Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation an "A" rating, and lists it as
one of the two highest-rated charities in the category of "Peace and International Relations."
Despite what you may hear from some quarters, the Clintons have donated millions to the foundation -- they don't take salaries from it.
https://www.charitywatch.org/about-charitywatch/charitywatch-difference/3113/3118
CharityWatch ratings are considered the most stringent in the sector. When a charity makes a claim that it spends "90% on programs," donors often wrongly assume this means $90 out of every $100 dollars they donate will be spent on the charity's programs, and only $10 will go to overhead. This is often not the case. Charities have wide latitude to include activities in their program expenses that most donors would not consider to be the bona-fide programs they are intending to support.
Other charity raters simply repeat or repackage at face value whatever a charity reports without adequate analysis of its finances or how it is operating. The CharityWatch rating system is unique in that we carefully analyze a charity's finances and make adjustments to better reflect the goals of most donors who want their cash donations to be used efficiently. We do not allow charities to count the funds they spend on direct mail or telemarketing in their program spending, or to include large amounts of undisclosed and often overvalued donated goods in their expenses, even if their accountants allow them to do so.
CharityWatch is fiercely independent. We do not charge the charities we review to be listed in our Guide or for the right to publicize their rating, nor do we accept any advertising whatsoever on our web site or in our publication. Our board of directors does not include any heads of nonprofit associations who receive their pay from the groups they are watching. Because over 95% of our support comes from small, individual donations, we have the freedom to speak openly and to be critical of the unethical practices of charities, without concern for special interests cutting our funding.
CharityWatch uses reliable information and treats charities consistently and fairly. The self-reported information charities provide in their tax forms or solicitation materials may not be the most useful source of information for donors. Unlike some raters that rely on the tax form alone, CharityWatch reviews a charity's tax form in conjunction with its more reliable audited financial statements, which are produced by independent, Certified Public Accountants outside of the charity. Audits often include information that a charity chooses to not report about itself in its tax form.
The rules governing charity financial reporting leave a lot of room for variation, which results in a great deal of information that is inconsistent, unclear, or even incorrect. Sometimes a charity may be doing an outstanding job with its funds but receive poor ratings from others due to computer-automated or overly simplistic evaluations that do not take into account the complexity of charity financial reporting and accounting rules.
Other charity raters simply repeat or repackage at face value whatever a charity reports without adequate analysis of its finances or how it is operating. The CharityWatch rating system is unique in that we carefully analyze a charity's finances and make adjustments to better reflect the goals of most donors who want their cash donations to be used efficiently. We do not allow charities to count the funds they spend on direct mail or telemarketing in their program spending, or to include large amounts of undisclosed and often overvalued donated goods in their expenses, even if their accountants allow them to do so.
CharityWatch is fiercely independent. We do not charge the charities we review to be listed in our Guide or for the right to publicize their rating, nor do we accept any advertising whatsoever on our web site or in our publication. Our board of directors does not include any heads of nonprofit associations who receive their pay from the groups they are watching. Because over 95% of our support comes from small, individual donations, we have the freedom to speak openly and to be critical of the unethical practices of charities, without concern for special interests cutting our funding.
CharityWatch uses reliable information and treats charities consistently and fairly. The self-reported information charities provide in their tax forms or solicitation materials may not be the most useful source of information for donors. Unlike some raters that rely on the tax form alone, CharityWatch reviews a charity's tax form in conjunction with its more reliable audited financial statements, which are produced by independent, Certified Public Accountants outside of the charity. Audits often include information that a charity chooses to not report about itself in its tax form.
The rules governing charity financial reporting leave a lot of room for variation, which results in a great deal of information that is inconsistent, unclear, or even incorrect. Sometimes a charity may be doing an outstanding job with its funds but receive poor ratings from others due to computer-automated or overly simplistic evaluations that do not take into account the complexity of charity financial reporting and accounting rules.
____________________________________
This page shows their ratings of the Clinton Foundation:
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
This page shows their top-rated charities, by category. The Clinton Foundation is listed under "Peace and International Relations."
https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
