At the end of our previous post, we mentioned the ‘edge cases’ that might not be fully captured in our standard vetting process. In this post we’ll briefly outline one of the more significant edge cases: when we vet charities addressing crises.
Overview of Crises
When we say “crises” we are referring to natural crises (tsunamis, forest fires, etc.), and human-driven crises (terror attacks, hate crimes), and the spectrum in between. We classify a crisis as one that has rallied public support across the demographic spectrum. What makes these crises an edge case is that often during a crisis we find that the traditional nonprofit ecosystem infrastructure that we normally leverage to vet charities is lacking.
Recent Example
Take the recent Sri Lanka terrorists attacks, for example. There weren’t two 501c3s helping the victims within the first few days that we could find that passed our standard vetting procedure. Yet, in light of our vetting goal to provide a trusted, meaningful, and impactful experience, it was clear we would need to feature and address the issue in a way that still maintained the trust of our community.
In the end we featured a GoFundMe campaign and the Sri Lanka Red Cross. Both charities would ordinarily not be featured as we didn’t have the proper Form 990 financials to assess that are a part of our vetting rubric. Yet the reason we still went forward with the feature is because while it doesn’t fit the day-to-day vetting procedure, it aligns with our vetting philosophy and specifically our confidence heuristic (which can be found in this post). That is to say, while vetting beyond our standard procedure is less of an exact science, we can still stay true to our core goal.
Stepping back, here are the most common ways in which a crisis is handled differently than the traditional approach:
Giving to non-501c3 Organizations
There are two main types of non-501c3 charities we give to: Third Party Fundraising Platforms (3PFP), and international organizations. Let’s start with the former.
3PFP’s
In the past Good Today has given through 3PFPs when it has allowed the community to gain exposure to a new dimension of a meaningful giving experience (ex. with Donors Choose that fundraises for teachers, with Watsi that fundraises for medical issues, etc.) Those cases, however, are not on the edge. What is an edge case is when the 3PFP is not a 501c3 recognized organization. GoFundMe is the main example here. GoFundMe is a for-profit company that allows people to crowdfund for a wide range of causes. Lately, GoFundMe has become the de facto source for individuals and groups to raise funds for a variety of causes, and has excelled at fundraising during crises.
So while we may lack the ability to assess traditional financial documents, we lean on three additional factors:
- GoFundMe’s own natural diligence process and policies
- Public and newsworthy accommodations (ex. “Governor ABC suggests those wishing to help victims of the criss to donate to XYZ charity.”)
- The earmarked nature of the issue.
The first two points are more straightforward, though they might not always hold in a given case of course. Regarding the third point — it’s important to note that during a crisis we are not simply giving to an organization’s general fund, but to a specific purpose. It may be true that the organization/party/person receiving the funds is not as financially efficient as we would normally seek— yet given the funds are not any for broader inefficient programming but to an earmarked crisis—the primary concern is ensuring the funds are used for its intended purpose. That said, it’s a tradeoff that we recognize. And one, until the nonprofit ecosystem more fully matures (a future we hope to help drive), supporting an organization like the Red Cross during particular times of crises may be the best option for now.
International Charities
For non 501c3 charities overseas, our reasoning is a bit more straightforward. During a crisis we lean on both the in-country charitable verification, and like the above, public commendations.
Repeating Charities Recently Featured
Another thing that differs during a crisis is that we will repeat charities that may have been featured recently. Normally we wouldn’t repeat a charity within a year, as we like to keep the giving opportunities fresh for the community. Yet we run into issues during crises (especially with natural disasters) as it’s often a group of the same established rescue and relief nonprofits addressing a given crisis. We’ll still feature the charities for two reasons. First, most fundamentally, giving to the charities is still very much in line with the broader goal of providing a meaningful and impactful experience. And second, because while it’s the same organization, it’s earmarked to a different issue.
Giving to Religiously Affiliated Charities
As per our broader philosophy and distilled vetting method, religiously affiliated nonprofits would not pass our vetting, regardless of how incredible their work might be. Yet during crises a religiously affiliated charity may still pass our vetting (other things being equal) if two considerations hold:
- The organization themselves is involved or a victim in the crisis (shooting, arson, etc.)
- There is majority public support
The reasoning behind the first criterion is that when the organization themselves are the center of the crisis at hand, to try to find a secular organization helping them (even if that was a possibility) would be less direct, and detract from the potential meaningful impact. Giving to the organization, then, while outside of the traditional process, is still adhering to our broader goal. And while donating to a place of worship on any other day would be helping further the promotion of a particular religion, during a crisis the issue being addressed isn’t a religious one, but one concerning humanity.
The reason behind the second criterion is an expansion of the last point above: when a crisis occurs, often it breaks down traditional religious/political barriers and unites the public behind whatever issue/organization. Our “Gray² Heuristic” (discussed later here) reflects that while it is a religious organization, if we could reasonably suppose that less than 25 of a random sampling of 100 people would not vocally oppose their funds going to the organization, the organization is not affiliated in a manner that should prevent a feature on Good Today. And the nature of many crises are such that an organization could pass the heuristic.
Parting thoughts the meantime
Our goal in this post was to share an example of how we are working through the art+science of vetting, evolving and learning over time. And while in certain cases we may operate beyond our traditional day-to-day vetting procedure, we do so by maintaining our commitment to our broader vetting philosophy as we seek to uphold the mission of Good Today.
Let us know if you ever have any feedback/thoughts at hey@goodtoday.org.
— Joe Benun
Team Good Today
