From the article, it seems like a big part of their motivation was recognizing that, with increased consumer awareness of climate and environmental issues (and they way their purchasing decisions can impact the issue), there's an opportunity to demonstrate to people how their (micro) philanthropy can help as well.

I think its great. Changing consumption habbits (particularly of fossil fuels), changing emissions and regulatory policies, and figuring out how to answer China, India, and other emerging economies' clear need for fuel to drive economic growth and development seem to me to be the big meta-priorities we all need to be engaged in discussing.

But the impacts of and solutions to environmental degradation are local as well as global. Smart, environmentally-sustainable appropriate technologies can not only improve local ecosystems, they can improve local economies by reducing the cost of fuel and reusing products that might otherwise be considered waste.

Groups like the Appropriate Infrastructure Development Group are doing tremendous work in this area, largely by connecting with and adding value to the inputs and talents of communities who are already on the ground. Providing opportunities to easily and confidently support this type of work is a great thing.

But I think GG faces a big challenge as well. This new effort again brings up the question of the difference between platforms for giving and reasons for giving. Even with a compelling need, good, vetted projects, and a user-friendly interface, it might not be enough for people to pull out their wallets. Even if you built it, they might not come.

Given GG's experience with this work and the strategies such as user-driven contests I've seen them participate in and (with our Project Challenge competition) help them develop, I think its highly likely that this platform comes with a donor engagement plan. I hope it works - we need a clearer connection between environmental degredation and impact on human life, in philanthropy and beyond.

The question is how much social networking, together with the other technological capabilities of the Internet, will actually increase giving.

I'm a huge supporter of web-based philanthropy, and I think its prospects are exciting. But the reality is that platforms are not the same as incentives: providing a means to give does not provide an incentive to give. Platforms for giving online are successful when their users organize around specific campaigns.

For example, each year, our Global Engagement Summit at Northwestern partners with GlobalGiving to put on a Project Challenge, through which our delegates compete to fundraise for their projects. In about two weeks, the dozen or so projects raised around $33,000. This is great - but most of those dollars come from friends and family of the projects in question. The incentives for students is that they can leverage the GlobalGiving brand (which can raise the legitimacy of a student-led project) when they appeal to those contacts, and depending on how successful they are, win matching grants.

The point is that the projects that think that just by listing themselves on the site people will flock to support their mission are not very successful.

I think the real challenge and opportunity in social networking for social change is in enabling virtual communities not necessarily rooted in offline connections to participate regularly in onling giving. Can it even happen?

This is a question the Intelligent Giving Blog asks. I won't lie I got a fright when I saw it. They make the point that charities were mostly set up at a time when people needed a way to connect with those that required help. Therefore it made perfect senst for people to doante to an organisation in that field that could direct the money to those very people. But of course that means there is a middle man.

Intelligent Giving notes that now that there are more sophistacted means of donating, ie online,  and that there are a wide range of sites which allow people to give directly to those they want to benefit from the donation, cutting out the middle man (ie the charity).

So sites like Kiva, Globalgiving, and the Big Give all list projects or individuals that you can donate directly to. And therefore, with this development, Intelligent Giving asks, is there really a need for charities?

I think it is true that there will be, and should be, a shift. The more that funds can get directly to those in need the better, so if you give directly to a project and can cut out the middle man great. But I suppose the question needs to be asked, can we ever really cut out the middle man? Is there a risk that people will manipulate the system and funds will be directed to projects that arent "real causes".

I dont think this is the end of charities!! So fret not. But I do agree with Intelligent Giving when they say that ..... they’ll (charities) need to work harder to show what they can do. Charities will need to argue their case strongly and be able to show that its just as important, or in fact maybe more important to give to them rather than directly through the likes of the sites above. Maybe it comes down to streamlining and dare I suggest merging??

Read the full article here

"In May, the annual gala of the Robin Hood Foundation, an event at which a few thousand hedge-fund magnates and leveraged buyout titans conspicuously display their wealth and commitment to social justice while rocking out to A-list musical guests (Shakira, John Legend, Sheryl Crow), raised $56.5 million, down 21.5 percent from $72 million the year before."

But, as Lucy Bernholz over at Philanthropy 2173 notes, the real value of the article is that it explores a few other reasons that philanthropy might be trending down, and it puts them in historical context. From Lucy:

"Daniel Gross's article has some useful insights:

• Drops in philanthropic giving and recessions have a long history together;
• Charitable giving is a "lagging indicator" of economic well-being (bills get paid first);
• "Swanky" giving and "Salvation Army" giving rise and fall in similar waves

This brings up two interesting questions which I'd like to get people's opinion on:

1. ARE Americans experiencing 'disaster fatigue' right now? The Slate article notes that the upward spikes of giving usually associated with disasters like the earthquakes in China, flooding in the Midwest, and cyclones in Burma hasn't happened this time around. While I don't dispute that, I wonder what the reasons might be: how much of it is simply a factor of the economic downward turn? In Burma, a huge part of the coverage was about how Burma wasn't going to let in aid. That certainly had a dampening effect on my willingness to contribute. In China, there were some spikes, for example on GlobalGiving.org, Earthquake-related giving skyrocketed the amount of money being donated through the site. The Half the Sky Earthquake Relief Fund has raised over $400,000 in the last few weeks. And with the Midwestern flooding, I wonder if its too early to see the full extent of giving?

2. Do you think there's any negative correlation between giving to presidential campaigns and giving to charity? A huge number of new donors have been giving to campaigns of both Republican and Democratic candidates. Barack alone has raised something like $265 million, just under half of which has come from donors contributing under $200. More than 1.5 million different individuals gave to his primary campaign. I know for me, the money I gave to the Obama campaign depressed the resources I had available to contribute to other philanthropic organizations. I don't know if this is a large enough contingent to impact national trends, but I do think its an interesting question.

What do others think?

Thursday, May 22nd

BL'VD
199 Bowery @ Spring St
Manhattan, NYC 10002
<<If You're going to the Flirteve Happy Hour at AZZA, we invite you to join us after.>>

Doors Open at 7:00 pm

$10 Minimum Donation
(But We Know You Want to Give More)

Part Awareness. Part Concert. Part Party.
Come prepared for all three.

100% of the proceeds from this event will be donated to relief projects in Burma and China through GlobalGiving. It is because of these grassroots organizations, who are already well established within both countries, that we are confident the money we raise will make it directly to the people in need.

Lineup:
Spoken Word Poet/HBO Def Poet: Carlos Andres Gomez (www.CarlosLive.com)
Musician/Performer Brent Shuttleworth (myspace.com/brentshuttleworth)
Musician/Performer Taiyo Na (www.TaiyoNa.com)
DJ - Bollygirl (avaaz | high.chai) (avaaznyc.com)
DJ - dimmSummer (avaaz | ethnotechno) (ethnotechno.com)

Organizations please contact mwmr.promo@gmail.com

An extra special thanks to the folks at Flirteve who have been so accommodating with this event in NYC. If you had planned on attending their Happy Hour at AZZA already, we invite you to join us after.

If you don't believe us, just ask the array of Websites and organizations around the world who are channeling their funds or directing their constituents to donate through GlobalGiving (such as CNN).

To make a direct donation, visit GlobalGiving.

The reason MWMR has decided to donate through GlobalGiving is because they are committed to ensuring that the money donated gets to social entrepreneurs on the ground (90% of the donation within 60-days), working directly on projects that have the ability to make a profound impact. Money goes directly into the hands of these social entrepreneurs, who then provide feedback on how the money was utilized and what they money was utilized for. The real benefit is that in most cases, GlobalGiving has already established a connection with these social entrepreneurs. In the case of new project postings, GlobalGiving ensures that each project is rigorously vetted for legitimacy before any funds are disbursed.

What does that mean? The money we donate will not be disbursed until the intended recipient (project/organization) has been thoroughly tested and validated by a team of people and a system of checks and balances that has received nothing but positive recognition in the space (charitable giving, international development).

There are a number of ways to give, legitimately, to the victims in Burma and China. This is the vehicle we have chosen because of our faith in GlobalGiving and the people who work there. We also believe in the organization's mission, which is to make it easier for grassroots organizations and social entrepreneurs to gain access to capital in an effort to support their vision of change. It's an approach to international development that simply was not available until GlobalGiving was founded.

If you are not attending one of our events and would like to donate to a different organization, we recommend you visit one of these sites for more information on other organizations to consider:

• Myanmar
• China

invite you to:

Burma | China Relief
a 100% fundraiser

Wednesday, May 21

The Formula
electro :: house :: funk :: dub

Wednesdays @ Science Club
1136 19th St, NW [ Wash DC]

7:30pm onwards | $10 suggested donation

residents
v:shal kanwar & samiah
+ sriram gopal (live drums & percussion)
+ special surprise guest DJ!!

100% of door donations + a percentage of bar sales benefit Global Giving (http://www.globalgiving.org)

Thursday, May 22nd

English
444 N. LaSalle Street (LaSalle & Illinois)
Chicago, IL 60610

Doors Open at 7:00 pm

$10 Minimum Donation
(But We Know You Want to Give More)

Part Awareness. Part Party.

100% of the proceeds from this event will be donated to relief projects in Burma and China through GlobalGiving. It is because of these grassroots organizations, who are already well established within both countries, that we are confident the money we raise will make it directly to the people in need.

Contact
chicagomwmr@gmail.com

I've toyed with the idea of giving my mother a charitable donation a few times but I've never found the right one. It needs to be something that helps people but also something that I can tell her what her money does. A generic donation just won't cut it. And yes, I do have my favourite charities (Doctors Without Borders and public libraries top my personal list) but those are my charities, not mom charities. You know what I mean?

After BlogHer launched it's BlogHer Acts Donation project in April I checked it out. I had some money sitting in my PayPal account that I really didn't need to do anything with. It wasn't a lot. Only $25. So I gave it. You are probably sitting there thinking that $25 doesn't do a lot. You'd be wrong.

I gave money to two different projects that day. First I bought some kids school lunches. I believe in education. I believe that education opens doors in ways that we cannot imagine when we are children. I believe that education put me right where I am at this moment (rather literally as the university I graduated from is only a couple of blocks away). When I was a kid I skipped my lunch a lot of days at school. That is a total luxury. Had I not had the lunch available to me I'm sure I would have been begging for one. And all around the globe children go to school without lunches. I donated a whopping total of $15 to buy girls school lunches in Burkina Faso. Do you know how many lunches that bought? It bought 50 students a noon meal.

I still had $10 left. I wanted to make that $10 count. After weighing all the options I decided to donate the money to a mother and child health clinic in rural Nepal. What did that mere $10 do? $10 runs the clinic for 2 days or a year's worth of health care for 5 women and children.

I knew that I had found the type of charity donation that I was looking for. The type that told both me and my mother that the money was making an impact. That it was really helping. So yesterday I donated $50 to that health clinic in Nepal. $50 provides 10 day's worth of operating costs for the clinic or provides a year's worth of health care for 25 women in children.

There are other options than the ones above. Go check them out. You'll notice that a Myanmar Emergency Relief for the cyclone victims was just added.

The ones I donated to are the ones that speak to me the most. And the one that I think will speak the most to my mother. As a mother of seven children I think that she'll like providing care to another women and her children.

Aside from giving money yourself you can give by commenting at Writing: My Life. For every comment between May 5 and May 9 smtwngrl is giving $1 to one of the charities (cap of $100).

What are you doing for Mother's Day?

MIAMI HEAT DWYANE WADE SIGNED AUTHENTIC JERSEY

link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/MIAMI-HEAT-DWYANE-WADE-SIGNED-AUTHENTIC-JERSEY-W-COA_W0QQitemZ120239736079QQihZ002QQcategoryZ27269QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

*25% OF THE PROCEEDS WILL GO TO THE GlobalGiving Hurricane Rebuilding fund (http://www.globalgiving.com/recovery.html) SO PLEASE BID GENEROUSLY. THIS AUCTION IS TO HELP SUPPORT LONG-TERM REBUILDING EFFORTS FOR COMMUNITIES STILL RECOVERING FROM THE DEVASTATING STORM.

One of the worst disasters ever to hit the U.S., Hurricane Katrina caused unprecedented damage in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast. Through GlobalGiving, you can donate to projects that benefit survivors and contribute to long-term recovery and rebuilding, and support economic development efforts, particularly for disadvantaged populations.

*This item is part of the Care for a Cause Auction so please feel free to check my online store for other items being auctioned off to charity. For updates please visit the following website: http://dntsoulutions.com/category/humanitarian/

For questions, please send email to: dccustodio@gmail.com

The rules were pretty simple. More than 2,500 organizations were represented by causes created during the Challenge. The Causes Giving Challenge awarded $50,000 to the cause with the most unique donors, $25,000 to the second and third place causes, and $10,000 to the next ten causes. Throughout the Challenge, Causes on Facebook awarded daily winners $1,000 for having the most unique donations in a single day. Any Facebook user could participate by using the Causes application to promote their cause through direct user-to-user messages, and feature it on their profile. In the end, a total of 32,886 donations accounted for $571,686 in donations supporting 747 different organizations - an average gift of $17.38. The Parade portion, which brought in contributions via the magazine's website, accounted for another $1.2 million from 48,711 donors - for an average donation of about $24, slightly higher. These online fundraisers used widgets - bits of code users could pass around and put on their blogs to urge donations and involvemenet - and relied on charity donation sites Network for Good and GlobalGiving to process gifts. [An important disclosure is necessary: the Case Foundation is a client of Changing Our World, Inc., the consulting firm where I work, and the company has been involved in some of the online causes work of the foundation, although none of the information in this book comes from that relationship.]

As Jean Case, the foundation's chief executive, observed: "“Thousands of people embraced new technologies, built new online communities, and proved that simple daily actions and small donations can inspire others and tap into their energy and passion to make a difference.” I'd argue that the manner in which the causes were supported on Facebook and through blog-based widgets and other tools on the Parade side of the ledger may count for more in the end than the money that was raised - because getting those contributions involved creating and activating a social network, a group of people who in the process probably learned a bit more about the causes they were supporting - and a group that may well be more open to real activism in the future than names on an email list. Further, I'd suggest that the online social activism portion of the program best-served one of the key goals of the Case commitment - priming the pump of activism with leadership.

And raising that money online took real leadership indeed.

Let's take one of the top eight finishers in the Parade.com challenge as an example. Route Out of Poverty for Cambodian Children, a grassroots project of the Sharing Foundation, garnered 1,650 donations totaling $41,673 - and won a $50,000 grant from the Case Foundation for finishing in the top four among international causes. I know a little more about the foundation's work in Cambodia, and the Route Out of Poverty program, which teaches Khmer to 100 children of illiterate farmers, and English to over 500 students seeking to move beyond subsistence farming. I know that thousands of Cambodian children grow up illiterate, with very few educational options. I also know that the Sharing Foundation’s Khmer literacy school helps farm children learn their native alphabet and numbers well enough to attend elementary school. I know that its English Language Program offers village students from eight to 18 the opportunity to learn Cambodia’s language of commerce, allowing them to obtain jobs in tourism and word processing. But I don't know this because of a website, or a Facebook profile, or a cool blog widget, or a well-publicized giving challenge.

I know all of this because of Beth Kanter.

GlobalGiving tracked 1,650 donations to Route Out of Poverty for Cambodian Children - and one of them was mine. And I made the list because of Beth, a Boston-based consultant who is one of the Web's most ardent champions of online social activism. In addition to her blogging, coaching work and consulting, Beth is passionate about the southeast Asian nation of Cambodia. A few years ago, sheadopted two Khmer children, and is quite passionate about helping them to know about their homeland and celebrate their culture. Beth writes about Khmer culture and technology at Cambodia4kids blog and maintains a web site with the same name that provides information for U.S. teachers and parents. Her Typing To Learn Khmer blog is where she practices her very basic Khmer language skills using Khmer Unicode. She has covered the Cambodian Blogosphere as an author for Global Voices Online, a project of the Berkman Center for Internet and Law at Harvard University.

In addition to her many accomplishments, Beth is something of a noodge - which in the kinder version of the Yiddish translation means "someone who pushes you, sometimes to the point of annoyance." When I asked Beth for some information related to this book, she very kindly held her hand out, digital palm up. A member of the board of the Sharing Foundation, she was passionately committed to ensuring that its Cambodian cause made the top four finishers in the Case Foundation contest - and an inquiring journalist who is an only an online acquaintance simply didn't qualify for a free pass. Every time I asked a question, Beth would shoot back some version of: "the deadline's coming, did you make your gift yet?"

Beth bugged a lot of people, posted to her blog, and urged others to post the widget - a small graphic showing Cambodian children with the current giving levels of the campaign. I finally made a small gift, and posted the widget to my own blog. Other people asked me about and I told them what I knew. And some them went on to make donations. Now we're all savvy about the small foundation changing the lives of poor Cambodian children. Beth's leadership brought in needed funds, but it also created real awareness and a network of potential supporters for the future.

And there was a small reward, in addition to Beth's hearty thanks. In March, two months after the Case challenges ended, Dr. Nancy Hendrie, the president of the Sharing Foundation, sent Beth a video that she posted to her blog and sent around the donors. Only ten seconds long, it nonetheless connected a frenzied online giving contest with real-world recipients. It shows dozens of small children sitting on the porch of the Roteang Orphanage. Prompted by an adult voice off camera, the smiling children shout a few words as loud as their voices would allow them - Thankyou! American! Challenge! Yaaaay!

by: http://flickr.com/photos/farol/

Internet sta cambiando in maniera significativa sia la quantità che la qualità delle risorse per lo sviluppo umano. E lo sta facendo soprattutto attraverso quello che qui ho definito più volte come fundraising 2.0.

Niente di nuovo, credo, per i lettori di Fundraising Now!, ma è interessante rilevare l'approccio dell'ultima ricerca di Keystone, che conferma l'ineludibile tendenza attraverso lo studio comparato di 24 "mercati filantropici online".

I "marketplace" solidali, sono una delle grandi novità di questi anni: piattaforme in grado di incrociare la domanda di tempo, competenze e risorse economiche da parte di micro-imprenditori e organizzazioni non profit che ne hanno bisogno, con l'offerta da parte di aziende e cittadini che ne dispongono.

La ricerca prova ad analizzarli partendo da 4 domande chiave:

> i mercati sono solo un mezzo per offrire aiuti di breve periodo o possono costituire uno strumento per sostenere uno sviluppo sostenibile?

> esistono strumenti per misurare l'impatto degli investimenti effettuati tramite questi mercati filantropoci?

> le opportunità di investimento vengono presentate in modo da creare una larga base di donatori e una relazione di lungo periodo con i donatori?

> come possono influenzare positivamente il modo in cui i vari "costituenti" (investitori, intermediari e beneficiari) dialogano tra loro e apprendono reciprocamente?

La sfida, secondo Keystone, può essere vinta, purché:

> si mettano in condizione i donatori di diventare veri e propri investitori nel cambiamento sociale;

> si mettano in condizione i beneficiari di mostrare i risultati del loro lavoro attraverso report continuativi, credibili, accessibili e coinvolgenti;

> le organizzazioni arricchiscano il modo con cui interagiscono con i loro sostenitori attraverso gli strumenti partecipativi del web 2.0;

> si costruiscano delle vere e proprie comunità virtuali, in grado di costruire relazioni continuative tra persone in grado di cambiare il mondo attorno a idee e cause in cui possano credere;

> unire i donatori e i beneficiari dei progetti, attraverso gli strumenti del web 2.0

Una sfida per cui sembrano pronte soprattutto quelle piattaforme in grado di passare da un approccio neutrale a un approccio "engaged".

Ma cosa significa essere "engaged" per una piattaforma di filantropia online?

Secondo la ricerca di Keystone, significa:

• promuovere e raccomandare attivamente le organizzazioni e i progetti ospitati sulla loro piattaforma;
• effettuare un controllo accurato (la due diligence) sulla qualità del progetto e dell'organizzazione (e soprattutto sul suo impatto economico e sociale), auspicabilmente attraverso visite in loco;
• coinvolgere i beneficiari stessi e gli stakeholder nella valutazione ex ante dei progetti presentati;
• effettuare un controllo ex post attraverso audit interni ed esterni, partner local e controlli sul campo;
• presentare una rendicontazione accurata (ma anche coinvolgente). Punto su cui tra l'altro molti dei "mercati" esaminati risultano poveri di informazioni;
• mettere a disposizione dei vari stakeholder strumenti tipici del web 2.0, come widget, blog, forum per poter dialogare direttamente.

Ma quali sono gli ostacoli?

> innanzitutto individuare degli indicatori di performance più idonei: non sempre una rendicontazione formalmente corretta, l'adempimento di tutte le regole e il rispetto del budget presentato corrispondono infatti a un reale impatto sociale ed economico sul terreno.

Tanto per dare un'idea, questi sono alcuni degli indicatori usciti dalla survey:

● ‘The percentage of funds going to cause rather than overhead’
● ‘The effective and transparent use of your resources to attain in the best way
possible your organisation’s mission’
● ‘Having a positive impact. Changing and/or improving something that would
have been wasted’
● ‘Doing what you say you will, when you say you will. Being accountable.
Providing excellent ‘customer service’ and strong stewardship’
● ‘Doing the best you can with what you have’
● ‘Good treatment of donors and volunteers, effective programs, judicious
resource utilization’
● ‘Efficient use of resources for social impact, according with the mission of the
organisation’
● ‘Achieving measurable mission goals, and doing it cost-effectively. If your goal is
to help low income women get jobs, don't tell me how many you trained, tell
me how many got jobs that increased their incomes. If you can't then your job
is only half-done’

> non ogni tipo di progetto è comparabile a un altro;

> i problemi sociali sono spesso troppo complessi per essere ridotti a degli indicatori di performance;

> i risultati sono spesso raggiunti ormai terminato il processo di donazione/rendicontazione (si pensi agli effetti positivi dei progetti educativi o a molte attività economiche).

Del resto, non è detto che i donatori siano interessati realmente alle performance così come spesso vengono intese dai "project manager".

La ricerca stessa ricorda, infatti, che si dona soprattutto per soddisfare bisogni emozionali:

- innanzitutto perché fa sentire bene (attivando le stesse aree del sistema limbico centrale coinvolte nella produzione di dopamina che vengono attivate da sesso, soldi, droghe e cibo);

• per sedare un senso di colpa;
• per rispondere alla pressione dei pari;
• per motivi spirituali;
• per conformismo sociale;
• per dimostrara uno status;
• per altruismo.

Detto in altri termini, la credibilità dell'intemediario e la sua capacità di rendicontazione spesso e volentieri vengono considerati elementi secondari. Anzi: spesso si continua a donare alla stessa organizzazione pur sapendo che i propri soldi non saranno spesi in maniera efficaci o andranno sprecati.

Come afferma il presidente di DonorChoose:

‘Donors appreciate data as it gives a sense of visibility into the project, for example, the number of students being helped. But what our donors appreciate most is the personal feedback, the hand written letters from the children, the drawings and the glitter falling from the envelope as they open them.’

Insomma, se è vero che le informazioni dettagliate sono spesso rassicuranti, è vero che quasi nessuno le legge e che un donatore in genere preferisce report di poche pagine e ad alto impatto emotivo (con immagini, storie, testimonianze...).

C'è però un altro motivo che disincentiva le organizzazioni alla pubblicazione di indicatori di performance. La paura di perdere donatori. Il mercato del fundraising viene spesso visto come un gioco a somma zero. Si ritiene limitato il numero di donatori e si ritiene che una rendicontazione poco dettagliata o povera possa far perdere donatori a scapito di altre organizzazioni.

Questa paura spesso spinge all'omertà rispetto ai dati. Si dimentica però che il mercato delle donazioni online è ancora una nicchia (circa il 2, 3% del totale, anche se siti come Network for good hanno chiuso l'ultimo anno con 35 milioni di dollari di raccolta) e che c'è un ampio spazio per creare nuove relazioni con i donatori, per educarli e crescere insieme, per posizionarsi, anche attraverso un alto grado di "accountability" come leader e i first moover potrebbero giovarsene.

Le raccomandazioni finali della ricerca mi sembrano particolarmente rilevanti. I siti di filantropia online dovrebbero:

abituare i propri sostenitori a pensare come "investitori sociali" e non più come donatori

creare un sistema di raccolta e certificazione dei dati indipendente, che permetta una comparazione dei dati in diversi mercati e paesi

costruire un sistema di reporting unico e condiviso, che permetta la comparazione dei dati

Per finire, ecco i siti presi in considerazione.

1. Beautiful Foundation: http://www.beautifulfund.org
2. Bring Light http://www.bringlight.com
3. CanadaHelps: http://www.canadahelps.org
4. Changing the Present : http://www.changingthepresent.org
5. Charity Aid Foundation: http://www.cafonline.org
6. Conexion Colombia: http://www.conexioncolombia.com
7. DonorEdge http://www.donoredge.org
8. DonorsChoose: http://www.donorschoose.org
9. eBay Giving Works: http://givingworks.ebay.com
MissionFish: http://www.missionfish.org
10. Give2Asia: http://www.give2asia.org
11. GiveIndia: http://www.giveindia.org
12. GlobalGiving: http://www.globalgiving.com
13. Greater Good South Africa: http://www.myggsa.co.za
14. HelpArgentina: http://www.helpargentina.org
15. Just Give: http://www.justgive.org
16. Justgiving: http://www.justgiving.com
17. Kiva: http://www.kiva.org
18. Microplace: http://www.microplace.com***
19. Modest Needs: http://www.modestneeds.com
20. MyC4: http://www.myc4.com
21. Network for Good: http://www.networkforgood.org
22. Social Stock Exchange: http://www.bovespasocial.com.br
23. South African Social Investment Exchange: http://www.sasix.co.za
24. Wildlife Direct: http://www.wildlifedirect.org

E un elenco di siti di rating:

1. Charity Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org
2. Charity Watch: http://www.charitywatch.org
3. Great Nonprofits: http://greatnonprofits.org
4. GuideStar International: http://www.guidestarinternational.org
5. Intelligent Giving: http://www.intelligentgiving.com
6. Wise Giving Alliance: http://www.give.org

Per scaricare il report (100 pagine da leggere con attenzione e mandare a memoria), clicca qui (è un pdf)

Post correlati su Fundraising Now!

>> Scandalose ONG? Il tesoro nascosto della solidarietà

>> Prestiti, non donazioni. La rivoluzione di Kiva corre sul web

>> Donare in modo intelligente si può? Forse sì, grazie a Internet

As the Washington Post reports (registration stupidly required here) this morning. Here's the gist of the article:

The Case Foundation, the philanthropy of Steve and Jean Case, is promoting America’s Giving Challenge, which aims to draw people who do not consider themselves to be philanthropists to donate as little as $10 to charities around the world. The foundation is working with Network for Good and GlobalGiving, nonprofit groups that allow donors to conduct online searches for charities to support.

The foundation has also begun a similar challenge on Facebook. Facebook users can donate to any of 1.5 million charities through the site’s “causes” section and have their donations and causes displayed as part of their personal profiles.

The Case Foundation is giving away $750,000 in the two online efforts, which start today and end January 31. People who recruit the most friends from their social networks will each receive $50,000 to donate to charity. The 100 charities that garner the highest number of online donations will each get $1,000.

There are many exciting aspects of this grant program. One in particular is recognizing the power of friends instead of just dollars to support causes. Young people in particular are not only not in a position to fund causes with large dollars, but don't see the world through that lens alone. That's the power behind the social networking sites; friends are their commerce and Case is recoginizing that and bringing that same passion to their causes.

I found an interesting website the other night - www.globalgiving.com.  You can purchase Global Giving gift cards for any denomination (minimum $10) and the recipient chooses what partner charity the money is donated to. It can be done through email where the gift giver can design the gift certificate.  And according to CSRwire http://www.csrwire.com/News/10127.html they have biodegradable gift cards (I couldn’t find information on this at the website).

If you are a retailer, there is an option to sell them at your place of business. I believe the company is American, so there may be some restrictions for us in Canada, but I am still going to get into contact with them.

Site of the Week (4/10/07)
GlobalGiving
Rating:

With Christmas not that far away, here's a website you might find useful. GlobalGiving connects users to over 450 independent charity projects around the world to make donations that can help to change and shape a community. You can help fund projects from orphanages and schools to health programs and all projects are approved by reputable organisations like the United Nations Foundation before being listed to ensure legitimacy.

What makes GlobalGiving different from other sites is that it connects donors directly to the projects, allowing donors to choose who they support. When you make a donation you can opt to remain anonymous or to let your contact information be known to the project leader, allowing you to stay updated on the project's progress. There are also project reports every few months available through GlobalGiving.

Donations through GlobalGiving are tax-deductible and are a good option for people looking to make donations as a gift. You buy a gift certificate (an email or a card) and the recipient goes to the website and chooses the projects they want to give funds to, involving them in the process rather than simply making a donation in their name. Making a donation or buying a certificate is simple with payment accepted through credit cards, PayPal, cheques and bank transfers.

One thing of note is that GlobalGiving takes a fee of 10% from donations for administration, but that's lower than the fees of similar sites. GlobalGiving was founded by two former heads of the World Bank and if you're thinking of making a charitable donation, GlobalGiving is well worth a look.

First, the Case Foundation (Steve Case of AOL fame) has a spotlight section on their site that looks at the issues the foundation funds. Today (this week?) the Spotlight page will take you to some good links on giving, including research, tips and tricks, and holiday shopping possibilities.

Second, the GlobalGivingIndex on SocialEdge - its not perfect, but my hats off to GlobalGiving for recognizing the value of their data and sharing it in a new, useful way. Anyone using the index or data for research, analysis, comparison shopping? Ping me, I'd love to know.