The music help does not give donors the opportunity to influence which projects are supported with the money raised, either before or after the collection. In addition, the donors' opportunity for their own follow-up is made more difficult by the fact that the feedback from the projects to Radiohjälpen is difficult to find. It writes Gerda Larsson, Charity Rating, in a reply.
The donor guide published on 10/12 our report on Musikhjälpen and Radiohjälpen, which is behind Musikhjälpen, responded in a reply to Biståndsdebatten.se. The donor guide and Charity Rating, which is behind the donor guide, want to point out that we work from the donors' perspective.
The donor guide has read Radiohjälpen's project criteria but maintains that the donor does not know which organization will receive their grant. Radiohjälpen writes in its reply to the Donor Guide that they carry out a "quality assurance that you can never demand as an individual donor". We agree to some extent with Radiohjälpen about it. Today, the individual donor's transparency and ability to influence and demand responsibility from an organization is limited. The donor guide's annual review shows that only 19% of the approximately 200 audited organizations met the requirements for transparency and financial reporting that we request. Radiohjälpen was one of the organizations that passed the review.
As I said, it is difficult for an individual donor to set the requirements that a fortified foundation with a turnover of more than SEK 120 million can make. When an organization works as an intermediary between the donor and the recipient organization, the end goal of the grant becomes more unclear. Musikhjälpen does not select organizations in advance, nor after the collection is there the opportunity for the donor to influence which organizations' projects are supported. For example, some donors think that an organization's religious or party political independence, values and transparency are important when giving. These are aspects that become difficult to control when the recipient is uncertain. For example, money has over the years gone to PMU Interlife, which is part of Pentecostal free congregations in collaboration, and AMREF, which according to Givarguiden's review lacks both financial reporting and lacks information about who leads the business.
As they describe themselves, Radiohjälpen also performs evaluation and follow-up of projects and creates "receipt films" from selected projects. However, Givarguiden cannot find the feedback from the projects, so when we wanted to write about the results achieved from activities sponsored by Radiohjälpen, we had to contact the organizations directly instead. This also makes it difficult for donors to have their own follow-up.
The donor guide works according to the theory that a more accessible and transparent non-profit sector makes it more fun to give and will increase non-profit involvement in Sweden. We also appreciate that Radiohjälpen has taken on board the criticism regarding information about the board and that you want to discuss these issues with us.
Gerda Larsson, Operations Manager at Charity Rating