Which Charity?

When last I looked into Oxfam, they were a Catholic based in origin, and therefore opposed to, and unwilling to provide, any form of family planning support (birth control, not just abortion) not consistent with the Church.

I have searched again on the web, and only found ambiguous information. If anyone knows more, I would be interested in reading about it.

Concerned reader: you are mistaken about Oxfam and must have mixed it up with something else.

Chris, can you offer some evidence? I can find info about Oxfam supporting programs about “family planning” but there’s little detail as to how they do that.

Planned Parenthood is still one of my charities of choice.. nothing new if you followed my Blogathon ’03 participation last year. On a related note, Women on Waves seems quite incredible.

I just wanted to second Chris’s line about Oxfam. I just flicked through their history on their site (www.oxfam.org.uk) and there was nothing about Catholic Church involvement. There were some C of E people invovled at the founding, but it doesn’t appear to have any particular religious affiliations.

Not that I’m opposed to religiously affiliated charities. I think in particular Catholic charities around the world do a really fantastic job in all sorts of trying circumstances. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everything they say and do, or even that they’d be my first choice for charitable giving.

Eszter, my first source of evidence is just that I’ve known people who’ve been involved with Oxfam for over 25 years (at least) and “concerned reader” was the first person I’d ever heard question their secular credentials. But just to check I did some searching around on their various websites and entering “condom” as the search item seems to do the trick.

Oh no, not Kerry!!
And, about Oxfam, well, if it is catholic oriented, then I don’t see the harm in donating there, even though they have restricted birth control rules.
I don’t think that the one should stop donating to Oxfam just because of this. You can’t judge an institue for its religous orientation.

visti my website :) just click my name

I’ve always had a soft spot for Habitat for Humanity, but I can’t think of a reason why it’s better than Oxfam.

I know the director of policy – US for Oxfam, Chad. He, like Oxfam in origin, is Quaker. The Society of Friends.
Kerry seems a good place for money. He’s just raised $6 million in 6 days. My mother likes the Heifer Fund, which buys farm animals for housewives. Evidently it works. Sen-ish, I guess.

Is the confusion between Oxfam and CAFOD (Catholic Agency For Overseas Development – http://www.cafod.org.uk)? – CAFOD’s aims are quite similar to Oxfam, though it is obviously an overtly Catholic organisation. I went to a Catholic high school and can remember that most events that raised money for international charities were for CAFOD.

Blessed Are The Coffeemakers.

Blessed are those who, when they hear about suffering,
Ask a follow-up question instead of changing the subject:
The smiling wall. Blessed are the coffeemakers.
In back room, in office, in court room, in board room:
Blessed are those who make life a little easier
While others are talking. Blessed are
Students who tell a homeless navy vet
Who just wants a little flirting and affirmation
That they like sailors. Blessed are homeless people
Who collect twist-off tops to make a difference.
Blessed are those who donate two hours a week,
Because, be real. Blessed are
Those who write a check when the time comes.
Blessed are those with nothing who try to raise their kids right.
Blessed are the poor, for they shall be close to God.
Blessed are the simpletons and felons,
The crazy lady haranguing the pedestrians.
Blessed is the guy with the free flyers.
Blessed are the coffeemakers.
Blessed is your neighbor you never talk to.
Blessed are the rich, for they shit as you do.
Blessed are the dead, for their span on earth is ended.
Blessed are sinners who repent of their sins,
For that guilt they flee from shall be lifted.
Blessed are the coffeemakers.
5.iii.2004

A plug here for Opportunity International. Microcredit channelled through indigenous partner organisations; focus on empowering individuals and groups in the developing world to improve their own situation; mostly targetted at women; strong oversight from a commercially experience board; explicitly Christian in origin and motivation, explicitly not biased on basis of religion of borrowers.

I’m a fan of Habitat for Humanity, too…

I would suggest St Michaels Youth Endowment fund. … and designate it for youth computer lab.

The endowment fund supports youth, especially first generation hispanic youth from south of the border who are here legitimately, but could benefilt from specialized after school help and IT training.

Gifts to the endowment fund keep on giving indefinitedly. http://www.stmarks-elca.org

G

I’d like to plug SOS Children’s Villages. Two good people who taught me years ago worked for SOS teaching in Somaliland and were murdered (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3216827.stm). A charity with people dedicated enough to endanger their lives for the good of others deserves donations.

Can I make a plea for charities that target developing countries? The US gives a startingly small percentage of its GDP in overseas aid, and is the only OECD country (I think) that has big strings attached to its aid (in the form, for examaple, of requiring recipients to contract with US-based firms, rather than the lowest bidder). I forget the exact figure, but only something like 1% of charitable giving in the US is targetted abroad, and 25% of that goes to Western Europe and Canada. Charity begins, but also ends, at home here. It would be nice to send it to places where it is most needed.

On Oxfam — just to say that whatever they spend their money on, no-one who has visited their main office in Oxford would accuse them of lavishing it on comfortable and spacious office space. Also, my understanding about the Oxfams is as Chris’s, but also that despite that they are pretty similar — but this is anecdotal.

I highly recommend Doctors Without Borders (www.doctorswithoutborders.org). They send MDs, nurses and other medical professionals to third-world war zones and disaster areas. Medical care in that part of the world is ridiculously cheap by our standards, but completely unavailable to locals, so your money goes a long way.

Hey Martial, that was a great and informative interjection. Can you tell us more about the way the Oxfams changed on their procedures in combat zones? (quite undertsand if not, but I’m curious).

Forbes magazine has an annual survey of large charities. The “top 10” (rated in terms of Charitable Commitment, Fundraising Efficiency, and Donor Dependency) is at http://www.forbes.com/maserati/246.html.

Heifer International is included in the top 10, and is described as :
“Heifer International This hunger-fighting nonprofit arranges to give needy folk in 47 countries breeding animals–cows, chickens, water buffalo, even bees–plus training. The recipients agree to donate the first-born female to others. “

As a former civil-rights worker, I recommend the Southern Poverty Law Center. Fights neo-Nazis and hatemongers of all sorts.

Never donate to organizations that directly provide goods or services to people in need. That encourages governments to think that it’s not their responsibility. Donate instead to organizations which aim to improve public policy.

Hunger is a political problem. Unavailability of medical care is a political problem. Censorship is a political problem. Land mines are a political problem. Political problems need political solutions — they can’t be fixed by fixing the symptoms.

“Never donate to organizations that directly provide goods or services to people in need. That encourages governments to think that it’s not their responsibility. Donate instead to organizations which aim to improve public policy.”

“anon” is correct that many of the needs in the world are political problems. Indeed, I am constantly trying to beat it into the heads of my friends that famine is always, always, ALWAYS political. People don’t starve because of lack of agricultural skill or resource management, they don’t starve because the environment went wacky, and they don’t starve because there is a lack of food. People starve because they can’t move! And they can’t move because governments (rebel forces, militias, warlords, bad people with guns) don’t let them.

However, I am strongly opposed to just letting people starve. Furthermore, hungry people have no time and no energy for political action. If no food gets to them, they don’t stage a demonstration or start a revolution or hold an election. They die.

The challenge, therefore, is provide assistance in a way that does not provoke dependency on the part of the beneficiaries or complacency on the part of governments, and helps to begin structural change so that people are able to secure access to food (or health care or water or rights) in a timely fashion, before there is a crisis. This is a very big challenge.

Success will only come if the work is done at many levels in a society with many actors. We can work with people “to improve public policy”, but that only targets a small group of administrators and government officials, perhaps some civil society actors, most of whom are located in the capital or other cities. These are good people to work with. But they aren’t enough. Many of the organizations that “directly provide goods” also work with local authorities to develop systems of accountability and responsibility. It is the case that in some places, such systems are difficult to set up and maintain due to a variety of pressures. But that doesn’t mean the effort is misplaced.

Change in society is not top-down, and it isn’t driven by correct policy. Change in society is top-down and bottom-up and side-to-side, it is policy and action at all levels. This sounds immense, and it is, but it is also possible. (I’ve been working on a project for a few years that looks at social change through peace-building efforts. We’ve learned something about social change, but that is a different essay.)

If we make the issues smaller than they are, we will arrive at solutions that are too small. But if we think of the problems as too big, we will never start to work on them.

alex: I’ve never worked with the Fred Hollows Foundation, but they are quite well regarded by people I know.

Reply to “anon”. Please do read “martial’s” response to your comments.
Although I can see where your idea comes from, I think it is heinously flawed to simply turn your back on suffering because governments and their representatives have not addressed, or may not ever address, problems at a policy level. It is utopian to think this will happen 100% successfully, and even if it did, it would not be a quick process. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands (dare I say millions?) of people, children and adults, will die due to starvation, torture, poverty, lack of education, widespread famine, lack of water…the list goes on. Some of these things simply are not in the direct control of the people they affect. Penalizing the common person because you are educated and therefore intelligent enough to know that there are glaring problems causing their situations is, I believe, as short-sighted as donating money to an organization that you have not researched at all.

Alternatively, why not divide your donation between an organization that provides support and another organization that promotes changes in the policies you do not agree with? In this way, you can help a problem as well as a symptom.

once money leaves the US there’s no practical way to undertake a dependable audit of a charities operations

Except, oh say, by hiring an auditor. Which organizations do. Don’t scaremonger, please. An audit of an NGO’s work may not be in accord with USAID’s standards, but you can still get an accurate one anywhere in the world. Reputable NGOs do this.

The reporting requirements for NGOs have changed immensely in the past fifteen years. Governments now really, really care how taxpayer money is spent – by NGOs. Corruption exists, sure. But it is much, much less among NGOs working internationally than among corporations working in the same countries. Stockholders should demand the same level of accountability demanded of NGOs.

By the by, USAID’s accounting standards are among the strictest in the world. So strict, in fact, that organizations have to hire someone to track USAID’s money. I am not making that up. This is not, in my opinion, a good use for said funding and, for my company, is not worth the hassle.

I have a fair bit of experience auditing operations of international charities in individual third world countries, and very very very few were honest

I’m not an auditor, but this does not jibe with my experience at all. I think we might be using the word “honest” in a different way. I don’t much care if someone steals paperclips or if they pay a little too much to rent a truck. I’m willing to pay more – but not a lot more – to establish a good relationship with someone who can be useful in other ways. In a conflict, good information is absolutely crucial.

Actual theft, spotting it, and offering advice on how to stop it is, in fact, part of what I do. Often thieves do use someone within an NGO to help in their thefts. I would call that person dishonest, but not the organization. I’d be bothered if an organization knew who was involved in the diversion and did nothing about it, but I’d work with them to find options on how to do the work more effectively rather than castigating them.