[yeukhon]

Good question. There is Salvation Army, which accordingly to the comparison to Red Cross, has done extremely better job, delivering its mission well. But why didn't orgs like FB or Google (I forgot which) advertized SA? SA is well-known too.

I think there is a social effect, but more likely because the people working at Red Cross has better reach to the big organizations and media outlet, despite the backlashes.

The same with World Health Organization (WHO). Top officials still buy luxury first-class ticket and hotel room. Why? Whatnis wrong with an econ seat?

[Rebelgecko]

The Salvation Army's religious beliefs (which they occasionally try to make law) are a dealbreaker for me and presumably others. Even though it's easy to laugh about things like not accepting donations of Harry Potter toys, it's concerning when they try to force their beliefs onto others (for example, threatening to pull out of areas that require employers to offer benefits to the partners of gay employees)

[will_hughes]

> But why didn't orgs like FB or Google (I forgot which) advertized SA? SA is well-known too.

I don't know the actual reason. But it could be because of the religious connection. While I've seen that the Salvation Army has done a lot of good, they also connect it with their belief system. This makes me uneasy.

Fundamentally I'd be happy to donate to a charity that I knew would:

- Responsibly manage the funds

- Ensure that those in need actually get the funds or directly funds activities for those in need (i.e shelter, food, etc)

- Not turn around and then spend significant fractons (or, in some cases, multiples) of the donated amount in trying to get more donations from me/other donors.

- Not connect the donations / activities with a religious belief system

Unfortunately those seem few and far between.

[synicalx]

It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous. Personally, I'm ok with a charity associating their work with religion if the end result is positive.

You get a lot of "secular" charities that rake in a lot of money and yet don't produce much in the way of results (White Ribbon, for example), and you also see a lot of religious charities that have big budgets and also produce good results (Salvos are a good example of this).

Not to say this is the rule by any stretch, but it does seem to be a readily observable trend.

[Brotkrumen]

If you subsume Megachurches under religious charities, I can point you towards a few nice examples of abuse. Say pat Robertson funding an African diamond mine with donation money or pastors conning the poorest into sending their paycheck because "god will maybe repay them manifold in hard cash"

[Renaud]

Hmmm Doctors Without Borders ? Humanist and secular organisation that does pretty good?

[synicalx]

As I said, not a rule just a trend.

[WillReplyfFood]

Also notewhorty for there very small bureaucratic water-head- and even more notice-able for there doctors who do not apply following overly rigid rule systems.

One of them always gave away free soap bars, so that locals could sell them on the markets. Those guys are astonishing- my deepest respect to everyone who toured with them.

Also -if you look as NGOs, who get into troubles as a quality sign (if your NGO workers get into the thick of things, they are where people really need help), Doctors without borders are always where it hurts. (Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia).

[will_hughes]

> It's funny really, outside of religion, people don't seem to be naturally inclined to be both charitable AND scrupulous.

I think you can easily remove "outside of religion" and have this statement stand.

There are far too many examples of supposedly "charitable" religious organisations working almost entirely to benefit their own directors/employees.

[Pigo]

I know what even a whiff of religion means for some people. But I have to say that I can't think of any charitable organizations I trust more than the churches in my area. I know some people think it's all jet-flying televangelists, but there's a number of non-denominational and Vineyard churches here that have open books for the hundreds of thousands they donate every year.

The main focus of some of these churches is to organize volunteer operations, staff community outreach programs, and building things besides new sanctuaries. No one is getting rich at these places, so there is little publicity. But I wish more people were aware sometimes, if for no other reason than to know there are positive places to donate your time and money if it doesn't rub you the wrong way.

[ianamartin]

SA is tied to Catholics, and this is a big deal breaker for a lot of people.

[zimzam]

The Salvation Army is a Protestant Christian movement. (Not an affiliation: a full movement in that there are Salvation Army churches)

[fiddlerwoaroof]

That’s not true, the Salvation Army is, as I understand, its own Christian denomination.

[grzm]

Yup. It separated from Methodism. Even have their own tartan!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army#Tartan

[ianamartin]

I stand corrected by the comments here. Apologies for getting this wrong.