Rating Charities.

 Before donating to that charity or appeal,you should check who the real beneficiaries are.Internationally,the Indian Ocean Tsunami Appeal and the more recent Haiti Appeal left a lot of wealthy contractors and a world of disillusioned and disgruntled donors. In Australia,the recent Victoria Bushfires Appeal saw an entire government bureaucracy established using donated funds,while displaced people continued to live in questionable conditions.


 Give generously, but be certain of whom your funds support -and how.In Haiti,some consider that donations in effect subsidised the US militarisation of the country.Other questions as to the ability of individual aid organisations to respond in a timely manner were brought into question. In Australia, non church based charities have extra reporting and compliance obligations which church based organisations do not. Does the Charity receive government or corporate funding for the project concerned? Are they "double dipping?".


 Our assessment system for analysing the effectiveness of Charitable donations is limited to some extent by the moral integrity of the accounting structure used by the Charity being assessed.

• Organisations which deliver government programs of any kind should NOT be supported. These organisations are paid by government to deliver services.There are 2 basic reasons why government use these providers.The first is cost. By using volunteers and paying staff considerably lower incomes than government awards,cutting corners on risk management,OHS and client service standards.The second reason is to blameshift and shift budgets to an unelected organisation,for which the relevant minister and department can be held blameless when issues become public. In addition,as in Australia,most are church based and therefore subject to less financial scrutiny than non-church based charities. If an unelected organisation is government funded, it should not be classed as a charity or able to raise funds by public donation.  
• Cancer and other medical research NGOs should be viewed with a degree of scepticism.These organisations are well known for their high administrative and collection costs, and some for conducting research which benefits major pharmaceuticals companies.
• We use a as guidance the guidelines of American Institute of Philanthropy http://bit.ly/9mI8pv minimum of 75% of donations received returned to target constituency, with the additional criteria IN A FORM IDENTIFIED AS NECESSARY by the target constituency, as an acceptable figure.We do not allow the charity being assessed to provide "target constituents."
• We look at high infrastructure and staffing costs.Are the buildings necessary?Transportation?When assessing staffing costs,ask what the highest and lowest salaries are.Ask about contracted service providers.Research often masks fund shifting to related persons or parties.
• Charities using Street Collectors, or online donation systems should be asked what proportion of your donation is retained by the collection agents,if a collection agent is involved.We stopped donating to MSF Australia because of their relationship with a fundraising organisation.We continue to support MSF by other means.
• Check at least annually.Yesterdays streamlined,efficient charity is sometimes todays inefficient bureaucracy.
• When analysing remote assistance projects,be prepared for high logistics costs as a legitimate part of the project.

 While 25% of funds donated appears to be the accepted norm for administrative costs, some charities operate at 7-8% retained for administration.A few are structured using donated professional services and 3 (worldwide) are known to operate on 100% of donations passed on to target constituencies.


Australia: There is no reliable rating of Charities in Australia. Church Based charities are completely unaccountable. Many are adept at manipulating their accounting systems to disguise outrageous infrastructure or contractor costs, often being payments to related parties.
 Independently funded, non-government supported, non-religious Charities are generally the most efficient service providers.Government supported 
 We do NOT recommend donating to ANY Children based Charity, except The Starlight Childrens Foundation. By Federal and State Government decree,ALL Childrens Charities which actually deal with Children are Mandatory Spy Agencies for Family Invasive Government Departments.In Australia,these unfortunately named departments are the major risk confronting children, young adults and families.Government intrusion now uses the offices of these Charity based NGOs to perpetrate their mischiefs, so these organisations should not be considered for funding.  


Canada: 
www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/menu-eng.html. is a Canadian Government site covering all listed Canadian Charities.The site includes information on charities "not in good standing" with the Canadian Government. This should not necessarily be regarded unfavorably.Charities can,and often are, "not in good standing" because they refuse to be politically influenced.
 This article also gives an idea of how some international charities financing operates. 

Sydney Homeless Report 2010

This is the 1st report from @SydneyHomeless on the State of Homelessness in Sydney City.

•  On 27th January 2010 we counted 1173 persons living without housing in the Sydney City Council area, hereinafter referred to as Sydney City.Each person counted was spoken to,self identified as homeless and gave permission to be included in our count.  
• Our count excludes people who reside in "Bomb Shelters" such as Matthew Talbot Hostel or other such institutions.The count was actioned over a 24 hour period from midnight to midnight on the 27th January.
• Our poll was based on a fixed list of questions, with a custom answer option.
• 228 did not wish to participate,and are not included in this count.

These results are taken directly from raw data.A retired Data Analyst with 15+ years Morgan-Gallup polling experience assisted with poll preparation.Our analyst is also present confirming poll results.We acknowledge that our poll did not count an unquantifiable number whose habits we are unaware of.The use of Morgan Gallup name is strictly with reference to our Analyst's previous role, and does not convey any further association- nor that our methodology is based, endorsed on or conforming to Morgan Gallup polling.  

• 863 people identified as having been homeless for 3 months or more. 528 identified as having been homeless for 12 months or more.
• 227 were aged 15 or under.Of these 160 were unaccompanied (by a family member).4 of those unaccompanied contacted DOCs helpline, following our explanation of DOCs services.All minors & families had DOCs, Family Court procedures and NGO roles explained to them.188 had zero income support.
• Only 3 Family groups were prepared to work with a Govt supported NGO to resolve homelessness.
• 166 (other than temporary residents) believe they do not qualify for Govt income support.
• 326 were foreign students or temporary residents, with small part time incomes.
• 1242 cited a lack of affordable and appropriate accommodation for their lifestylesGiven reasons include cost, style and location.31 stated that they did not wish to be housed.Of the 31 16 had some form of alternative accommodation.
• 267 said that they had or were currently engaged with a housing related NGO in relation to their current housing needs. 
• 269 work 30 hours per week or more.