Angelina Jolie's pretty mug adorns an article titled Celebrities Put Star-Power to Good Use on the website of the respected Charity Navigator - a guide to good and bad charities. "A celebrity’s endorsement simply can not serve as a substitute for researching a charity," we are advised. So true. Take Jolie's endorsed charity, for example.
The Hollywood star is the Goodwill Ambassador for USA for UNHCR, an independent organisation that provides support for the humanitarian work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Organisations are performance-scored by Charity Navigator on a scale of 0 to 4 stars: 4 being tops and 0 plops. USA for UNHCR only gets 2 stars which means Needs Improvement, ie "Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities in its Cause." Still, it's not all bad news. On the USA for UNHCR website you can read this: "[The charity] meets the high standards of the Better Business Bureau. The organization outperforms most of its peers in its efforts to manage and grow its finances in the most fiscally responsible way possible." Depends which way you look at it, I guess.
Other celebrity-endorsed charities currently in need of improvement include the Duchess Fergiana's SOS Children's Villages-USA (2 stars), Julianne Moore's Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance (2 stars) and Mariah Carey's (et al) The Fresh Air Fund which earns just 1 point - Poor, ie "Fails to meet industry standards and performs well below most charities in its Cause."
Among the top 4-star celeb-stamped charities are the Elton John Aids Foundation, Bono's Greenpeace Fund, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research and Julia Roberts' The Hole in the Wall Gang Fund.
3 comments:
In other words, MA darling: when deciding how you can help make this world a better place with your modest contribution, instead of just throwing your money at the "coolest" or more talked about celebrity because it is fashionable, be sure to research which charity could be closer to your heart and is more likely to put your money to good use.
I do appreciate some celebrities' rationale that since everyone keeps wanting to gawp at them, they might as well take advantage of the situation in a way that benefits a good cause. I just wish some of those celebrities would read your observation and properly research their charitable organization before endorsing it.
Certainly The Hole in the Wall Gang Camp seems to have been doing a good job. I always thought it was very cool of Paul Newman not to wait for people to contribute to a cause of his preference to do something about it himself.
How does PeTA rank in this story? There are lots of horror stories about their MO and their perception of what is to be humane to animals. I am surprised about Greenpeace though, they also get a lot of bad rap as extremists.
PeTA has a 3 star rating which is: Good. Charity Navigator analyses money raised against money donated: a simple but effective way of assessing effectiveness. It's not a judge of public or media perceptions.
As you say, celebrity endorsement of a charity should not be taken at face value. x
Celebrity charitable endorsements are just fig leafs for celebrity guilt. Jolie is just a whimsical cunt.
And why is Madonna's Raising Malawi charity not rated? She said she'd match dollar for dollar public contributions for a current campaign. But then on the RW website she's set her dollar for dollar limit - $100,000. Cunt.
Post a Comment