>
In my opinion, this is both unfair and simplistic. It implies that people will only donate to a charity if they have control over where the money is spent.
To be clear, I didn't meant to imply everyone does this.
I'm just saying that many people do, and it's challenging for charities. It's one of the reasons I find charities provide options to direct giving to specific efforts, as it offers the donor some measure of control while still allowing the charity to manage things at the macro level.
> We later found out that maybe 25% of the funds donated actually made it to the country.
I think you've misread that headline? It reads:
"Red Cross Spent 25 Percent Of Haiti Donations On Internal Expenses"
Further, in the article, we see:
"But Grassley's office found that 25 percent of donations sent to Haiti — or nearly $125 million — were spent on fundraising and management, a contingency fund and the catchall category the Red Cross calls "program expenses."
What that says is 75% of donations did go to Haiti, and 25% did not. This is the opposite, I believe, of how you described the article?
Nevertheless, the American Red Cross doesn't exactly have the... best reputation in the world, which is why I'd probably not give to that organization at all, but rather would direct my funds toward organizations that are better managed (and then trust them to allocate those funds appropriately).
> People are asking charities to be more accountable because such accountability is direly needed.
Accountability != micromanagement.
My comment was about individuals micromanaging their giving, not about demanding transparency about how the organization is allocating those donations.
The latter is just basic due diligence, and is something we should all expect from NGOs.
To be clear, I didn't meant to imply everyone does this.
I'm just saying that many people do, and it's challenging for charities. It's one of the reasons I find charities provide options to direct giving to specific efforts, as it offers the donor some measure of control while still allowing the charity to manage things at the macro level.
> We later found out that maybe 25% of the funds donated actually made it to the country.
I think you've misread that headline? It reads:
"Red Cross Spent 25 Percent Of Haiti Donations On Internal Expenses"
Further, in the article, we see:
"But Grassley's office found that 25 percent of donations sent to Haiti — or nearly $125 million — were spent on fundraising and management, a contingency fund and the catchall category the Red Cross calls "program expenses."
What that says is 75% of donations did go to Haiti, and 25% did not. This is the opposite, I believe, of how you described the article?
Nevertheless, the American Red Cross doesn't exactly have the... best reputation in the world, which is why I'd probably not give to that organization at all, but rather would direct my funds toward organizations that are better managed (and then trust them to allocate those funds appropriately).
> People are asking charities to be more accountable because such accountability is direly needed.
Accountability != micromanagement.
My comment was about individuals micromanaging their giving, not about demanding transparency about how the organization is allocating those donations.
The latter is just basic due diligence, and is something we should all expect from NGOs.