I know many Hubbers continue to be shocked at the massive level Nine (9) Earthquake that has befell Japan with the accompanying Apocalyptic Tsunami that followed. I know you want to help with a few dollars. I have put a link on my profile page to the right place.
This is a news blog link from Australia covering the tragedy
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan … 2eb10d970b
Thanks Barry, but this still looks too big of an organization, with the likelihood of most of the money being lost inside it. Does anybody know how to reach local communities directly?
They do have paid staff, and lots of it, don't they?
They never paid me
No you are correct,they do have some paid staff,not sure of proportion.
Another thought : Japanese Embassy?
There are other sites online you can go. Here in Australia we have a Red Cross site. I looked for one that I thought Americans would trust but there are plenty of others. I would think this charity is fully audited and quite transparent with their activiites...
Yes I have found another one I think I will change my link to this
http://www.google.co.jp/intl/en/crisisr … e2011.html
Thanks Barry, it's again red cross, though Japanese one. I took a look at their finance statement, and I am not very happy with what I saw...
No transparency about the part of budget that is spent on organization itself. Judging by very imprecise titles of what money are spent on, this is likely around 30% at least.
Here's a list of 10 charities seeking donations, you may find one here? http://exchange.causes.com/2011/03/trag … your-help/
Yeah, and some of them even putting adwords ads for that. Just google "japan tsunami donation". How do you think, where money for these ads come from?
I didn't say that they would help, I said that you may find one, I wasn't going to research each of those organisations
Save The Children give 90% of their money directly to programs, 10% on administration costs. There are always going to be administration costs, as they have to pay rent and bills like any other organisation There are also logistics. Oxfam only spent 80%, so they spend far more.
Charitywatch.org rates charities on this, http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html
In the International Relief & Development Category only four charities are given the highest grade (A+):
International Rescue Committee
Partners In Health
So, I guess that if anybody wants to donate then I suggest that they visit the International Rescue Committee donation page: https://www.rescue.org/donate/emergency
They are currently on standby in Japan. They claim 4% spent on fundraising (and one would assume that this includes their website) and 6% on Administration (which one would assume includes their overheads). So 90% is a decent amount.
I goggled missionaries in Japan ,because I know the church I go to sponsers a couple there and wondered all and what they were all doing with the money.
Of course they have been there for 12mths ,working in a hospital so Im assuming the extra donations will get to the right place.
Theres also Salvation Army
The Red Cross here in Australlia do excellent work. They need paid staff in order to do a professional job. I donate money to them & have given blood to them for 35 years
80% per cent of something is better than 100% of nothing
unless we hand deliver the money this is the best way to help. And right now Japan needs all the help it can get. Failure to get Japan back on track will affect us all in future...
you can choose not to donate & thats fine but i feel compelled to encourage myself and others to give something
80% is better than nothing, but it is not better than 90%.
If one charity is managing to spend 10% on administration and fundraising, whilst the other spends 20%, I would much rather donate to the former.
I understand the desire to give to organizations that keep the administrative costs as low as possible, and agree with the basic idea. But let's not forget that some organizations such as the Red Cross provide worldwide assistance and go places to provide services that smaller organizations cannot. When you think of it that way, then a 30% overhead is not unreasonable.
It is great that we have so many choices for giving.
I actually never mentioned the Red Cross.
Although you should note that the percentages I am quoting relate to administration and fundraising only. All costs related to projects are counted in the 80%, 90% or whatever percent. So location of aid is irrelevant, each of the four charities that I listed as well as my two examples deal with things on a global level.
Therefore the 20% that Oxfam spends goes primarily on running offices, paying directors and managers, advertising spending and commission for paid fundraisers (those people with clipboards, they get well paid).
There are charities with numerous directors on six figure salaries. I'm not suggesting that the Red Cross are one, although they may be, but there have been a few revelations in the UK which have resulted in me being very careful where my donations go.
I would hate to see people getting fat on the back of my donations, and the disclosure of statistics like that helps me to make my choice.
Thanks for your comments we had the recent Queensland Premier's Disaster Flood Relief Appeal here in Queensland
Every dollar donated is going to victims. The Fund will be admininstered by public servants but I guess the reality is the costs in administering that fund to taxpayers will be 30%
A good place to check on organizations:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c … ;cpid=1221
This has tips on responsible giving and a list of recommended/ rated charities that are currently receiving donations specifically for Japan. (The home page has links to lists for other crises or catastrophes.)
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/publ … eauID=9999
http://www.bbb.org/us/article/tips-for- … apan-25992
Finally, a lot of different churches have their own relief organizations; I'm pretty sure that many of them are evaluated and can be checked on these sites (and also on Charitywatch.org).
A lot of Christian denominations participate in "One Great Hour of Sharing" - http://onegreathourofsharing.org/index.html - which is an annual drive to raise funds that can be available immediately when a crisis occurs. In other words, the donations that were given last year were available to help in Haiti, then in New Zealand, and now in Japan. The advantage of that conduit is that resources are available at once, without having to be solicited. But then the coffers have to be replenished. Another advantage is that the various denominations often have workers on the ground in the location where the catastrophe occurred, and they are able to begin immediately to distribute relief through them. (Like what Eaglekiwi said.)
by I am DB Cooper 7 years ago
Is this true? A news source is reporting that the United States military used what's called a HAARP to trigger the recent earthquake in Japan, hoping to cripple hydrogen-fueled car production and keep demand high for the oil the U.S. has spent the last decade securing in the Middle East. No one...
by Karen Wilton 8 years ago
Live footage has shown tsunami up to 10 metres hitting the shore of Japan. Earthquake 8.4 100 kms off the coast. This is huge.
by Maree Michael Martin 4 years ago
Major disasters say the best way to help is to send money to the Red Cross, why is that?why does disaster relief ask for money to be donated as the best way to help out the people effected?
by Stacy Harris 7 years ago
Do you think California will be getting an earthquake after what happened in Japan?There is obviously a domino effect that happens when these types of natural disasters strike. Do you feel that after the 8.9 Earthquake in Japan that California will get an earthquake to, for lack of a better word,...
by malonge 8 years ago
The devastation in Japan is heartbreaking and scary.
by Jack Lee 19 months ago
In discussions here on HubPages, a common topic arises when discussing the media. In most circles, people believes what they read and see on TV. That is why we Conservatives don't trust the media for providing the truth...because we know who we are and the media is mis characterizing conservatives...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|