DOCSLIB.ORG

Donor Trust Special Report on Charity Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Donor Trust Special Report on Charity Impact Charity Impact 2021 Give.org Donor Trust Special Report 2021 Give.org Donor Trust Special Report : Charity Impact 1 Table of Contents Summary of Results 3 Results and Figures What Does Charity Impact Mean to Individual Donors? 10 How Important is Impact in the Giving Process? 12 How Do Donors Feel About Competing Priorities? 14 How Do Charities Fit Into Individual’s Desires to Make 22 a Difference? How Do Canadian Donor Expectations Regarding 25 Charity Impact Compare? Conclusion 30 How BBB Standards for Charity Accountability Address 33 Charity Impact Methodology 35 Authors/Contributors 38 References 38 2021Give.org Give.org Donor Donor Trust TrustReport: Special Charity Report: Impact Charity Impact 2 Summary of Results Charities depend on supporters to pursue their mission, and supporters – whether they are private foundations, corporations, or individual donors – want to know that their contributions This report make a difference. delves into In a data-driven society, some funders (particularly corporations how individual and foundations) seek to identify impactful organizations in donors perceive a quantifiable way. How individual donors perceive the issue of charity impact is less understood.1 Adding to the charitable charity impact sector’s understanding of individual donor perceptions related and how to charity impact is this report’s core objective. important Broadly speaking, charity impact refers to how these charity impact organizations make a difference. Still, finding uniform ways for charities to quantify or communicate their “impact” is in their giving is complicated. Given that the term “charity impact” has decisions. momentum but is also fluid and unspecific, we explore how the donating public understands the term. We start by simply asking whether survey takers feel they understand the term and later offer alternative choices based on our observations of how the term is used in charity appeals. Sometimes the term “charity impact” is taken to be synonymous for achievement numbers (for example, a charity reached X number of people with Y service last year); other times the term is used in reference to the quality of the organization’s programs (for example, the people receiving assistance are satisfied with the services provided by the charity). “Charity impact” is also used in the context of the efficiency of the charity’s spending (for example, X dollars provide vaccines for Y number of people); finally, it may be used as a way of tracking progress towards defined goals (for example, an animal shelter accomplished the goal of having all animals adopted). BBB’s Give.org is also concerned that over-emphasizing impact metrics may have negative consequences. Specifically, excessive focus on charity impact might pressure charities to (a) prioritize short-term metrics at the expense of long-term goals, (b) prioritize program reach at the 1 An academic study found that “people do not reward exceptionally positive charitable impact, but they do punish charities that admit their programs were ineffective. Charities are only rewarded for revealing information about their impact when the results are unrealistic and unattainable.” Mulesky, S., The Demand (or Lack Thereof) for Honest, Rigorous Impact information in Charity (unpublished manuscript, 2020), https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/340463860_The_Demand_or_Lack_Thereof_for_Honest_Rigorous_Impact_Information_in_Charity. 2021 Give.org Donor Trust Special Report : Charity Impact 3 expense of depth, and (c) focus on the program of people who donated between $201 and accomplishments of donor-specific dollars at $1,000, and to 71.5% of people who donated the expense of organizational capacity or overall more than $5,000. accomplishments. When asked to consider possible definitions Our Give.org Donor Trust Special Report on for the term “charity impact,” survey Charity Impact delves into how individual respondents were split about how to best donors perceive charity impact and how describes the term. Overall, 25.7% chose important charity impact is in their giving “organizations reaching defined goals” as the decisions. The survey also seeks to shed light alternative that best describes “charity impact.” on how donors feel about competing priorities. Other descriptions were similarly popular, with Finally, we take a step back and look at how 22.0% selecting “how efficient the organization individual donors think about their own ability was in its spending”; 19.9% saying they were to make a difference and how charities fit into “not sure”; 18.3% choosing “the quality of the that puzzle. organization’s programs”; and 14.0% picking “achievement numbers.” To explore individual donors’ perceptions about charity impact, BBB’s Give.org commissioned an • The different views on how to best describe electronic panel survey of more than 2,100 adults “charity impact” held across generations. across the United States, and more than 1,000 Having said that, Gen Zers were significantly adults in Canada. Below are our key findings, first more likely to select “organizations reaching for the United States and later for Canada. defined goals” (39.9%); Millennials were relatively more likely to select “how efficient What does charity impact mean to the organization was in its spending” individual donors? (26.7%); and “the quality of programs” was most popular among Matures (26.1%) and Only 53.3% of survey participants report Boomers (23.6%). knowing what a charity means when talking about “impact.” The remaining respondents • The different views on how to best describe (46.7%) said they do not know (19.1%) or are not “charity impact” also held across giving levels. sure (27.6%) about what charity impact means. Organizations reaching defined goals was the most popular answer among donors who gave • The lack of clarity around the term “impact” between $51 and $5,000 (with the portion held across generations. Gen Xers were of respondents ranging between 25.5% and least likely to say they understand the term 28.6%). Donors with reported contributions (46.4%). above $5,000 were most likely to select the • When comparing participants by giving efficiency of the organization’s spending level, people who gave more during 2020 (26.6%). were significantly more likely to say they know what a charity means by “impact.” For example, only 27.5% of non-donors said they understand the term, as compared to 59.4% 2021 Give.org Donor Trust Special Report: Charity Impact 4 How important is impact in the giving • The relatively high importance attributed process? to long-term results as compared to immediate results held across generations, 30.7% of respondents rated “information on but the difference was most marked among the charity’s impact” as a very important (9 or older generations. For example, 28.4% of 10 on a scale of 1 to 10) aspect in their giving Matures said they attribute high importance process. While that is a significant portion of to long-term results, while only 12.0% respondents, other aspects were rated similarly said they attribute high importance to (and sometimes with higher importance). For immediate results. example, 39.5% of respondents rated how much they trust the charity as very important; and • The relatively high importance attributed 28.2% rated financial ratios as very important. to long-term results as compared to immediate results also held across giving • Charity trust was most frequently (between levels but was most marked among higher 36.1% and 44.1%) selected as a very donors. Among donors who report donating important aspect in the giving process more than $5,000 in 2020, 44.3% attributed across all generations. Charity impact was high importance to long-term results, the second most popular choice among while 24.7% attributed high importance to Gen Zers (31.5%), Millennials (35.2%), Gen immediate results. Xers (31.2%), and Matures (20.7%). Financial ratios were relatively more important among When asked to consider a situation where a Boomers (34.46%), but continue to be charity must demonstrate immediate results or significant across generations (between long-term results, most participants prefer a 18.8% and 28.7% for other generations). balance. That is, 47.0% indicated a preference ranging between 41 and 70 on a 100-point • Charity trust was most frequently selected scale, with 1 representing immediate and 100 as a very important aspect in the giving representing long-term. At the extremes, more process among all giving levels $51 and people would prioritize long-term results above. Among donor who gave $1,000 and (17.1%) than immediate results (13.3%). above, charity impact came behind charity trust and financial ratios, but is an important • The portion of respondents with high consideration. preference for long-term results is similar across generations (between 14.8% and 18.2%). How do donors feel about competing There is a higher degree of variance among priorities? people who would prioritize immediate results, with 8.2% of Millennials and 19.7% of Matures We asked potential donors to rate the importance prioritizing immediate results. of immediate and long-term results. Respondents • Larger donors are more likely to say that indicated that both immediate and long-term they would prioritize long-term results results are important, but more respondents said (22.8%). People who did not donate are long term results are highly important (31.9%) more likely to say they would prioritize than immediate results (20.7%). immediate results (27.3%). 2021 Give.org Donor Trust Special Report : Charity Impact 5 We asked potential donors to rate the reach. Millennials were the only generation importance of program volume and program with a preference toward reach, with only quality. Respondents reported that both 7.8% of millennials reporting they would volume and quality are important, but more prioritize depth and 17.4% favoring reach. respondents said program quality is highly important (37.8%) than said the same about • Among different giving levels between $1 volume (31.9%).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dana Pāramī (The Perfection of Giving)
    Dana Pāramī (The Perfection of Giving) Miss Notnargorn Thongputtamon Research Scholar, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Faculty of Arts, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India [email protected] Received Dec 14,2018; Revised Mar 4, 2019; Accepted May 29, 2019 ABSTRACT Every religion in the world likes to teach that charity is important. This is the case with Buddhism also. The Buddha describes the three central practices as Dana (generosity), Sila (morality) and Bhavana (meditation). Bhikkhu Bodhi writes, “the practice of giving is universally recognized as one of the most basic human virtues”, and Susan Elbaum Jootle confirms that it is a basis of merit or wholesome kamma and when practiced in itself, it leads ultimately to liberation from the cycle of repeated existence”. Buddhists do not seek publicity for charity. But it is the practice of the vehicle of great enlightenment (mahābodhiyāna) to improve their skillfulness in accumulating the requisites for enlightenment. We now undertake a detailed explanation of the Dana Pāramī. Keywords: Dana (generosity), Bhavana (meditation), Sila (morality) 48 The Journal of The International Buddhist Studies College What are the Pāramis? For the meaning of the Pāramīs, the Brahmajāla Sutta explains that they are the noble qualities such as giving and etc., accompanied by compassion and skillful means, untainted by craving and conceit views (Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2007). Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche renders “pāramīs” into English as “transcendent action”. He understands “transcendent action” in the sense of non-egocentric action. He says: “Transcendental” does not refer to some external reality, but rather to the way in which we conduct our lives and perceive the world – either in an egocentric way or non-egocentric way.
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 32 the Works of Mercy (Almsgiving)
    QUESTION 32 The Works of Mercy (Almsgiving) We next have to consider almsgiving or the works of mercy. And on this topic there are ten questions: (1) Is almsgiving or doing a work of mercy (eleemosynae largitio) an act of charity? (2) How are the works of mercy divided? (3) Which are the most important works of mercy, the spiritual or corporal? (4) Do the corporal works of mercy have a spiritual effect? (5) Does doing the works of mercy fall under a precept? (6) Should a corporal work of mercy be done from resources that are necessary for one to live on? (7) Should a corporal work of mercy be done from resources that have been unjustly acquired? (8) Whose role is it to do the works of mercy? (9) To whom should the works of mercy be done? (10) How should the works of mercy be done? Article 1 Is almsgiving or doing a work of mercy an act of charity? It seems that almsgiving or doing a work of mercy (dare eleemosynam), is not an act of charity: Objection 1: An act of charity cannot exist in the absence of charity. But almsgiving can exist in the absence of charity—this according to 1 Corinthians 13:3 (“If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor ... but do not have charity ...”). Therefore, almsgiving or doing a work of mercy is not an act of charity. Objection 2: The works of mercy (eleemosyna) are numbered among the acts of satisfaction—this according to Daniel 4:24 (“Redeem your sins with alms, and your iniquities with works of mercy for the poor”).
    [Show full text]
  • The Treasure of Generosity South Bay to Educate the Community and Foster the Spirit of Dana—A Spirit That Recognizes and Manifests the Interdependent Nature of Being
    The Treasure of Generosity This booklet has been published by Insight Meditation The Treasure of Generosity South Bay to educate the community and foster the spirit of dana—a spirit that recognizes and manifests the interdependent nature of being. The primary “If people knew, as I know, the results of giving and intent of this booklet is to encourage the cultivation sharing, they would not eat a meal without sharing it, and practice of dana. IMSB, like most religious and nor would they allow the taint of stinginess or meanness charitable organizations, depends upon donations to to overtake their minds.” sustain its operations. We encourage you to experience —The Buddha, Ittivutakkha 26 the treasures of generosity by giving in ways that retain Generosity is commonly defined as the act of freely the spirit of dana. giving or sharing what we have. The giving of money and material objects, the sharing of time, effort, and presence, and the sharing of teachings all are expressions of generosity. Generosity is at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings. In Buddhist traditions, the act of generosity is called dana, in the ancient Pali language. The inner disposition toward being generous is the less well-known Pali term, caga. The underlying spirit of dana, which began as townspeople offered support to monks and nuns on alms rounds, carries on to this day. Today, our own spiritual practices provide us with the opportunity to explore the rich relationship between dana and caga while pointing us toward a healthy manifestation of non-attachment, non-aversion, and interdependence.
    [Show full text]
  • Donors Vastly Underestimate Differences in Charities' Effectiveness
    Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 15, No. 4, July 2020, pp. 509–516 Donors vastly underestimate differences in charities’ effectiveness Lucius Caviola∗† Stefan Schubert‡† Elliot Teperman David Moss§ Spencer Greenberg Nadira S. Faber¶ ‡ Abstract Some charities are much more cost-effective than other charities, which means that they can save many more lives with the same amount of money. Yet most donations do not go to the most effective charities. Why is that? We hypothesized that part of the reason is that people underestimate how much more effective the most effective charities are compared with the average charity. Thus, they do not know how much more good they could do if they donated to the most effective charities. We studied this hypothesis using samples of the general population, students, experts, and effective altruists in five studies. We found that lay people estimated that among charities helping the global poor, the most effective charities are 1.5 times more effective than the average charity (Studies 1 and 2). Effective altruists, in contrast, estimated the difference to be factor 50 (Study 3) and experts estimated the factor to be 100 (Study 4). We found that participants donated more to the most effective charity, and less to an average charity, when informed about the large difference in cost-effectiveness (Study 5). In conclusion, misconceptions about the difference in effectiveness between charities is thus likely one reason, among many, why people donate ineffectively. Keywords: cost-effectiveness, charitable giving, effective altruism, prosocial behavior, helping 1 Introduction interested behavior: e.g., people more frequently choose the most effective option when investing (for their own benefit) People donate large sums to charity every year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Definition of Effective Altruism
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 19/08/19, SPi 1 The Definition of Effective Altruism William MacAskill There are many problems in the world today. Over 750 million people live on less than $1.90 per day (at purchasing power parity).1 Around 6 million children die each year of easily preventable causes such as malaria, diarrhea, or pneumonia.2 Climate change is set to wreak environmental havoc and cost the economy tril- lions of dollars.3 A third of women worldwide have suffered from sexual or other physical violence in their lives.4 More than 3,000 nuclear warheads are in high-alert ready-to-launch status around the globe.5 Bacteria are becoming antibiotic- resistant.6 Partisanship is increasing, and democracy may be in decline.7 Given that the world has so many problems, and that these problems are so severe, surely we have a responsibility to do something about them. But what? There are countless problems that we could be addressing, and many different ways of addressing each of those problems. Moreover, our resources are scarce, so as individuals and even as a globe we can’t solve all these problems at once. So we must make decisions about how to allocate the resources we have. But on what basis should we make such decisions? The effective altruism movement has pioneered one approach. Those in this movement try to figure out, of all the different uses of our resources, which uses will do the most good, impartially considered. This movement is gathering con- siderable steam. There are now thousands of people around the world who have chosen
    [Show full text]
  • Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving∗
    Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving∗ Stefano DellaVigna John A. List Ulrike Malmendier UC Berkeley and NBER UChicagoandNBER UC Berkeley and NBER This version: May 25, 2011 Abstract Every year, 90 percent of Americans give money to charities. Is such generosity necessar- ily welfare enhancing for the giver? We present a theoretical framework that distinguishes two types of motivation: individuals like to give, e.g., due to altruism or warm glow, and individuals would rather not give but dislike saying no, e.g., due to social pressure. We design a door-to-door fund-raiser in which some households are informed about the exact time of solicitation with a flyer on their door-knobs. Thus, they can seek or avoid the fund- raiser. We find that the flyer reduces the share of households opening the door by 9 to 25 percent and, if the flyer allows checking a ‘Do Not Disturb’ box, reduces giving by 28 to 42 percent. The latter decrease is concentrated among donations smaller than $10. These findings suggest that social pressure is an important determinant of door-to-door giving. Combiningdatafromthisandacomplementaryfield experiment, we structurally estimate the model. The estimated social pressure cost of saying no to a solicitor is $356 for an in-state charity and $137 for an out-of-state charity. Our welfare calculations suggest that our door-to-door fund-raising campaigns on average lower utility of the potential donors. ∗We thank the editor, four referees, Saurabh Bhargava, David Card, Gary Charness, Constanca Esteves- Sorenson, Bryan Graham, Zachary Grossman, Lawrence Katz, Patrick Kline, Stephan Meier, Klaus Schmidt, Bruce Shearer, Joel Sobel, Daniel Sturm and the audiences at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Columbia University, Harvard University, HBS, University of Amsterdam, University of Arizona, Tucson, UC Berkeley, USC (Marshall School), UT Dallas, University of Rotterdam, University of Zurich, Washington University (St.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring and Enforcement of Charity Governance Dana Brakman Reiser Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2005 Introduction, Symposium: Who Guards the Guardians?: Monitoring and Enforcement of Charity Governance Dana Brakman Reiser Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Evelyn E. Brody Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Organizations Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 80 Chicago-Kent Law Review 543 (2005) (with E. Brody) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. CHICAGO-KENT SYMPOSIUM: WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS?: MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CHARITY GOVERNANCE INTRODUCTION DANA BRAKMAN REISER* AND EVELYN BRODY** This symposium comes at a historic time for charities. The U.S. Sen- ate Finance Committee is spearheading a review of federal tax exemption and deductibility rules, and mulling various reforms that would greatly expand federal power over charities and their fiduciaries and employees. ' The Committee staff released a discussion draft outlining a huge number of potential legal reforms last summer,2 and its leadership has called on the nonprofit community to offer constructive responses and suggestions to improve any potential legislation.3 The Joint Committee on Taxation fol- lowed up with an analysis of some of these proposals-and made some additional ones-in January 2005. 4 States also are showing interest in step- ping up their charitable enforcement roles. Some legislatures have consid- ered sweeping reforms of nonprofit corporate law, 5 and attorneys general and courts in these states and others have been deploying their enforcement and oversight powers over nonprofit corporations and charitable trusts to 6 address perceived problems of accountability in the charitable sector.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Management
    An Introduction to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) Management Compiled by Ali Mostashari Iranian Studies Group at MIT June 2005 What is a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)? The term, "non-governmental organization" or NGO, came into use in 1945 because of the need for the UN to differentiate in its Charter between participation rights for intergovernmental specialized agencies and those for international private organizations. At the UN, virtually all types of private bodies can be recognized as NGOs. They only have to be independent from government control, not seeking to challenge governments either as a political party or by a narrow focus on human rights, non-profit-making and non-criminal. As of 2003, there were reportedly over 20,000 NGOs active in Iran. The majority of these organizations are charity organizations, and thus would not fall under the category of development-oriented NGOs. In this document the term NGO is primarily used for organizations other than charitable organizations. The structures of NGOs vary considerably. With the improvement in communications, more locally-based groups, referred to as grass-roots organizations or community based organizations, have become active at the national or even the global level. Increasingly this occurs through the formation of coalitions with other NGOs for particular goals, such as was the case in the case of the Bam earthquake for example. A civil society is composed of three sectors: government, the private sector and civil society, excluding businesses. NGOs are components of social movements within a civil society. In the case of Iran, where civil society is not yet mature, NGOs can have an important role in strengthening the foundations of an emergent civil society.
    [Show full text]
  • Islamic Charity) for Psychological Well-Being
    Journal of Critical Reviews ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7, Issue 2, 2020 Review Article UNDERSTANDING OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ZAKAT (ISLAMIC CHARITY) FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 1Mohd Nasir Masroom, 2Wan Mohd Azam Wan Mohd Yunus, 3Miftachul Huda 1Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 2Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 3Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris Malaysia Received: 25.11.2019 Revised: 05.12.2019 Accepted: 15.01.2020 Abstract The act of worship in Islam is a form of submission and a Muslim’s manifestation of servitude to Allah SWT. Yet, it also offers certain rewards and benefits to human psychology. The purpose of this article is to explain how Zakat (Islamic charity), or the giving of alms to the poor or those in need, can help improve one’s psychological well-being. The study found that sincerity and understanding the wisdom of Zakat are the two important elements for improving psychological well-being among Muslim believers. This is because Zakat can foster many positive attitudes such sincerity, compassion, and gratitude. Moreover, Zakat can also prevent negative traits like greed, arrogance, and selfishness. Therefore, Zakat, performed with sincerity and philosophical understanding can be used as a form treatment for neurosis patients. It is hoped that this article can serve as a guideline for psychologists and counsellors in how to treat Muslim neurosis patients. Keywords: Zakat; Psychological Well-being; Muslim; Neurosis Patient © 2019 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.02.127 INTRODUCTION Zakat (Islamic charity) is one of the five pillars of Islam, made THE DEFINITION OF ZAKAT, PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING compulsory for each Muslim to contribute part of their assets AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE or property to the rightful and qualified recipients.
    [Show full text]
  • Earning to Give: Occupational Choice for Effective Altruists*
    Earning to Give: Occupational Choice for Effective Altruists* Jonathan Morducha and Ariane Szafarzb,c April 2018 Keywords Altruism; Occupational choice; Nonprofit; Warm glow; Social Performance; Donation JEL Classification J24, L31, J31, D64, J44 *The authors thank Anastasia Cozarenco and Pierre-Guillaume Méon for useful comments. a New York University (NYU), Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, Address: The Puck Building, 295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10012, USA, Phone: (212) 998-7515, Email: [email protected]. b Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Address: Centre Emile Bernheim, CP 114/03, 50, Avenue F. Roosevelt, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, Phone: (322) 650-4865, Email: [email protected]. c Corresponding author 1 Earning to Give: Occupational Choice for Effective Altruists Abstract Effective altruists wish to do good while optimizing the social performance they deliver. We apply this principle to the labor market. We determine the optimal occupational choice of a socially motivated worker who has two mutually exclusive options: a job with a for-profit firm and a lower-paid job with a nonprofit. We construct a model in which a worker motivated only by pure altruism will work at a relatively high wage for the for-profit firm and then make charitable contributions to the nonprofit; this represents the “earning to give” option. By contrast, the occupational choice of a worker sensitive to warm glow (“impure altruism”) depends on her income level. While the presence of “warm glow” feelings would seem to clearly benefit charitable organizations, we show that impure altruism can create distortions in labor market choices.
    [Show full text]
  • Zakat As a Measure of Social Justice in Islamic Finance : an Accountant’S Overview
    Journal of Emerging Economies and Islamic Research Zakat as a Measure of Social Justice in Islamic Finance : An Accountant’s Overview Pranam Dhar (PhD) Associate Professor, Department of Commerce and Management & Programme Coordinator – National Service Scheme (NSS) Department of Commerce and Management West Bengal State University Barast, West Bengal, Kolkata – 700126 Mobile : 9830071587 E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract Zakat is an important form of religiously mandated charity under Islam. It is the third pillar of Islam. The giving of Zakat is important for Muslims, as this leads to purification of their wealth from all sins. This paper examines the role of Zakat as an instrument of social justice and poverty eradication in society. Each Muslim calculates his or her own Zakat individually. Generally, this involves the payment each year of two and a half percent of one's capital, after the needs of the family have been met. One can donate additional amount as an act of voluntary charity but Zakat is fundamental to every Muslim. Zakat is the Islamic contribution to social justice: those who have to give charity share the benefit of their prosperity to those who have fallen short. This is the Islamic approach to remove greed and envy and to purify one's soul based on good intentions. This is the institution of Zakat in Islam. The institution of Zakat serves to eradicate poverty in the community and uphold the light of Islam. Allah says “whatever is paid as Zakat for the sake of Allah shall be rewarded in manifolds”. Keywords : Zakat, Islam, Social Justice, Prosperity, Institution 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Charity Nav Release 032020
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 20, 2020 Kansas City-based nonprofit receives highest rating for financial health & transparency, 7 consecutive years KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Global Orphan Project (GO Project) recently received a 4/4-star rating for the 2018 fiscal year from Charity Navigator, America's independent charity evaluator. Charity Navigator’s highest rating indicates GO Project “exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in its Cause.” This is the seventh consecutive year GO Project has maintained this rating, placing them among only 7 percent of charitable organizations in the United States who have achieved the same, indicating that The Global Orphan Project outperforms most other charities in America. Charity Navigator works to provide donors with essential information to give them greater confidence in both the charitable decisions that they make and the nonprofit sector. They do so by providing in- depth, objective ratings and analysis of the financial health, accountability and transparency of America's largest charities. Attaining a four out of a possible four star rating verifies that The Global Orphan Project exceeds industry standards and outperforms most charities in their area of work. “There is nothing more important to healthy partnerships than trust,” said Trace Thurlby, GO Project president. “When partners trust each other, their chances of success increase dramatically. Charity Navigator’s objective assessment facilitates trust. We’re grateful for Charity Navigator. They make us better, and as a result, more children who need family win.” Charity Navigator’s rigorous evaluation methodology considers program expenses, relative to administrative and fundraising expenses, fundraising efficiency and liabilities. They also evaluate transparency performance, including information accessible on its Form 990, such as independent board members, audited financials, CEO salary and a whistleblower policy, as well as information on their website, such as a donor privacy policy, key staff and audited financials.
    [Show full text]