to MeFi mail me, or my email is in profile as well.

Also, regarding this bit:

where every dollar goes towards helping the end result in the best possible way

I understand the good intentions behind this but the fact of the matter, if you stop to step back and think about it from a logistical perspective, is that this is literally impossible. I've written about it before. People should demand high donor visibility and accountability for funds, but they should also understand that there are inherent administrative, logistical, etc. costs involved with humanitarian work.

All the same, kudos to your friend for their kindness and generosity, and to you for trying to help. There's a huge world of people out there in much more dire straits than most of us, and I have a massive amount of respect for those who can and do step in to help.
posted by allkindsoftime at 1:16 PM on November 19, 2008 [1 favorite]

I understand the good intentions behind this but the fact of the matter, if you stop to step back and think about it from a logistical perspective, is that this is literally impossible.

Clearly, 100% efficiency isn't practical to ask for. My interpretation is that the poster wants to know the % efficiency of proposed charities, and has a preference for charities with a high % efficiency.

As susanvance says, give.org gives a pretty good range of information on this side of things.
posted by Mike1024 at 2:34 PM on November 19, 2008

What about Partners in Health? They are providing health care to the poor in Haiti, Rwanda, and the US, as well as other countries.
posted by mogget at 3:06 PM on November 19, 2008

Came here to say what number9dream said. Médecins Sans Frontières is going to be your best bet for this. Not only do a very high proportion of their donations go directly towards their charitable activities, much of what they do is performing relatively cheap, lifesaving or massively life-enhancing medical procedures - administering measles vaccines, giving malaria treatment, providing rehydration sachets. It's hard to get a bigger bang for your buck.
I've read some pretty convincing economic arguments that it's better to give all you can to one charity, in effect (I forget the details of the proof) because the amount of their money that it takes to convince you to donate and then to administer the paperwork etc of your donation will remain pretty much a constant per separate donation. If you put all your eggs in one basket, you ensure that this money only has to be spent once.
posted by Acheman at 4:05 PM on November 19, 2008

Forbes does an annual list of the most efficient charities, which this year is available as a highly annoying slideshow here. I should note that all of the charities in the slideshow were chosen because they are 100% efficient--all donations received go to the charitable undertaking (I don't know where the rest of the operating expenses come from). Past year's surveys have been more informative--but there are some great charities on the list, and if your friend supports the causes, it would be great to know all $200K is going straight to where it's needed.

I am also soliciting donations to the Admiral Haddock Fund, and I can assure you any donations will be applied with 100% efficiency to me getting a Canon 5d Mark II camera.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 4:08 PM on November 19, 2008

Response by poster: Thanks very much for all the answers! He really liked a lot of the ideas. I'll try to mark them as best answers later.
posted by zephyr_words at 5:16 PM on November 19, 2008

One good source of information is Charity Navigator.
posted by gteffertz at 6:34 PM on November 19, 2008

all of the charities in the slideshow were chosen because they are 100% efficient--all donations received go to the charitable undertaking (I don't know where the rest of the operating expenses come from))

Careful -- that's not what "100% efficient" means. Because that's basically impossible, I checked the site. They say:

We measure fundraising efficiency as the slice of donations left after solicitation costs. The average this year is 90%. All of the following charities have a fundraising efficiency ratio of 100%.

Please note this excludes only soliticitation/development costs -- not operations costs. Solicitation costs are only those direct costs incurred by getting donations. Presumably, a charity could be 100% efficient even if 99% of donations after solicitation costs went to the proverbial making of the coffee everyone fears so much, as long as the coffee was being made for program purposes and program staff or recipients. In other words, this rubric rewards charities who raise the most money with the least investment. This measure alone doesn't tell you anything about the impact of the donation itself on the probem.
posted by Miko at 7:14 PM on November 19, 2008

My favorite is Kiva, a microloan organization. It's geared toward smaller donations, but there's nothing stopping your friend from spreading out his $200,000 to multiple individuals, or donating to the organization itself. What they do is incredibly important and effective.
posted by easy_being_green at 7:44 PM on November 19, 2008

Miko, thanks for the clarification--I had missed that (and I should have read closer b/c the United Way was ranked surprisingly high in one of Forbes' earlier surveys, and that surprised me, given their reputation for being what I think of as "inefficient"). I stand by the Admiral Haddock Fund though.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 8:00 PM on November 19, 2008