Human Trafficking - What Can We Do About It?

[Webster]

Saw this on Youtube and thought it interesting enough to post here....

It’s the fastest growing crime in the world. 40 million people—many of them young children—trapped in modern-day slavery. But we can make a difference! Jill Morikone and Risë Rafferty host Child Impact International on 3ABN Today Live.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

https://www.state.gov/20-ways-you-can-help-fight-human-trafficking/

 

[DrLeftover]

Child Impact International is an excellent organization.

Charity Navigator - Rating for Child Impact International

Child Impact International has earned a 4/4 Star rating on Charity Navigator. This Charitable Organization is headquartered in Ooltewah, TN.

www.charitynavigator.org

As for the source of the video, "Three Angels Broadcasting....." the story isn't as inspiring.

Charity Navigator - Rating for Three Angels Broadcasting Network Inc.

Three Angels Broadcasting Network Inc. has earned a 1/4 Star rating on Charity Navigator. This Religious Organization is headquartered in W Frankfort, IL.

www.charitynavigator.org

 

[Webster]

As for the source of the video, "Three Angels Broadcasting....." the story isn't as inspiring.

ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer would like a word with Charity Navigator.....

Three Angels Broadcasting Network Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their executive compensation, revenue and expenses, as well as download tax filings going back as far as 2001.

projects.propublica.org

There's also the fact that Charity Navigator has caught flak for its' methods of accountability; to wit,

(Philanthropy Daily)
BEAN COUNTING FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES
Let’s take fundraising expenses for example. According to Charity Navigator, you get a 0 out of 10 if you spend more than 25% of your overall budget on fundraising, if you fall into the category of “General” or “Grantmaking.” To receive a 10 out of 10 in this category requires that you spend only 0-10% of your revenue on fundraising.

Where are the exceptions? Well, “Public Broadcasting and Media” organizations get to spend up to 35% of their revenue on fundraising before they get a 0. Why? Because they “use expensive air time to raise money.”

What about organizations identified as “Food Banks, Food Pantries & Food Distribution” or “Humanitarian Relief Supplies”? Incredibly, they score a 0 if they spend more than 20% of their revenue on fundraising. The explanation here “these charities demonstrate very little need for spending on overhead.” Why? Where is that demonstrated. The Navigator goes on: “Their median fundraising expenses fall below the median for all of the charities we rate.”

Interesting. So, because food banks do spend less on fundraising, Charity Navigator determines that they ought to spend less on fundraising. (If you’ve read David Hume, you might recognize this as the “is-ought fallacy.”)

MAKING FUNDRAISING BAD
Here’s the main problem with these formulae: they assume that money spent on fundraising is money not well spent. There’s no explanation why that would be the case, though.

Of course, money spent on fundraising is not spent on programs—feeding the hungry at food banks or promulgating your messaging in broadcasting. That’s true. But money spent on fundraising is money spent to bring in more money.

And more money means more mission.

Increase fundraising expenses are not necessarily wasteful; they are wise expenditures precisely in order to more successfully advance your mission. If you want to save more babies, feed more people, educate more children—whatever your mission may be—you need money to do it! And that growth, that “more money,” means more fundraising and more fundraising expenses.

To be clear, the problem is not the various ranges that Charity Navigator uses for its rating (or the strange distribution of those ranges across types of organization). The problem is the question itself. An organization is not effective because it spends little on fundraising. It is not effective because it spends a lot on fundraising. An organization is effective if it sets a goal and achieves that goal, year after year.

Counting percentages across the budget won’t tell you that. Knowing the leaders, reading their messaging, watching their growth, asking them questions—that is how you determine if they are effective.

PROGRAM GROWTH AND PROGRAM MISSION
Charity Navigator also states that “organizations that demonstrate consistent annual growth in program expenses are able to outpace inflation and thus sustain their programs year to year. These organizations also supply givers with greater confidence by maintaining broad public support for their programs.” In a certain sense, this seems intuitive. Organizations should grow continuously to fulfill their mission . . . right?

Consider an organization that runs a yearlong residential fellowship program for 5-7 recent college graduates. This program is one of intense study and emphasizes the importance of the community of fellows. Does consistent growth make sense for this organization? Not necessarily. If the program emphasizes the community of the fellows, they may not want to limitlessly add more students. Once capped on students, there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of the value of additional dollars. They can only use so much money each year. Sure, they could store it away, but do “effective” charities hoard money away, or do they spend it on programs?

So, in this case, there is a point at which it is good for them not to grow. Sure, they need to keep up with inflation, but they don’t need to grow. Growth for growth’s sake is not the sign of a good nonprofit. Growth for the sake of mission, is.

Once again, my quarrel is not with their metrics, but with the criterion itself. Charity Navigator rewards organizations that grow and grow and punishes organizations with humble and local goals with a strategic vision to stay a certain size.

Now, Charity Navigator's a good organization; not saying their not, but I think they are too "trees for the forest" oriented sometimes. On top of that, the more I read CN's analysis of 3ABN, its' almost like they're playing from the political spin-doctors' witchcraft book; three of CN's four broad categories are blank which sinks the overall ratings like a lead balloon.

Then again, Doc, CN did give the Clinton Foundation four out of four stars back in the day so... *shrugs*

 

[DrLeftover]

Yes it has some problems, they all do. Even Consumer Reports has sailed into the rocks once in awhile.

At least propublica admits it:

Correction: Stories on Insanity Defense Included Factual Errors and Inaccurate Data

An inquiry from a reader prompted ProPublica to review the underlying data and assertions in stories we and the Malheur Enterprise published in November and December. We found errors of fact and analysis that need to be corrected.

www.propublica.org

But for a quick look and a general overview of ALMOST EVERY CHARITY GOING, it does just fine.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

I heard human traffickers are hiding under people's cars and slicing their ankles with a knife when they come up to their car. While they're freaking out from what just happened the human traffickers snatch them up and take them away. That must be extremely scary!

 

[DrLeftover]

I heard human traffickers are hiding under people's cars and slicing their ankles with a knife when they come up to their car. While they're freaking out from what just happened the human traffickers snatch them up and take them away. That must be extremely scary!

When do they steal their kidneys?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

When do they steal their kidneys?

They probably do that too.