A couple of my friends have asked me who they should give to if they want to give cash – the right gift by the way – to help Nepal. Right after one of the Assistant Commissioners of the Australia Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) shared, on LinkedIn, the Australian Council for International Development’s (ACFID) 28 April post on just that question. The ACFID encouraged Australians to donate to the 31 ACFID members listed in their post.
But which one (or more if you like, but less than 31)? How to choose? The ACFID says that they are all equal, but left any statement about how confident you could be that your money would (a) get to Nepal, or (b) be used effectively, to your confidence in ACFID. The Assistant Commissioner was more helpful though to the average giver, going on to say in his post that these 31 were ‘charities that you can support with confidence’.
So, my friends, is it wise for you to accept this recommendation, saying that these 31 charities met all reasonable objective tests for charities in whom you can have ‘confidence’, and therefore move to your personal preferences to select one or more recipients for your gift? I say not. I say that there is some basic ‘due diligence’ that you can do (or have done for you). And the place to start is the place recommended by the ACNC: the ACNC Register, a register of all charities registered in Australia[i].
Let’s see what happens when I put the first nine and the last six of the ACFID’s 31 charities to this test.
The aim is to get down to a much smaller number than 31. It’s a humanitarian crisis so speed is important; I will therefore eliminate or retain a charity based solely on what is said in the register[ii] (or its attached documents).
First up, approximately 25% of a charity’s entry is devoted to describing and showing where in the world the charity operates. We are giving to Nepal, so if ‘Nepal’ is not mentioned in the ‘Operates in (Countries)’ list, we would want to check on its website. Unfortunately, even though this is one piece of information thought important enough to put on the one and half pages of information on each charity, and the Commissioner promotes the use of the charity’s website if you want more information, it is absent for two charities:
Act for Peace, and
Anglican Board of Mission – Australia
Out for these two then.
Second, is there a recent financial report of the type required by the ACNC to look at? Not for these five:
Australia for UNHCR
Lutheran World Service, and
[Comment added 5 May 2015]. For the first and last of these, they are only in the list because of my requirement for recent financial statements, not for a non-compliant report.) If you are happy to either rely on financial information that is at least 16 months old, then please remove them from this list add them to the list in the final paragraph.
Down to eight now.
Third, is there an audit report included in the financial report? That eliminates Australian Himalayan Foundation, the one charity in the list that works solely in Nepal.
[Comment added 5 May 2015]. I missed the audit report (two paragraphs under another heading). However, because the financial report, including the audit report, is a concise/summary report rather than a full report, the result is the same.
Fourth, did the auditor give a ‘clean’ opinion? For two of my 15, he couldn’t. These two:
Transform Aid International
World Education Australia
(And particularly disappointing, given that we are making a donation, was the fact that both the qualifications were because the charity had decided that it couldn’t implement controls to ensure that all the money intended for it actually got into their bank account.)
And for Anglican Aid, the auditor tells us that because the financial report, a special purpose report, was designed for the Anglican Synod of the Diocese of Sydney it ‘may not be suitable for another purpose’. Not confidence inspiring for the donating public, so out it goes too.
That leaves just three charities out of the 15. Union Aid Abroad – Apheda has submitted their Annual Information Statement (AIS), but it was three months late, and that was after being allowed seven months after their year-end to submit. Dents the confidence, so out it goes.
Anglican Overseas Aid – not to be confused with Anglican Aid above – submitted their AIS on time, but their financial report was three months late. I’ll let you decide whether they stay in your shortlist. If not, we down to two:
Leprosy Mission Australia and
World Vision Australia
Extrapolating, that’s four, maybe five out of the 31. Let me know if you need help with a couple of further objective criteria to get the number down further.
[i] For instance, in their latest media release, they said “we encourage the public and donors to use the Charity Register as a resource to help them make informed giving decisions” (http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Med_R/MR_125.aspx).
[ii] I had assumed that they would at least all be registered charities. I was not disappointed. I had also assumed that they would all be up-to-date with the lodgement of the required Annual Information Statement. Again I was not disappointed. (Although if this research had been a few months earlier, there are at four that may have failed on this criterion, having submitted their AIS after the standard period allowed.)