OzBargain 2012 EoFY Charity Donations - Vote for Worthy Charities!

Update — poll has finished! Thanks to everyone who has voted. The donation will be distributed to

  1. Cancer Council — $5,000
  2. Beyond Blue — $3,000
  3. RSPCA — $2,000

I will need to figure out the ways to make contribution this week and will update everyone on the process. —scotty


Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How much is OzBargain going to contribute to the charity organisations this financial year?

A: $10,000 will be donated to the organisations that get the most votes from our community members.

Q: Does the most voted charity get all the donations?

A: We will be donating to the top 3 charities (although scotty still holds the right to override the decision, as per original post). It would be rounded to the closes $1,000 depending on the votes they get.

Q: Ops! I found out about this OzBargain Donation thingy too late. Can I suggest more charities?

A: Once poll has been setup, adding more poll options can be a bit "tricky". scotty will see what he can do with the database. Feel free to leave more suggestions in the comments. If we really cannot add more options, feel free to suggest them in our next round (hopefully before Christmas).


Original Post

This will be a new project for this month, June, the month of end-of-financial-year craziness. Just in case you have not noticed, OzBargain has been running as a "for profit" business since mid-2010. Banner ads shown on this website has been able to keep OzBargain self-sufficient, and enables me to hire 2 other full time staffs to help me developing new features and managing the community here.

The next step for us would be channelling some of that profit back to the "community". I did talk about the possibility of free T-shirts and other merchandise give aways earlier this year. However that project was somehow stalled at the moment. Long story — but something along the line of crashed hard drive containing the design, busyness in life, lots of code to develop and general laziness. But hopefully we'll get back to that one day :)

However since it is the End of Financial Year, let's extend the "community" a bit further. Why don't we set aside some money to donate to worthy charities chosen by the OzBargain community?!

I already have some rough figures in mind to donate (more about that later after I run through w/ accountant). But which charities/non-profit org should we donate to? The usual Salvo, Vinnies, WorldVision etc? Or maybe someone wants to suggest something else? Feel free to comment and suggest.

So here are the rules:

  • We are open for suggestion/discussions/debates until next Saturday, 9 June. Use this forum topic for it.
  • Feel free to suggest charitable organisations in the top-level comments (not replying anyone).
    • It would be great if you can provide a link to the charity.
    • It must be Australian or benefiting Australians (we are OzBargain after all).
    • It must be a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR), so we can make tax deductible donations.
  • Vote and discuss! I will turn this post into a poll from 10 June to 16 June. People can vote on charities. Feel free to use comments to come up with general consensus on which top charities OzBargain should donate to.
  • Poll will close on 16 June, and we'll use the votes to make our donation decisions. I do have to put a condition here — I still have the right to make the final choice, just in case all you guys vote for some weirdo charities that I just cannot agree with :)

Here is an example on how you can suggest a charity:

  • I suggest beyondblue. Depression is a lethal disease that many are not aware of, nor know where and how to seek help.

Okay. That's how I envision that it would work. It might turn into a complete disaster when I come back online on Saturday morning :P If everything goes well, we might be able to run this every year or every 6 months.


Current List

In alphabetical order. You will be able to vote for these from 10 June.

Poll Options expired

  • 14
    Australian Lutheran World Service
  • 265
    Beyond Blue
  • 479
    Cancer Council
  • 14
    CARE Australia
  • 124
    Flying Doctors
  • 18
    Headspace
  • 27
    Heart Foundation
  • 186
    RSPCA -- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
  • 16
    Southern Cross Kids Camp
  • 97
    The Fred Hollows Foundation
  • 57
    UNICEF
  • 40
    WSPA -- World Society for the Protection of Animals

closed Comments

  • What about the usual Salvo, Vinnies, WorldVision?

  • +2

    Perhaps a charity that's focussed on the developing world, given that as OzBargainers we love our cheap mass-produced goods so much.

    • Supporting a non-profit that helps the children and prisoners who make some of the cheap mass produced goods that ozbargainers buy would be great symmetry, and undo some of the bad karma we must be making when we unknowingly buy and promote the cheap goods they make here.

  • +2

    Great work, Scotty. I would like to suggest "Vision Australia", it relies on community support to provide range of free services to the growing number of Australians who are blind or have low vision.

  • +1

    I went with Southern Cross Kids Camp.

    Southern Cross Kids' Camps provide assistance to child victims of abuse, domestic violence and neglect.
    Many children attending our camps live in foster care. In 2010 alone… 240 children participated

    There are about 37,000 children in foster care in Australia.

  • The Fred Hollows Foundation, but how can I vote? I clicked it just directed me the website..

    • Can you click on the vote button in the Poll Options table in the description?

      • gotcha, thx.

  • +7

    This website must make a tidy profit to be donating such a large sum of money.

    And I don't mean that in a disparaging manner whatsoever. I'm all for profit-taking businesses.

    Kudos to the site's owners/administrators who have worked hard to make this website great.

    • +2

      exactly what i was thinking, must be doing pretty well to donate 10k

    • +4

      This website must make a tidy profit to be donating such a large sum of money.

      Many businesses do it. It will decrease their tax burden. It's not only for altruistic reasons. But yes, good on them!

      Kudos to the site's owners/administrators who have worked hard to make this website great.

      I agree! Also don't forget the OzB community, whom without, this website would not be as successful or may not even exist.

  • +6

    I suggest a charity with the lowest overheads. I worked for one day as a paid door knocker for a reasonably large charity. I got 30% of the money collected, the business (because that's what charities are) got 40%, the rest went to the actual sick people in need. Disgusting.

    Before donating, have a look at how much the CEO and board members of the charity pay themselves. It's sometimes very surprising. Remember, they pay themselves first.

    • Lol, this reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Moe tells Don King that he doesn't want his dirty stinking money, only to fold his cheque and put it into his coat.

  • +3

    I would like to suggest Make a Wish Australia, this charity organisation is to grant the wishes of children with life-threatening medical conditions to enrich the human experience with hope, strength and joy. It probably won't save the life of those poor kids, but at least it helps those poor kids forget the pain they go through and bring happiness to the poor family.

    Here is the http://www.makeawish.org.au/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1623

  • +2

    How about Canteen? (Australian organisation for young people living with cancer)
    http://www.canteen.org.au/

    • I was member of CanTeen before my sister died. Each branch have a committee (made of teen members). We got a very large donation. It was specified it can be used on the kids and not for administration. They respected that and we got to say how we wanted it spent. Camp Quality is also good.

  • +3

    i suggest beyond blue. always helpful they are..

    • I second you. They really are.

  • This is a great idea !

  • +1

    Fred hollows!

    Vision is such an important thing to be taken for granted guys, remember as much as some of the other charities are great there's little point voting for ones with no votes. vote to get your favourite into the top 3 as they are getting the money.

    great work boss.

  • +1

    Everyone donates to the Cancer Council but I don't see any cures!!

    • +1

      I've always figured it will only take one genius, not millions of $ to cure cancer. But they can help in other ways, for example the charity Fight Cancer Foundation http://www.fightcancer.org.au/ assists by providing accommodation and support to families that have a member having cancer treatment away from home.

      • +3

        Not really. It took current Cancer Council Australia President Prof. Ian Frazer and his team 15 years and tens of millions of dollars to get Gardasil—a vaccine against cervical cancer and the first vaccine designed to prevent a cancer—released.

        He is also currently overseeing work on vaccines for HIV, Hep. C, a certain skin cancer type, and others. Yes, he is a genius but it takes thousands of researchers, tens of millions of dollars and often decades to see these vaccines released.

      • +2

        Incorrect, sparkles. There are many different types of cells, all vulnerable to many different types of cancers. There are also many different possible ways of treating cancer, and many current treatments. There is no one cure for cancer, so there can never be one genius, but rather a lot of research needs to be done (and is being done) to understand the role of mutation in general, and how to deal with its effects.

    • +5

      Hilal, cancer is not one disease. Every cancer type is made up of many different subtypes -all of which have different genetic and epigenetic basis. This means that for every subtype of cancer a specific treatment may be required to kill the cancerous cells. Even that specific treatment requires modification throughout the treatment process because the treatment selects for treatment-resistant cancer cells which go on make new tumors. Can you begin to appeciate the complexity of the issue here?

      There has been massive progress in the prevention, detectability, treatability and survivability of many cancers.

      Many cancers are caused by infectious agents (HPV = cervical cancer, HCV = liver cancer etc) that can now be vaccinated against or otherwise treated to prevent or dramatically reduce progression to cancer.

      We are also aware that many otherwise avoidable cancers result from environmental agents which may be due to occupation (coal miner, radation worker etc) or lifestyle choice -smoker, drinker, sunbather etc.

      It sounds strange, but there has never been a better time to have cancer, but there is still so much work to be done to make futher improvements in all aspects of cancer avoidance and treatment.

      • -1

        I'm sorry but is that all? 1 cure? Did these doctors forget about vitamins? Vitamin C? And eating properly? Vegetables? Did we forget about how our body can cure itself?

        Everyone knows about 1 drug, 1 cure.. Its all a money scam.. If they ever bring out a cancer cure, you'll never be able to afford it, and if you do, you'll have to take it the rest of your live with side effects that will make your life a living hell..

        The rate of cancer in Australia/USA is 15% and growing..

        The rate of cancer in the Japan is less than 1%.. Why? Most of the food they eat is RAW!

        When you cook food, you lose all the benefits apart from the fat, protein and some left over vitamins..

        Why? Its because we eat processed garbage with MSG, day in, day out.. And people wonder why they're getting sick and ending up in hospitals.. Bread and sugar fools your body to make you think that your actually eating something good for you but your not!!

        "People are OVERFED, but they are also STARVING to death!"

        The cure is in what you eat.. Your parents have been telling you ever since you were little.. Eat your veggies, take your vitamins..

        Why? Vitamin Deficiency leads to cancers, disorders and other problems.. And raw vegetables and super foods are the best of food.

        • +1

          Couldn't agree more. i refuse to eat preservatives or highly processed foods.

        • +3

          ? Please provide a citation from a legitimate source, for your cancer rates?

          As far as I am aware, cancer rates are increasing because cancer frequency is in part a function of age. The longer you live, the more mutations you accumulate through multiple rounds of cell division (which has a small error rate) and exposure to environmental causes of DNA damage. Cancer is a natural part of life. The older we get, the more our immune systems age and become inefficient in detecting and killing cancer cells (poorer immunosurveillance). So poorer immunosurveillance in combination with more mutations means more cancer. Eating well only goes so far in reducing cancer. Eating diets high in sugar may have some effect on cancer rates due to oxidative damage, but even then we have systems which counter this damage.

          I would expect there to be minor overall variation in total cancer rates related to the genetics of particular populations, but the prevalence of individual cancers would be different.

        • -2

          "1 in 2 Australians will be diagnosed with cancer by the age of 85." Quoted from;
          http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/content/external/page.cfm?Obj…

          The 1% figure that I gave for Japan is the rural farming areas where they do not smoke, do not live near power plants, and the majority of foods they eat are raw. I remember seeing the fact sheet but I can't find it now. I'm still searching, give me time.

          Doctors will never tell you to eat properly, they will give you a pill and send you home.

          If they told you to eat properly, you'd never come back, how are they going to make money if you never come back?!

          EDIT: One of the articles, read this.. http://www.naturalnews.com/006239.html

          A single dose of Garadsil is $120.

        • +1

          Your natural news story is making a very large leap between stats and proposed mechanisms of cancer action of bioactives from the brassicas. By the way glucosinolates are toxic to mammalian cells and if I recall correctly produce cynaide-type compounds when metabolised (which is why these plants are used to biofumigate soils to kill nematodes).

          Better cancer stats:
          http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/developed_countries_ca…

          Edit:
          "Although cancer is often considered to be more of a developed world issue, in fact 56 per cent of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) occur in less developed countries and 44 per cent in more developed countries.

          Overall the age-standardised cancer rate (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) is higher in more developed countries. There were 255 cases of cancer diagnosed per 100,000 in more developed regions, compared to 149 in less developed regions in 2008.

          •The rate for all cancers (for cancers that occur in men and women) was 1.7 times higher in more developed compared with less developed countries.
          •For melanoma of the skin, kidney cancer and multiple myeloma rates were more than three times higher in more developed compared with less developed countries.
          •For nasopharyngeal cancer the rate was nearly four times higher in less developed than more developed countries."

          Note that the above numbers are not corrected for mortality or poorer detection rates in less developed countries (both of which would tend to reduce the difference in rates).

          Also note the mixed bag with respect to some cancers up Vs some cancers down depending on which part of the world you live in.

          Note it is also easy to play games with cancer stats. Make sure you compare apples with apples.

        • +1

          science win

        • I'm sorry but is that all? 1 cure?

          If you were alluding to my comment I was talking about a particular vaccine, not a cure per se. AFAIK, there are 2 vaccines in use today to prevent particular cancers. Only the one vaccine was specifically designed to prevent a cancer. The other I'm not too sure about, it may have been originally developed for another purpose and only later on found to be effective as a cancer vaccine.

          As far as cures go, through various treatments millions of people have been cured of cancer.

          Everyone knows about 1 drug, 1 cure.. Its all a money scam.. If they ever bring out a cancer cure, you'll never be able to afford it, and if you do, you'll have to take it the rest of your live with side effects that will make your life a living hell.

          Around 80 million girls/women have had Gardisil shots to date. They don't have to take it for the rest of their lives and adverse reaction events are extremely low. And the upshot to all this is that they won't get cervical cancer!

  • Obviously too late for this year, but a Charity that supports education of Women in the third world.. I have no suggestions of suitable organisations, but the educating women concept is widely publicised as being the "ultimate solution" to all of the problems of the third world.. ie overpopulation, welfare of Children, food production etc.

    • +2

      Caritas is a great charity that among other projects , it works with women in the third world.

  • great idea scotty, too bad i didn't see this earlier would've loved to nominate RIDBC as a receiver, they do wonderful work

  • Great Idea, I suggest St Vincent De Paul to add to the list.

  • hummm… Cancer is top priority…..
    I feel cancer gets a major share of funds… charity, government…
    ya i know there are a million different types…. most of the Australian unis tend to do research or try to link their research to cancer or other deceases to get fund from theses councils and government…

  • +2

    Thanks to the person who thinks that it is a negative that I'm still alive thanks to the assistance of a charity, means a lot!

  • Don't give money to beyondblue or headspace, after their latest scam.

    I still support the work of the Black Dog Institute.

    • +2

      What scam are you referring to?

      • He could be referring to Jeff Kennet's (beyondblue chairman) homophobia.

        From Wikipedia:
        Kennett angered gay rights groups in July 2008 when he supported the Bonnie Doon Football Club in their sacking of trainer Ken Campagnolo for being bisexual; and compared homosexuality to pedophilia.

        In 2011 Kennett was again accused of homophobia when he stated children have better mental health if raised in heterosexual marriages.

        As for headspace, I'm not entirely sure? They receive a great deal of funding from the government, but other than that?

  • -1

    First up - well done Scotty/Ozbargain. Second - an idea for you. Make it a 'gold coin' donation to vote in future. Fred Hollows got my vote.

    • First up - well done Scotty/Ozbargain. Second - an idea for you. Make it a 'gold coin' donation to vote in future. Fred Hollows got my vote.

      Gold coin donation..?
      You want donations for the right to vote?
      Didn't you see, that OzB is already donating 10k?

      • Some people have seemed to overlook the intended light humour in the comment?

  • Does anyone know of a charity evaluation site for Aussie charities?
    Charities by the same name differ from country to country.

    Givewell.org is good if you're looking to give, but not so good for general reporting as it focuses on underfunded charities.

    I also like http://www.ministrywatch.com/ It's got good general reporting, but it's only really USA based Christian ministries that are covered.

  • +2

    All the listed charities should be applauded for the good work that they do, however, this being Ozbargain, we need to judge the charities on the best bang for your buck.

    Since it's difficult to judge the "goodness" being performed, we can really only measure how much money is being made available for good work and not being eaten by administration or fundraising costs.

    Looking at the Cancer Council, with a total income $7.4M, administration costs are $1.8M, fundraising costs are $1M, then the cost to income percentage is approximately 37% i.e. for every dollar you donate, at most 63cents goes towards cancer fighting programs.

    Similarly, with UNICEF, total income is $25.4M, administration costs are $1.2M, fundraising costs are $6M and cost to income percentage is 28%

    Maybe we could work out the numbers for all the charities?

    • open up a google docs spreadsheet?

    • we need to judge the charities on the best bang for your buck.

      You can't judge a charity just purely on figures and percentages. That is simplifying things to the extreme.

      There are so many factors involved when researching a charity's efficacy. I could go on forever about this. It also depends on how a charity "does their books" and presents the figures to the general public. You'd be surprised how creative their accountants can be to make the figures look favourable. Also, different charities channel their money in different ways. Some charities act as purely "fundraisers" and channel large portions of their income through other charities instead of running their own programs (they don't necessarily tell you this upfront), so of course their overheads are going to be lower than the next charity. Many charities are also not completely upfront and honest when disclosing where all their money actually goes, so it becomes impossible for the average person to compare one charity to the next.

      I would be very surprised if UNICEF's admin costs amount to only $1.2M. The UN pay many of their people on the ground and in the field salaries, and quite high salaries in some cases. Are salaries classed as admin costs? It could well be that a portion of their admin costs are covered by other UN agencies and NGOs, eg. office space and resources (again, it depends on how they do their books and present the figures to the public). To get the real story you would have to dig much, much deaper. The same applies to all other charities.

      Maybe we could work out the numbers for all the charities?

      You could spend hours and days doing that as purely an exercise but it's not going give people what they're really after, that being the answer to the question: "To which charity should I give my money where I know my donation will make the maximum difference to those most in need."

    • +2

      I used to have a similar view to that you have espoused. However, my aversion/dislike for overheads was changed after reading this blog post. I think it makes a pretty convincing argument worth considering.

      http://80000hours.org/blog/9-it-is-effectiveness-not-overhea…

      • You are responding to user's "v1c" post?

        I agree completely with you and the title of the article you linked to:

        It is Effectiveness, not Overhead that Matters

        Larger overheads doesn't necessarily mean your donation dollar is doing less good. In fact it can well be the opposite in many cases. There are literally an endless number of factors to take into consideration when judging the efficacy of the work charities do. To think you can simply break it down to a mathimatical formula or equation is simply being naive.

        A thesis could be written on this, though I'm not about to start now.

        The same could be said for all those users making comments like "I only support animal charities because animals have no voice and are so innocent (except for maybe that pit bull terrier down the road that disfigured a young girl's face for life).

        There are around 1 billion people living on Earth right now that live below the poverty line and have no voice. That doesn't even include the political prisoners, the hundreds of ethnic and religious groups oppressed by their own governments, the marginalised in society (eg. people with mental illness), the list could go on and on…

        People forget that humanitarian aid organisations are also helping animals indirectly. Crime rates (eg. game poaching in Africa, selling rare primates in Indochina) have a direct corelation to education and poverty rates. Through programs run by NGOs, the local people learn better farming techniques that are less cruel to animals and are educated more broadly on the treatment of animals and the value of preserving local habitats that not only benefit the local people, but the native animals as well.

        I'm all for supporting animal welfare charities, but it's not all "black and white" as some people are suggesting.

  • The Avalon Centre is a Melbourne charity that does a great service to the local community: www.avaloncentre.org.au

    They don't pay any money to staff - it all goes straight to the most needy.

  • +2

    Give it to RSPCA, everyone loves animals and cancer gets way more funding. <3

    • -1

      Can't help animals if you're cancer ridden or if you can't see. Fred Hollows gets my vote, but sadly, is being beat out by adorable kittens and pups.

      • +5

        Fred Hollows gets mine too. Only costs a dollar or two to give sight to the poor.. Great cause.

  • I'm late to suggest, but here's one for the next round:

    http://www.cerebralpalsy.org.au/

    Use to be the spastic center, they could really do with donations.

  • Hi all,

    When looking at the list of charities, what came to mind was: 'really, where would this money have the greatest effect?'.

    For any of you who are interested in an answer to that question, here's one thing worth reading: http://80000hours.org/blog/6-the-best-causes-updated

    I'd really like to see some of the charities listed on this link (consistent with evaluated recommendations by the "Give well" and "Giving what we can" organisations) as future options for the ozbargain donations. :)

    • +3

      The article is rubbish to me when the 'Vegan outreach' is in the top 6.
      Apparently their "mission is to persuade people to become vegan by being a good example of friendly vegans. They print and distribute leaflets that appeal to calm reason (and yes, emotion) to convince people to switch to a vegan lifestyle in the US"
      ….. Such a worthy cause…..

  • Oh my God. Where do I start!! As an ex Govt investigator into charities, beware. I have only seen a few of the big name ones that I would donate to. Actually make that 1. It's not on your list and I'm not suggesting it. I have seen many smaller charities (where of course they are all volunteers and so almost 100% goes to their cause), that I have supported personally. Both need to exist of course. It's actually a cut throat industry where Donation managers etc dob in each other and move jobs frequently (being sacked, or now supporting some other great cause, as they would say), and must get a 10% increase in income each year or they are sacked etc. Bad bad bad.

    For fear of reprisals and possibly being sued (has been threatened before by them) I'll leave it at this:- Across the board the industries OWN figures are that something like ONLY 10% goes to their causes. An average I know, but admin. eats it up guys.

    • None of that really surprises me and pretty much falls in line with what other people (who have themselves been active in the "industry") have told me. It's disappointing, to say the least.

      The 3 bodies I would nominate for the next round would be:

    • +2

      This is untrue, and unless you have the morals to post some evidence it remains rubbishy hearsay until that point. I have worked in the sector and with a range of charities and NGOs over the years, and hear this line trotted out by people contstantly. Without denying the existence of scammy charities, it's nonsense to suggest that charities like MSF, World Vision, Unicef, Smith Family etc etc only spend 10% of donations on their programs.

      If that was the case you owe it to the world and yourself to out these charities, and explain why their boards, corporate governance structures, annual reports and tax audits tell a completely different story. What a load of bollocks, "ex govt investigator into charities", what even is that? Do you mean an auditor? I wish people wouldn't promulgate this misinformation.

      • -2

        Yes an auditor. Yes 25+ years experience as an auditor of THE largest companies in Oz! You? Some 20+ yo with big ideas and thoughts based upon your 2 years in the workforce? As if I could provide the inside info I have. The 10% was the industries own figures. Did I say that the big ones you mentioned, only rec'd 10%? No I didn't. Learn to read and go and do some research. These charities have been outed before. Many of them. Don't remember the Bali bombing fiasco with Red Cross? Examples of people sponsoring kids with WW and receiving photos and updates of the same kid! lol. Charities flying their people around in privately hired jets, or flying first class and staying in 5 star hotels etc? None of this you know? Been under a rock? Mate you have nfi 'cause you perpetutae the myth that doing something is good enough and "I dont want to hear about the bad". Put your hands over your ears and start singing to block out the facts eh. No different to 99% of the community I guess. They just dont bother to look into where their hard earned dollar goes. They feel good that they donated and that's it. It's what the industry thrives on ansd hopes continues. Spastic Centre? Classic with their teddy bears from days gone by. Remember the Heart Foundation where you "bought" a tick for your product if you gave a decent donation to them? On and on it goes. I have neither the time nor the files before me to give you the exact details, suffice to say do whatever you like as you won't be convinced.

        "There's none so blind as those that cannot see".

        Good luck all…………….. My 2c worth is buy a hamburger for a wino you see in the street, like I do. That way you know 100% is going to someone that looks like they deserve it!

        • +5

          Even if what you say is true, it sounds so incredulous that no one will believe it without proper facts. It is believable enough that there is some backhand corruption in Charity organisations but to say that most charities are like that is a gross misrepresentation.

          Facts and figures are your friend and would help in proving your case, although buying $10,000 worth of hamburgers for people on the street is not the most effective way either not to mention the adverse health risks from hamburgers.

          Givewell is a great organisation that helps with researching certain charities and their effectiveness, so anyone thinking of donating should go through their pages.

        • +3

          Rather than 99% of people wanting to believe that charities are good, it seems the majority of people I've come across willingly swallow up this crap about charities burning cash in corruption and admin costs, purely so they have an excuse to themselves that not giving to charity is the right thing to do…

        • A person would hope mismanagement/misappropriation were more the exception than the rule but articles that appear from time to time show that it does happen.

          Cancer charity donates less than 1pc

          http://www.news.com.au/business/cancer-charity-onlybrgives-a…

        • It's not that people are making excuses not to donate, but when you give money out, you want the money to go to the intended cause you support, so donors do have a right to complain if the money ends up in unexpected pockets. By complaining there would be more people knowing about the issue, and more likely to come up with a way to help the situation, like maybe a new framework or something, who knows.

          I volunteered at the RSPCA and there were a lot of people willing to volunteer as well but no position available. Too many paid staff. But then, volunteers come and go and training is time-consuming and costly…

        • thommo181,

          Com'on mate, be brave and help us naive souls out here: Which is the "1" big charity—that you alluded to earlier—you would suggest to donate to? I don't have my hands over my ears, BTW.

          You named and portrayed other charities in a negative context. Maybe you could (as a once off) contribute and name a certain organisation/s in a positive light?

          We need a bit of positive direction here; not just negative statement after negative statement.

          BTW, I don't believe everything you said, but I certainly do agree with many of the points you made.

        • +1

          thommo181,

          I respect your experience in the industry. Despite your comments people are still going to donate the majority of their dollars to the larger and more well known charities. Would it be possible for you to name at least a couple (maybe more) of the larger charities where people can feel comfortable donating their dollars to, knowing they are making a difference?

          I have no doubt regarding many of your claims (in fact I also know first-hand of certain charity execs staying in 5-star hotels, even when free alternative accommodation has been offered). I'm not scared of naming names. In this case it is a lesser known charity—ALWS (Australian Lutheran World Service). Sorry to all you Lutherans out there, but this is a reality. Everyone knows many charity execs (especially in the larger NGOs) stay in expensive hotels. This is nothing new and depending on the circumstances not necessarily unethical or unexpected.

        • +3

          Hey camelgrass,

          I am replying to your post mainly to give some information I had planned to give originally about ALWS but didn't (as I wasn't sure if it would be included due to the religious links). In the end I don't want it to look like the charity I suggested is wasting money (mainly for the 10 Lutherans out there on OzBargain who voted for it :P)…

          First up just a quick reply to your comment. I don't believe it is standard practice in any organisation these days to accept free accommodation. Accepting it could have other implications, reduces flexibility and quite possibly inconveniences others.
          In general charity organisations try to avoid 5-star hotels (as do a lot of organisations) due to the perceptions people have when they see it. If OzBargain has taught us anything though, good quality doesn't need to mean top price. The bigger chains also tend to give non-profit organisations discounts. All I am saying is 5 star might not mean big $$$.

          Now the reason I suggested ALWS is because of their low overheads and transparency in reporting.
          They have their overheads listed here http://www.alws.org.au/why-trust-alws.html which show that in the past 6 years there overheads have been under 10%. I spent some time looking at some other charities a few years back, and from the information I found, this was very good.
          A bit more of a breakdown is show in the Annual Reports at the bottom of this page http://www.alws.org.au/vision-mission-story.html.

          From what I gathered, the reason their overheads are so low is because they don't spend money on promotion (they advertise for free through churches and word of mouth). They also have cheap office space, that is how I heard about them, there are a couple of their staff that work rent free in the same office as my dad, and their main office is situated somewhere where rent is cheap.

        • You're right to a certain point regarding the accommodation, but in the case I cited the local people were actually quite surprised and insulted that the ALWS rep would choose high-cost accommodation (payed for from Australian donations) over very adequate free accommodation. It did not set a favourable intial introduction and did not abode well for subsequent negotiations. I would argue the opposite, by accepting local accommodation you get to meet, mingle and learn far more from the local people, rather than being "isolated" in a hotel room.

          I do agree to many of your points. ALWS have always had relatively low overheads compared to other charities for reasons you have mentioned and others. As you allude to, their rent (and some resources) are subsidised by other LCA departments (in the end someone, somewhere is still paying for it though). Also, over a third of their revenue comes from AusAID, so their fundraising burden is minimalised.

          One of the main reasons for their low overheads is that [1] "LWS is the main implementer of overseas aid for ALWS." This means that it's actually LWF/LWS that are covering the overheads for implementing the various aid projects—not ALWS. BTW, the vast majority of ALWS's expenditure is overseas. In this context it makes ALWS's books look more favourable.

          [1] (Page 24 — http://alws.s3.amazonaws.com/New%20ALWS%20Web%20Site/Reports…)

          ALWS have not always been as transparent. In recent years they have improved significantly. I'm not going to name names but in the last few years there have been let's say, "certain people", that have made it a point to out certain inconsistencies in the organistion. It seems that ALWS have reacted accordingly.

          After saying all this, I don't want people to stop donating to ALWS!! In many ways they are probably better than other charities, in other ways no better.

  • +2

    Heart Foundation and Cancer Council.

    I'm partial towards charities that use their funds for research more than those that use it to treat or care for people. It doesn't matter if the research doesn't produce immediate results. You have to stick with it. These things always take years and if they aren't given a chance it will never happen.

  • +2

    I vote WSPA — World Society for the Protection of Animals. Also, nice form donating to charity Ozbargain!

  • I voted Royal Flying Doctors <generic reason>

  • So much money goes into cancer research. Makes me wonder if the drug companies have anything to do with the lack of cure? I dont think they should even be on here. How about some help for the smaller ones.

    • +3

      see above, there is no 'one cure' - it's to do with science and the complexity of cancer, not to do with a drug company conspiracy. People misconceive cancer as being a single disease in the same way as a bacterial infection, but just one we haven't found a cure for. Unfortunately, cancer is simply when cells malfunction and start over-replicating, which can happen for a myriad of different reasons, and needs to be dealt with in just as many ways. Research continues, as will (hopefully) understanding…

    • Whilst designing a cure for cancer isn't as simple as you imply, I agree that smaller organisations should receive more attention. (I voted for Headspace). Might sound harsh, but I think the Cancer Council already gets quite a bit of attention and funding

  • +1

    Multiple Sclerosis Australia: http://www.msaustralia.org.au/donate.asp

    MS Qld is hosting the Brissie to the Bay charity ride coming up later this month… I'm riding 50km that day =D If you'd like to donate to my page: http://bit.ly/LUC8XJ

    Btw… who else is participating?

  • +1

    Beyond Blue.
    They deserve all the money they can get there is alot of young people with depression.

  • +2

    Please let one of the top 3 be an animal charity. They say you can see how advance a society is by how it treats it's animals. I vote RSPCA.

  • +1

    Vote FLYING DOCTORS

    All the other ones have Sydney people voting for them and no one stands up for the country areas.

    • i'm syd and i voted FD!

  • +3

    Next time round we need Diabetes Australia. My sis has type 2 Diabetes so its close to home

    • I came here myself just to post that Diabetes Australia should be up. :) Hopefully next time…

      Ive been kicking around with Type 1 for the last 13 years.

  • +4

    Just wanted congratulated Scotty and the rest at OzzyB for taking the effort and time to start this initiative. Really a fantastic and positive move. Congrats.

  • +1

    Suggestion for next time: Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors without borders - http://www.msf.org.au/
    Had a good friend who went and volunteered and then worked in Africa (specialist in water & sanitation in developing countries for over a decade), including visiting lots of refugee camps, slums, developing cities, failed states, and so forth. He was very down on the UN (saw first-hand corruption and mismanagement), but had only good things to say about MSF. And at least in the UK, they keep their overheads/admin costs low at 15%, so 85% doing something good, which is a very good ratio for charities.

  • Save the Tasmanian Devil Appeal
    http://www.tassiedevil.com.au/tasdevil.nsf/folder/_makeadona…

    Would be great if we could support a local species that is currently under threat by a sickening disease.

  • As a Rotarian, I suggest supporting one or more of the Rotary based charities including:

    a) The Rotary Foundation (working towards the eradication of Polio globally, working with the Gates Foundation, World Health Organisation and Unicef and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as educational and vocational youth exchange and scholarship programmes promoting world peace and understanding) http://www.rotary.org/en/AboutUs/TheRotaryFoundation/Pages/r… with an Australian presence http://www.rotary.org.au/en/FOUNDATION/Pages/default.html

    b) Australian Rotary Health (Supporting medical research and scholarship programmes around mental health and other medical areas) http://www.australianrotaryhealth.org.au

    c) Violence Free Families http://www.violencefreefamilies.org.au

    d) Rotary Australia World Community Service (Humanitarian International Aid Projects) http://www.rawcs.com.au/

    e) Interplast http://www.interplast.com.au/

    f) ROMAC http://www.romac.org.au/

    g) Disaster Aid Australia http://www.disasteraidaustralia.org.au/

    h) Shelterbox Australia http://www.shelterboxaustralia.com.au/

  • +2

    Vote The Fred Hollows Foundation
    Great work scotty!
    Wish top 5 get it not just 3…. maybe next year!?

  • I can't seem to vote - I would like to vote for WSPA as they do such great work for animals. Also good in the comments that most of the money spent goes to helping animals in need.

  • -4

    I didn't vote for cancer council on the principle that I don't want the money wasted on stupid irresponsible people who smoke and got lung cancer or people who were out in the sun too long and got skin cancer. Its there own stupid fault they got into this mess. Not for any other reason.

    • +1

      This is a commonly misplaced stigma/judgement that is placed on people with lung cancer yet around 40% of people with lung cancer are non smokers or have never even smoked in their lives. Not all lung cancers have a relationship with smoking, and the people that get these are often judged by society as being responsible for their disease which is completely unfair.

      Just because someone has lung cancer, you shouldn't immediately come to the conclusion that they were at fault.. there are other reasons including genetics which contribute to such disease.

      • Any links to back that up?? smoking is a very well known major cause of cancer…

        • Saw something briefly on the news the other day suggesting diesel fumes may be carcinogenic.

    • it really goes to show how people have misconceptions about certain cancers

    • I didn't vote for cancer council on the principle that I don't want the money wasted on stupid irresponsible people who smoke and got lung cancer or people who were out in the sun too long and got skin cancer. Its there own stupid fault they got into this mess. Not for any other reason.

      I'm happy for you that your life and that of your loved ones hasn't been touched by the misery that cancer can bring. I'm sure your words and attitude would be a great comfort to anyone who has had to sit and watch a loved one die.

      Scotty, if there's a charity to rid the world of bigots, can it be added to the list please?

  • Beyond Blue from me, here is a message from Uncle 60 about the effects of depression. :(
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpqYPQdpDNw&feature=BFa&list=…

  • This is an awesome gesture, OzB. I already knew this was a fantastic site, and this just confirms it.

    I didn't want to 'waste' a vote on an organisation that possibly wasn't going to make it into the top three, and the difficulty is that they're all worthy contenders BUT please consider casting a vote for Flying Doctors - they don't receive Govt Funding (at least I think that is the case) and do a fantastic job of servicing the vast percentage of the continent, where regular emergency medical services are not available.

    They are not as high profile and 'in your face' as some of the others on the list, so can tend to be forgotten about.

    • " Geewhizz on 16/06/2012 - 08:16 ¶
      …consider casting a vote for Flying Doctors - they don't receive Govt Funding (at least I think that is the case)…"
      They DO get government funding, quickly seen at:
      "http://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/About-Us/Our-Supporters/
      Our Supporters
      As a not for profit charitable organisation, the Royal Flying Doctor Service relies on the support of governments, companies, the community and individuals to continue providing extensive emergency and primary healthcare services.
      …"

      And the latest national annual report:
      http://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?Documen…

      On page 23:
      "During 2010/2011, RFDS concluded
      the final year of its four year funding
      agreement with the Commonwealth
      Government. During the past year,
      RFDS was involved in a number of major
      initiatives. The key achievements during
      the year included;

      Commonwealth Funding was
      provided for an Alice Spring
      stretcher reconfiguration, rostering
      and disaster recovery systems
      in Queensland and vital medical
      equipment in New South Wales and
      Western Australia.
      Commonwealth Funding was also
      provided in 2010/2011 for health
      services to the Bass Strait Islands
      and mental health services in the
      Broken Hill and Alice Springs regions.
      We received the final payments from
      the Commonwealth Government
      for part funding of five replacement
      aircraft in South Australia/Northern
      Territory."

      and on page 39:
      "Revenue
      An analysis of the company’s revenue for the year is as follows:
      2011 $ 2010 $
      Operating revenue
      Contributions from sections 1,100,000 950,000
      Australian Government Operational Grants 58,477,000 62,109,974
      Australian Government eHealth Grant 43,681 524,714
      Australian Government Mental Health Grant 236,951 417,160
      Australian Government Rural Women’s GP Grant 3,082,262 3,205,000
      Donations and legacies 2,641,730 4,724,361
      In-kind contributions 60,000 478,338
      65,641,624 72,409,547"

      So they got over 60 million dollars from the Australian Government, HARDLY "don't receive Govt Funding" and thats just the National Office.

Login or Join to leave a comment