| |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's overly cynical. Donating to local warlords / psuedogovernment actors can be sketchy. Donating to e.g., UNICEF is much more likely to produce good results for refugees, especially children and mothers. I'm not aware of where to send money to stop wars - it's likely to have the opposite effect, sadly. | | |
| ▲ | voodooEntity 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Even donations to organisations such as UNICEF often end up in the wrong hands. Lets go for the optimistic scenario in which UNICEF will only take a very small portion for the "processing" and really deliver lets say food and medical supplies to the region. Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies. Theres nothing those citizens can do against it. Do i wish it would be different? Absolutely. But sadly the world doesn't work as i would wish it to. | | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not sure where you get your assumptions from, but UNICEF works in camps and outposts that people come to, often in safer areas to treat refugees and establish aid stations. They don't catapult money/food/water into warring nations and call it a wash. UNICEF also works on a permissioned basis: They wait until they are asked, and so they often work in countries neighboring crisis centers, where it is much safer anyway. They are constantly negotiating to be "asked", yes, but this is through diplomatic ties. UNICEF works with refugees mostly, not in war zones. For famine/disease intervention, they are at ground zero, but again with permission. And UNICEF's overhead is low - they are efficient, considering they sometimes have to establish, e.g., their own refueling station networks, cold storage logistics, flight controllers, etc. Often, powerful industrialists in the target nations provide significant help - or at least I know of one case of this. Here's a good (not perfect) talk on the issue: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_abou... I'm close to UNICEF, or was, so I got sneak peaks into some of the problems they deal with. I assure you, "processing" is not a revenue stream for them. You're thinking of the breast cancer scams. UNICEF is not a charity, they're a logistics organization with nation-state level resources. When Amazon can do it cheaper - they use Amazon. No organization is perfect, but this one is good. | | |
| ▲ | sfn42 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was approached on the street by a girl working for a marketing company, wanting me to start a subscription for $20 a month to Save the Children which I think is a pretty well regarded charity. We hit it off and met up later and I asked her about the job. For each person who signs up, she would get about $60. So that's the first three months of my subscription in her pocket. Furthermore, her employer would fly them around the country, staying about 2 weeks in a city, living in hotels and expenses paid. This girl did not even have a home, she lived permanently in hotels paid for by her employer. And of course the employer needs some profit on top, so I'd estimate that's at least like 3-6 more months of my subscription going towards her employer/expenses. I wonder how many more of these private companies exist to just siphon off these donation streams? The charity itself may be efficient, but how many private companies provide goods and services to them for a healthy profit? | | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are many. But it's reductive to the extreme to 1) group charities as "charities" when large "nonprofit / ngo" term is more suitable. 2) assume that wasteful _free_ money to a charity makes the charity less good. If a third party takes 90% of the money they raise and gives 10% to the charity, then that's free money for the charity. It's deceptive, and they are cutting a huge profit on the back of the good work the charity does, but that does not mean they are complicit, necessarily. The charity would have to sue that third party company to shut them down, and for what? Do reduce their own project budgets and also lose the money? | | |
| ▲ | Paradigm2020 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The charities sign a contract with the third parties unfortunately - eg they have permission from the charity. Here in Europe oxfam for example uses some of these private companies and they get the first year of donations and from the 2nd year it goes to oxfam itself. Apparently the average person cancels donations after 2,5 years so for a zero marketing budget (for oxfam) they make 1.5 year x your donation. When I first found out I was disgusted and some majors in countries in Europe have tried to ban such "paid charity workers"... (They tend to operate near train stations etc. | |
| ▲ | sfn42 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The third party is working with the charity(or ngo or whatever). The charity is essentially paying them for marketing, using a huge chunk of the money people think they're giving to charity. The charity is complicit in this deception, and the third party presents themselves as volunteers "Hello, I'm with Save the Children, we do bla bla bla look at this picture of a starving child would you be interested in helping us by giving money every month to give this starving child a better life?" They don't tell you they're paid to be there. They don't tell you the first year of payments goes directly to a private company. I looked up Save the Children in some charity index thing a while back and it was listed as something like 94% of the money they receive goes to the stated cause which I doubt includes these marketing costs. You could say this is still worth it because they increase the amount of money the charity receives even if a lot of it goes to the company. But it doesn't seem right to me, not when they deceive people this way. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | steinwinde 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm a member of an organization that collects money for Sudanese soup kitchens and hospitals in affected areas (https://sound-of-sudan.org/) , and I know a few other organizations that indirectly support such campaigns (e.g. https://sudfa-media.com/). Being personally acquainted with people, who spend much of their time, energy and last-but-not-least their own money on such activities, your claim makes me slightly angry. > such regions the most money will be "lost" halfway Please elaborate and don't lump all "regions" in with each other. My personal impression is that the combination of the community kitchen movement (which has its roots in the failed Sudanese revolution) and money transfers to mobile phones makes it relatively transparent where one's money goes and what it achieves. I'm not in the US, but I have no doubt that money donated to an organization like the Sudanese American Medical Association (https://sama-sd.org/about-us/finances/) largely reaches the people that need it. > Those warloard will simply come and take it away from those citizens and provide to their armies. I can assure you none of use would send money to hospitals or community kitchens, if this was likely to happen. What makes you think so? | | |
| ▲ | voodooEntity 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | So, let me first of all clear up one thing. I did not, and never intended to, degrade anyone who actually tries to make a difference. If you read my original comment, you can see that I clearly state that I respect the wish to help. I also state that I wish the world were a "better" place where things work the way we would like them to—but reality has too often proven otherwise. Also, while I will try to fully address your points, the totality of this problem is too complex and has too many factors to incorporate every variable; therefore, at some point, we have to refer to "grouping." I think you will understand what I mean by that. When I referred to "such regions," I was personally referring to a combination of factors: infrastructure, supply chain consistency, reliability, and the general political situation. In this case, I would argue that poor infrastructure impacts transport and storage control when it comes to shipments. Supply chain consistency (even with organizations like UNICEF) is often not guaranteed; local partners change frequently, often influenced by the local situation, making it nearly impossible in some regions to maintain trusted chains. Reliability suffers because of these factors—when it is hard to maintain trusted partners, the problem persists. As for the political situation, I don’t believe I need to elaborate further. So, when I say "such regions," I mean areas that fit this basic pattern. While not a perfect comparison, a notable example of this is when food supplies sent for civilians are intercepted by local armed groups. The supplies might reach the target location, but they do not always feed the people they were intended for. As you work in this area, you likely know this is not an isolated occurrence. I am also not from the US, and I cannot speak specifically to the Sudanese American Medical Association. If they are truly creating change, that is a great thing, and everyone is free to donate to them. You will not see me advocating against donating to them. Regarding your question on why I think you would send aid even if diversion was likely: I don't believe you would willingly fund "warlords." Rather, I believe that in high-risk regions, the intent of the donor doesn't always control the reality on the ground. My skepticism isn't a critique of your virtue or your specific organization, but a reaction to a historical pattern of aid diversion in volatile zones. You do this work because you believe the collected money will reach its destination and will not be abused, and I respect that you follow your beliefs for the "greater good." You seem to be a good person doing important work, and to do that, you need to believe in the efficacy of your mission. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | throwaway173738 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do you have against Doctors Without Borders? |
|
