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

The service, which is trying to register as a charity, explains in its annual report that it expects the Charity Commission to object to the content.

"The commission might insist that our occasional blog-based reprimands of poorly performing charities are not charitable activities," the report reads.

A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said that charities needed to consider whether their blogs directly furthered their charitable purposes or supported their work in indirect ways.

Full Article

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

I know that Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and all the other SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) are bullshit and I have known it for about 15 years.

Never mind how.

Anyway, it was recently "discovered" that Prozac doesn't "work" for anybody. "Placebos work better than Prozac!!!" they kinda said. Depressed people were not being "helped" by this toxic and expensive drug, that is so over-prescribed, it was found to be a measurable element in the water supply in the UK, from so many people excreting it in their pee.

Why, they ask? How could so many people be convinced to spend billions of dollars on drugs that not only don't work, but actually harm millions of people all over the world?

Not to fuck with the atheists or the Christians or whatever religious corporation you're into or anything, but I'm going to write a little about religious stuff. And take it easy-- I don't give a shit about your soul and can't even prove you have one.

Ready?

Okay. The First Noble Truth of the Buddhists, is that all life is suffering. The Second is that you are to do whatever you can to alleviate that suffering, or something like that (Obvs, I'm not Buddhist, but I used to tell shit like this to Names4things Jr all the time, and she's only mildly disturbed.). But like those in the art market, I know what I like.

Okay, so all life is suffering. Let's just accept that for the benefit of this shitty blog post, if nothing else. Imagine we are all surfing, or at least bobbing in the ocean. Some of us are catching waves, surfing, and some of us are getting water up our noses. Fuck, I hate that! And I love to swim! Anyway, some of us are stroking through the water like Olympic athletes (that would be moi), and some of you are drowning (that would be you). I believe all of these are really appropriate metaphors for how we can feel on any given day, or at any given moment, so it's not personal. And I can really swim.

We are rarely concentrating on how others are doing in the water. It's the ocean! Choppy water, kinda grey skies, I can't hearrrr youuuu!!! And so under these conditions, if we are paying attention to each other, we can get caught up in each other's shit catastrophically, quite easily. Say, I stop stroking, and try to save your lame ass, and you hit me in the nose because your arms are flailing, and I am knocked out, and end up drowning. But by my excellent swimming example, you  finally have figured out how to actually swim yourself!

Well screw you, you thankless shit! Then I come back from the dead and fuck you up!

No, let's go back to our superb paradigm, where we basically can't or don't give a shit for what others are doing. And along with the whole concept of being Number One, we must have this notion to survive in this ocean.

Well, Prozac won't save you. Prozac isn't a life jacket or an inner tube or even a rubber ducky. Prozac is just another pharmaceutical buggering you get for believing that your life should be easy. Because, remember? All life is suffering. Unless you're lucky enough or smart enough not to be sentient; you will suffer, and that's what I know for sure.

So next time someone tries to hook you on drugs, whether it's the guy who cooked the meth or big pharma cooking the Prozac, or even the guy distilling the potatoes, mixing it with vermouth and presenting it to you in a vaguely titty-shaped glass with an olive; just take it easy. Try as hard as you can, and simultaneously give yourself a break. Sound easy? Well then you're not trying hard enough.

Try not to hate, beginning with yourself-- unless you deserve it, in which case I will post your lousy shit on my blog and the whole world will join you. Just kidding, no one reads this shit. But even when self-loathing is maybe justified, even more often, it is really intensely warranted and isn't done at all. So why waste your time on your piddling self-hate? You-- you're probably, most likely, nothing compared to the champion motherfuckers of the world. Unless you're really fucking scary, which I admit is possible, in which case I am speechless, and not heavily into redemption. No, really. I give it a little lip service, but I'm basically unforgiving.

But whatever you do, remember that if you can read these words, you're not lying on the ground somewhere starving to death, or you're not someone sold into slavery, or you're not head to toe in a refugee camp: remember you've got it pretty fucking good, from a global perspective. Not fighting with 17 adults and 5 listless children over the last shriveled yam dug out of the parched molten earth? Well you're good to fucking go, captain!

Try to cherish that. Pick a God and be grateful to Her for that shit. Or don't! And then pick something, any fucking thing, and try to just be better. Stop hating people for nothing. That's a good start, and really really helps. You don't have to be the fashion police or the looks department, or any of that critical analysis you engage in that I call horse shit. Just do you. Then, stop picking fights with people weaker than you-- OMG you're already Mother friggin Theresa with your shit! Then and only then TRY just try to walk in someone else's fugly thongs, and you're already on the road to feeling a little better than shitty. Isweartogod this works.

Because, remember-- we really aren't in the ocean, you're staring at a fucking computer screen. You can actually do something. You're not even wet, unless I'm a much better writer than I thought. So do something. Not drugs- I mean you can do drugs, but you agreed to help alleviate someone's suffering, remember? Jeez, do you have ADD or something? Or just some good pot? Sharesies?

Anyway, take your fucking wheel barrels of money, and don't buy a Hummer. Don't even buy a blow job. Give something to someone else, instead. Nothing that has anything to do with Russell Simmons, Dear God, but you get my drift, don't you? Clean your old granny's nasty feet. Wash your ass. Tell your little imaginary friends to go home. After that? The magic of these very intertubes allow you to give money to buy someone a goat, or a mosquito net, or be a big deal, and become a venture capitalist for someone who needs, I don't know, a couple hundred bucks to save her life. It's amazing, really.

But after you've done that, remember it and you, are just a drop in the ocean. And that ocean of suffering with sweet death as its only release? Uh, you cannot conquer it with fucking Prozac. SSRIs don't work. The white man even admitted it, finally. Give it up, Griff!

Oh-- and have a good day!