Cole cautioned that focusing an entire campaign on one individual—Joseph Kony—took away from so many other issues in existence.
Rather the region could benefit from aid targeted at infrastructure, education, and health. Kate Cronin-Furman and Amanda Taub discuss this in a somewhat meta manner. The people criticizing the video claimed Invisible Children was not doing enough to help while they sat at home critiquing this organization who had at least traveled to Uganda and documented the plight. Ethical advocates do not insist that others have no right to speak.
Ugandan citizens had a largely negative response to Kony as well. Many gathered in a town park to watch Kony 2 after its release and the viewing led to citizens throwing stones at organizers in anger. They cited offense at merchandise being sold off their plight and did not feel the film represented their truths. The pure fact that an online film was used when Ugandans themselves did not have internet access is yet another unfortunate angle.
Critics felt the film oversimplified matters and ignored the fact that Joseph Kony was long since driven out of Uganda. They were upset that he was receiving so much attention and called for a ban on the t-shirts in Uganda. Like Cole, they also felt the film focused too much on white saviors and made Africans look helpless. Others took a similar approach, villainizing the United States. The very idea of releasing a video and using rallies as a main source of income could be viewed as lazy and left much of the actual work up to Africans.
It was a risky strategy which in the end backfired as support for their media dwindled. This also led to a huge downsizing in high school and college tours which hurt the organization very much financially. There was additional criticism from people who felt the film glorified Joseph Kony and gave him attention, which should have been focused on the victims. Their risk did not pay off as they lost much financial support and were left searching for funds as old methods failed.
It did bring them into the spotlight but came at a great cost. They hired a PR consultant but ultimately could not recover from financial woes with all funds raised from the film exhausted within two years of its release. This was due to the intense criticism facing the decision to create this video, and it was clear change needed to occur.
In , and after eleven years of operation, Invisible Children undersaw restructuring, which they claimed was an attempt to focus on the border region of the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan who they saw as vulnerable due to isolation and lack of governance.
Invisible Children issued a statement about their restructuring in which they claimed to be responsible for positive political momentum and for removing three LRA commanders from the battlefield. They also cited improvements in safety and livelihood for those in the region.
CEO Ben Keesey claimed they did not expect the organization to last as long as it did and that their biggest regret is that their efforts never led to the capture of Joseph Kony. The aim of the transitional period was to transfer authority to partner groups, and they requested donations for this process. He attributed the Obama era bill attempting to stop violence and the deployment of US forces in Uganda to his work and thus claimed the organization was not a failure at all and just needed to refocus.
Keesey claimed the charity lost financial viability as the controversy stopped schools from hosting their events as their revenue dropped 81 percent from to They tried using grants and bigger donors but ultimately it was not enough even with severe staff cuts. Our founders believed that if people around the world knew the reality of LRA violence -- more than 60, children abducted, tens of thousands killed, and millions displaced -- and if they could see the names, faces, and stories behind the statistics, they would be moved to take action and demand justice.
They were right. By harnessing the power of storytelling, youth idealism, and human empathy, they mobilized millions around the world to raise the banner for LRA-affected communities and move world leaders to take historic action to end the LRA crisis.
In , we were determined to make the world take notice of Kony and his atrocities, and so we created an awareness and advocacy campaign called Kony Furthermore, it is problematic because it is an indicator that the organization is not financially secure. Less Documents Board Meeting Minutes More An official record of the events that take place during a board meeting ensures that a contemporaneous document exists for future reference. Charities are not required to make their Board meeting minutes available to the public.
As such, we are not able to review and critique their minutes. For this performance metric, we are checking to see if the charity reports on its Form that it does keep those minutes. In the future, we will also track and rate whether or not a charity keeps minutes for its committee meetings. Less Distributes to Board Before Filing More Providing copies of the Form to the governing body in advance of filing is considered a best practice, as it allows for thorough review by the individuals charged with overseeing the organization.
The Form asks the charity to disclose whether or not it has followed this best practice. If the charity has not distributed its Form to the board before filing, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. Less Compensates Board More The IRS requires that any compensation paid to members of the charity's governing body be listed on the Form Furthermore, all members of the governing body need to be listed whether or not they are compensated.
It is not unusual for some members of the board to have compensation listed. The executive director of the organization frequently has a seat on the board, for instance, and is compensated for being a full time staff member. However, it is rare for a charity to compensate individuals only for serving on its Board of Directors. Although this sort of board compensation is not illegal, it is not considered a best practice. Policies Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form , or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization has these policies in place.
More Such a policy protects the organization, and by extension those it serves, when it is considering entering into a transaction that may benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the organization. Charities are not required to share their conflict of interest policies with the public. Although we can not evaluate the substance of its policy, we can tell you if the charity has one in place based on the information it reports on its Form If the charity does not have a Conflict of Interest policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score.
Less Whistleblower More This policy outlines procedures for handling employee complaints, as well as a confidential way for employees to report any financial mismanagement.
Here we are reporting on the existence of a policy as reported by the charity on its Form Less Records Retention and Destruction More Such a policy establishes guidelines for handling, backing up, archiving and destruction of documents.
These guidelines foster good record keeping procedures that promotes data integrity. If the charity does not have a Records Retention and Destruction Policy, then we deduct 4 points from its Accountability and Transparency score. More This process indicates that the organization has a documented policy that it follows year after year. The policy should indicate that an objective and independent review process of the CEO's compensation has been conducted which includes benchmarking against comparable organizations.
We check to be sure that the charity has reported on its Form its process for determining its CEO pay. Less Donor Privacy More Donors have expressed extreme concern about the use of their personal information by charities and the desire to have this information kept confidential. Privacy policies are assigned to one of the following categories: Yes: This charity has a written donor privacy policy published on its website, which states unambiguously that 1 it will not share or sell a donor's personal information with anyone else, nor send donor mailings on behalf of other organizations or 2 it will only share or sell personal information once the donor has given the charity specific permission to do so.
Opt-out: The charity has a written privacy policy published on its website which enables donors to tell the charity to remove their names and contact information from lists the charity shares or sells. How a donor can have themselves removed from a list differs from one charity to the next, but any and all opt-out policies require donors to take specific action to protect their privacy.
No: This charity either does not have a written donor privacy policy in place to protect their contributors' personal information, or the existing policy does not meet our criteria. Transparency Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form , or for some metrics on the charity's website, that the organization makes this information easily accessible. Our analysts check to be sure that the charities complied with the Form instructions and included this information in their filing.
Less Board of Directors Listed on Website More Our analysts check to see if the charity lists Board members on its website. Publishing this information enables donors and other stakeholders to ascertain the make up of the charity's governing body.
This enables stakeholders to report concerns to the Board. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the Board members listed on the website with that reported on the Form , because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends. In that time, the charity's Board members may have changed, and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website.
Less Key Staff Listed on Website More It is important for donors and other stakeholders to know who runs the organization day-to-day. Charity Navigator does not cross-check the leadership listed on the website with that reported on the Form because the latter often isn't available until more than a year after the charity's fiscal year ends.
In that time, the charity's leadership may have changed and the charity typically reflects those more recent changes on the website. Jason Russell even confirmed it in Kony video. It may seem like a wasteful effort chasing someone who is no longer there, but as long as everyone remember that there is a criminal on the loose then one of I.
Kony maybe out of Uganda, but one of the important things is to remember that he is still out there. This organization is doing well on getting everyone to remember that Kony still lives. This is an organization despite their flaws in some areas that deserves some support and attention. They got my support. When I was in high school, four members from Invisible Children came to talk about the pressing issue in Uganda regarding the exploitation of children at the hands of Kony and the LRA.
I was skeptical at first because this organization was fairly new and concerns were raised pertaining to how effective this organization is with their finances. However, after doing personal research about this organization, I found that their cause is honorable and that they should be given a chance because they are willing to take action and make a permanent difference for these children.
No child should have to suffer or ever be ignored when they are being exploited and robbed of their dignity which is why I support this organization. Like most people, after watching the Kony video for the first time, it left me with a sense of compassion and a desire to take action. However, after doing a more thorough research on this NPO and it's ways of going about and solving Uganda's problem with Kony and the LRA, it would not be the best organization to invest time and money on.
Where does all the money go? According to the Invisible Children's website, based on the financial statements, Personally, even based on this alone, I wouldn't donate to IC. Nonetheless, it is ultimately your decision if this organization is worth supporting. Although Invisible Children has been and still is a successful non-profit organization, I feel that they may have missed some steps along the way.
Their mistakes as an organization has raised a huge question, do we see where all the money goes? They only became financially transparent upon demand to do so. A huge issue I have is with some information I came across during months of research.
I found that IC provided information via a spying operation to Ugandan authorities. This information was on the Museveni regime. The U. The Ugandan officials arrested the men involved and they were executed via death penalty.
If I support IC do I now support the death penalty in foreign affairs my country should have no role in? Invisible Children is an organization for a good cause. They may have some flaws, but the organization as a whole has good motives. I am sure that Invisible Children wants to have a positive relationship with the general public, and is doing all they can do within their power to make everyone happy. However, the truth of the matter is that Invisible Children is a charity organization, and they cannot live up to that standard.
If you have further questions please feel free to visit the Invisible Children website and click on the questions and answers page. I believe Invisible Children is an organization worth supporting.
When I first saw the video Kony , I did not like the organization and what it stood for because I was evaluating the movie and not the organization itself. As I researched the organization in depth my opinion of the motives of the organization changed. I looked at the bigger picture which is getting Kony noticed so that he is one step closer to being captured,and the abduction of children are put to rest.
Invisible Children is a work in progress and there is always room for growth. I am aware that Invisible Children has questionable motives regarding the Kony video but Invisible Children is a growing organization that realizes their mistakes and are learning from them which was stated in the recent video "Move. For this very reason I will consider supporting this organization. There is no other charity that has done more to support the end of the LRA conflict in the last 10 years.
I've watched this organization's work since and also have been to N. The organization is not just about rehabilitation work they also spend money on Advocacy and Awareness and some have pointed this out as a problem but to me that is a nearsighted evaluation. The political players that have the power to influence this conflict need to feel the pressure from the people so that is why advocacy campaigns are so important.
If you want to put a band aide on the situation you can give money to groups that only do rehab work in Africa but i would advise to evaluate if the there is more needed for lasting change, which is what i feel is the case with the LRA that started in N. At the same time, there were many criticisms surrounding the organization.
Many of these criticisms came from money and amounts of donations. They also should release yearly financial reports, which IC has done since Ultimately, I would suggest that everyone should research for themselves before donating to any organization; but, I will definitely support them again and encourage others to as well!
Along with the rest of the general public, I was blown away when the viral video "Kony " outlines the horrible war crimes that Joseph Kony committed. However, I did want to research this campaign and the reasons behind it on my own. After researching IC, I realized that their organization was in some ways helping the people in Uganda. However their is still much room for improvement with this organization. For example only around 37 percent of their finances go to helping rehabilitate and protect the children that the LRA would take.
This is a number that could AND should be drastically increased. I'm not saying to not donate to this charity, but do some research and carefully consider before you do.
I was pretty late in learning about IC, and I suppose that is a good thing. First off, I do believe that IC is a noble cause in what it is ultimately trying to achieve. According to charitynavigator. The rest goes to staff and management. However, just because it caught our attention for a bit does not make it ok for their finances to be split in such a way that does not make much of a difference to their cause.
Lauren K. In the Kony video, Invisible Children claims that in order to keep the US advisors in Uganda Invisible Children and its supporting members need to raise awareness about the atrocities of Joseph Kony and his army. To raise this awareness, they would wear the t-shirts and put up the posters that came in the action kits.
I will not support Invisible Children, but anyone interested should do their own research and decide to support or not support Invisible Children based on that research.
After being initially drawn by the emotional appeal of the Kony video, I did a considerable amount of research. The organization claims by sending a few dollars and purchasing the Action Kit somehow the Ugandan warlord will be captured.
My first experience with this organization was watching Kony After seeing the brokenness left by Kony, this film had me sold. The mission of Invisible Children directly fits with my heartbeat for humanity in undeveloped countries. It encouraged me to intensify my desires and make them actions. I went home eager to share about the charity with friends. Instead, I was shocked to see so much controversy surrounding this organization-- criticisms about their leaders, purpose, and impact.
This confusion left me to explore Invisible Children for myself. After months of researching their website, the form , and other sources, I found that the majority of claims are simply slander based on wrong assumptions, impossible to prove by evidence.
Now I am seriously considering supporting Invisible Children and encourage others to do the same. The political unrest can then be linked back to suffering people and an unstable government.
Solve the other problems first like AIDS and hunger, by donating to organizations that focus on such causes- like Compassion International and World Vision. Once the media began saying how crooked the company was, I felt very betrayed.
When Invisible Children came out with their new video, it brought back all those strong feelings I had. I decided to do some thorough research on their finances. In my research I found that, for the most part, Invisible Children have a slightly lower than average financial standing. They are definitely not the monster that everybody makes them out to be. They are a newer company though, so it is only natural that they put a lot of money into advertising. After having done this research, I feel somewhat renewed in my initial vigor to help Invisible Children.
I am more than likely going to donate to this organization. I was judging them based entirely on the video, and personally find their method of getting Kony famous absurd. But the video worked and achieved its target of making Kony famous. This popularity made me curious and I started doing my research on IC.
This lead me to realize that my personal opinion was heavily influenced by all the negative comments on YouTube. I found out that there are still children suffering because of Kony. The video was speaking the truth and it brought the crime of Kony to the whole world. I might not agree with their method but ultimately, I will still donate to help them. Over the past few months I have done a decent amount of research on Invisible Children. I have come to the conclusion that they aren't focused on the main issues in Uganda, and aren't providing much relief for the country or its citizens.
The people of Uganda are currently struggling with spreading disease, an unstable government, and many citizens who aren't specialized in any field of work. I believe IC is working for good reasons and could be helpful if Kony was the main problem, but as far as contributing to helping Uganda's actual issues, I would consider supporting a different organization that may be more beneficial to helping with their current issues. A common misconception is that IC spends too much on salaries and videos, when in reality And they are doing a phenomenal job.
If you are looking for a traditional nonprofit, then IC is not for you. They are pioneers in using social networking for social change of this scale, and while they have lots of room for improvement, I firmly believe they are worth our support. Many people, myself included, have based their idea of IC solely on the "Kony " film. However, by only looking at the film, you get only a narrow understanding of the organization.
Yes, the film skims over some details; yes, IC is not financially perfect; and yes, they were clearly underprepared for all of this attention.
But, none of this lessens the fact that they are working towards doing something good. Not to mention that they have done a more than adequate job answering their critics, both through a section on their website devoted to answering criticisms to the release of a new film, which openly acknowledges many of their shortcomings.
This shows some serious maturity and growth in a young organization, that has already made a huge impact. I am strongly considering supporting IC, and encourage others to get the whole picture of them before joining the "Kony " critics. Though the intentions seem genuine, Jason Russell and the Invisible Children charity fail to get past the basics.
Another problem with Invisible Children is that this campaign promotes slacktivism and laziness among the country. I sincerely wanted to believe that Kony executed everything perfectly; however, there were too many unaddressed flaws.
Therefore, I would personally discourage anyone from investing in this campaign and charity.
0コメント