Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Methoblogosphere on the Move

Stephen Fife has a great idea for a great cause.

Heifer International is a charitable organization that provides livestock to impoverished people around the world so that they can become economically self-sufficient.

Let's set a goal for the Methoblogosphere -- bloggers, commentors, and readers alike. Let's together contribute a total of $1,000 to this cause.

Who's up for the challenge?


gavin richardson said...

john matches contributions?

Tim Sisk said...

United Methodist's have long been supportive of Heifer Project. I've contributed in a very small way in the past. A few years ago I checked them out with which is a clearinghouse of non-profit information and noticed that nearly 29% of gifts are used in overhead (20% of that for fund raising). That is out of line with the usual 90-10% rule of effective charities.

I like Heifer Projects model for ministry but couldn't they do a little better on the overhead part?

Report here: Heifer Project Report from Give.Org

Tim Sisk said...

A couple of more notes:

Heifer International spends:
$12 million for fundraising
$200K C.E.O Salary
with a total ministry of $62 million.
(71% of your gifts go to ministry)

Compare to Compassion International
$12 million for fundraising
$202K C.E.O. Salary
with a total ministry of $143 milion
(80% of gifts go to ministry)

World Vision
$73 Million for funraising
$408K C.E.O. Salary
with a total ministry of $905 million
(86.5% of gifts go to ministry)

Feed the Children
$60 million for Fundraising
$156K C.E.O. Salary
with a total ministry of $958 million
(91.5% of gifts go to ministry)

Food for the Hungry
$3.8 million for Fundraising
$170K C.E.O Salary
with a total ministry of $97 million
(93% of gifts go to ministry)

Compassion and World Vision spend about the same ration of dollars on fundraising. Heifer spends twice their ratio. Feed the children spends slightly less than Compassion and World Vision. Food for the Hungry spends significantly less than all those I compared.

Am I saying you shouldn't support Heifer International? No. But their fund raising does seem a bit high (as does their C.E.O. salary). Heifer's work might have a more qualitative effect than, say, Feed the Hungry does. I'm not familiar at all with Feed the Hungry's ministry, for all I know they spend the money on books to teach the hungry how to grow soybeans). But if their work is of greater qualitive, shouldn't we urge them all the more to be more efficient with our gifts?

Tim Sisk said...

In my last paragraph of my last comment subsitute "Food for the Hungry" for when I wrote "Feed the Hungry" (an accidental conflation of "Feed the Children" and "Food for the Hungry".

I should mention gifts to UMCOR are used 100% for ministry!