Finding a reputable charity

[RockyRaab]

[font "Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"][size 2]If you want to donate to hurricane relief or any other cause, but don't know which organizations are legitimate - or are wasteful/inefficient with donations, there's help. Charity Navigator ranks thousands of charities on a one-to-four star scale and gives precise percentages of how much your gift goes to actually help victims. Make sure that what you give does real good, not pay bloated salaries. Go to [url "https://www.charitynavigator.org/"]https://www.charitynavigator.org/[/url] to find a cause you can support.


BTW, I just gave to the Houston Food Bank, which has a four-star rating and gives 98% of donations to victims.[/size][/font]
[signature]

[RonPaulFan]

Four stars! That's good!

I just found another that is rated four stars:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680

The Clinton Foundation

It has a particularly high score on transparency.

Perhaps this fine trustworthy rating service is a subsidiary of The Clinton Foundation which has four stars, so we know it can be trusted.

My question is:

Who rates the rating reporting service?

Here's one, the comment page for the rating of The Clinton Foundation:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680
[signature]

[dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]For a little more insight into which rater to use, go to this link:[/size][/#800000][/font] [url "https://www.consumerreports.org/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations/"]Consumer Reports.[/url]

[#800000][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3]Charity Navigator is one of the 3 recommended raters.[/size][/font][/#800000]
[signature]

[RonPaulFan]

I'm a strange mix of conspiracy theorist (you might think that makes me gullible) and a skeptic (not easily falling for what so called (benevolent?) "authorities" tell us, so my next question is: Who rates the raters of raters?

I will in this case because I'm qualified.

A long time ago, I was a subscriber to Consumer Reports because I liked to buy quality to make my hard earned money get the best value. I read it cover to cover -- every issue. I was a trusting believer. It was great because I could have the benefit of knowledge for things for which I knew nothing or little ... at least in concept. Why would they do anything contrary to being trustworthy!

But, there was one cover feature that I didn't even read because it was my expertise. Consumer Reports rated bicycles. I worked in a bicycle shop as a wheel builder for professional bicycle racers. I was sought after by the professional racers as the only one they trusted to build their wheels. I really knew bicycles well. That is except for the one that was rated best that I've never seen.

Having rode with all the local bicycle racing teams and bicycle clubs, I knew a lot of people in the business including many bicycle shop owners. They laughed at my suggestion that they carry this top rated bicycle. One challenged me to read the article on that top rated bicycle which he refused to carry. I was puzzled as it was top rated by Consumer Reports!

Reading the article in his bicycle shop, I was horrified as he laughed. One of it's highest and most decisive scores where it did much better than the competition was the ratings of brake function. The ones that failed in that category were bicycles of excellent reputations. They failed because grasping the brake levers hard would throw the rider over the handlebars. The top rated bicycle won based on the brakes being best because they wouldn't throw the rider over the handlebars. In other words, this top rating for brake functionality was won because the brakes didn't work!

I don't question the honesty of Consumer Reports on that. They were correct. It's just the little thing that their criteria was backwards and their "experts" were expert only because they claimed to know about something foreign to them. They weren't bicycle riders at all except for maybe around the block.

I never trusted Consumer Reports since that day and cancelled my subscription. Other things I bought based on that misplaced trust later proved to be poor choices.

Other than that, Consumer Reports is good in theory -- just not in the real world.
[signature]

[dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]I will respectfully disagree with your assessment of CR because I don’t think your decision to cancel your CR subscription took into consideration who is their intended audience. Out of ALL the bicycle owners in America, what percentage of them are professional bike racers? I have no idea and don’t care to look it up, but would guess that the percentage number is a single digit. And that population was NOT the audience at which CR aimed their report.

They were talking to the big box store buyers that buy bikes for their kids and maybe themselves for weekend jaunts around the park. And for that audience, their advice was adequate and on point. Professional sports people of any sport are not likely to seek out CR for reviews of the equipment they use in pursuit of the sport.

So, from a standpoint of what the masses need to know to give a few dollars of chump change to any given charity, then the CR ratings of charities are as good as any and will give you enough information to make a somewhat wise decision on who to give to for any given worthwhile cause.

And for what it’s worth, CR did NOT make recommendations based on their own research; they used research from who they believe are 3 of the best watchdog groups available to the general public and their report table was based on information from those 3 groups.

Does CR hit the nail on the head with every report they publish? No! Do they provide information that is useful to make decisions when making major purchases of normal goods and services? Absolutely; yes! Are they the go to source for professional bike racers for professional equipment? Not hardly. I have had a subscription for about 40 years now and will continue to use them in the future. I have learned to read and understand their reports and read the FULL report and I look for those report factors that are important for MY intended use of a given product. And I don’t always find that the top-rated product will best suit my needs. But the reports do make my decision-making process more intelligent.

And for what it’s worth, my charity of choice for disaster relief will ALWAYS be the Salvation Army over the Red Cross. I’ve seen both in action personally and the Red Cross sucks at it.[/#][/font]
[signature]

[RonPaulFan]

That part on my experience was given as my credentials and me knowing the bicycle shop owners in the trade. The particular bicycle shop owner I referenced owned a shop that sold the lower priced bicycles and represented a consensus of the other shop owners. Regarding bicycle brakes need to work, that certainly applies to all bicycles otherwise it's dangerous. I left out that detail, but a major criticism of that bicycle with brakes that didn't work was the bicycle shop owners wouldn't sell such a thing not only for watching out for their customers, but for liability reasons. On the rare occasion a bicycle rider needs to stop fast to prevent being killed by a collision with an automobile, the brakes need to be sufficiently powerful. Regardless of who Consumer Reports relied upon, that report was horrific and I wonder if such nonsense contributed to deaths and injuries to those who trusted their advice.

I applaud your choosing the charity based upon personal observation as in your experience.

My main point was to draw attention to the high rating of the Clinton Foundation which has been in the public eye and controversial to make the rating questionable and the rating services, too. That the rating service is rated high by Consumer Reports is, if anything, not an affirmation.

My main point by those examples is to advocate sufficient skepticism to warrant deeper consideration and investigation of choices of charities to make the best selection to do the good that is intended.
[signature]

[dubob]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]You seem to be hung up on the Clinton Foundation for some reason. And the rating services are giving them a rating based on a specific set of criteria - and the criteria differs for each rating service. None of them used criteria about how the donations were obtained. And therein lies the problem with the Clinton Foundation. Enough said.

Those major charities actually helping the victims of Hurricane Harvey are not seen as collecting ill-gotten funds from any source and any or all of the three watchdog groups mentioned by CR would be good sources for checking to see which charity will make the best use of your donations.

I'm stepping down off my soap box and will not make any further comments on the subject. I respect your right to choose any charity you deem appropriate for whatever purpose you wish to pursue. I'll continue to use CR as a starting point for such issues. Have a great day.[/#][/font]
[signature]