Pray Real Hard.....

[SYZ]

https://give2asia.org/turkey-syria-quake2023/

I check charitable organizations carefully.  Some are legit, some are scams, some take outrageous fees for themselves.

From https://give.org/charity-reviews/nationa...d-ca-52015...

It was interesting that nearly all the 1st 2 pages of google results were from Give2Asia.  That "suggests" to me that they are using a helpbot to manipulate viewing, and that is not a good thing.

So, not saying either way for sure, but the lack of information about things like administrative costs and organization salaries vs charitable "output" causes me some concern.  I would not give to them based on current knowledge about them at this time.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is with all this?

Give2Asia is 501[c](3) public charity that since 2001 has delivered
more than US$465 million in grants to 2,500 local charities across
more than 20 countries.

Its administrative expense ratio is 3.5% —averaged over three years.
The BBB's Wise Giving Alliance recommends a ratio of less than 35%.

(The administrative expense ratio measures the percentage of an
organisation’s expenses that are being allocated to administrative
costs, as reported by a charity on its IRS Form 990.)

You have no evidence at all to even suggest that Give2Asia is anything
other than exactly what it represents, so I have no idea why you've
"suggested" this.

Note...

USA Today reported that the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance charity seal
program had come under fire. The WGA licenses its seal to charities that
meet its 20 standards of accountability at rates from $1,000 to $15,000
annually. This income provides 67% of the WGA's budget.  

US Senator Richard Blumenthal said that this financial relationship raises
questions about "credibility and possible conflicts of interest."   CharityWatch
—another charity rater—criticized the WGA for taking money from the same
charities it was rating.

So... you implicitly trust the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance charity seal program,
but don't trust the motives of Give2Asia.   Is that correct?

[Cavebear]

I check charitable organizations carefully.  Some are legit, some are scams, some take outrageous fees for themselves.

From https://give.org/charity-reviews/nationa...d-ca-52015...

It was interesting that nearly all the 1st 2 pages of google results were from Give2Asia.  That "suggests" to me that they are using a helpbot to manipulate viewing, and that is not a good thing.

So, not saying either way for sure, but the lack of information about things like administrative costs and organization salaries vs charitable "output" causes me some concern.  I would not give to them based on current knowledge about them at this time.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is with all this?

Give2Asia is 501[c](3) public charity that since 2001 has delivered
more than US$465 million in grants to 2,500 local charities across
more than 20 countries.

Its administrative expense ratio is 3.5% —averaged over three years.
The BBB's Wise Giving Alliance recommends a ratio of less than 35%.

(The administrative expense ratio measures the percentage of an
organisation’s expenses that are being allocated to administrative
costs, as reported by a charity on its IRS Form 990.)

You have no evidence at all to even suggest that Give2Asia is anything
other than exactly what it represents, so I have no idea why you've
"suggested" this.

Note...

USA Today reported that the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance charity seal
program had come under fire. The WGA licenses its seal to charities that
meet its 20 standards of accountability at rates from $1,000 to $15,000
annually. This income provides 67% of the WGA's budget.  

US Senator Richard Blumenthal said that this financial relationship raises
questions about "credibility and possible conflicts of interest."   CharityWatch
—another charity rater—criticized the WGA for taking money from the same
charities it was rating.

So... you implicitly trust the BBB's Wise Giving Alliance charity seal program,
but don't trust the motives of Give2Asia.   Is that correct?

I wouldn't exactly say "implicitly". I generally trust the BBB as a long-term valid source of information. However, you provided some very interesting information on both Give2Asia and BBB. I would be unhappy to learn that the BBB's reputation has been compromised. And I don't want to besmirch a charity's good works based on incorrect information.

I will do some further checking on both. Thank you for the information on both.