See these answers in FAQ'S on GlobalGiving website;

8. Who funds GlobalGiving UK own charitable costs?
In its first two or three years this 10% will not be sufficient to cover GlobalGiving's costs as a small UK charity. To that end, GlobalGiving UK has received funding from CAF Venturesome , the Travel Foundation, the Mathias Family Trust and a prominent City individual, to cover its own costs.

9. Who are GlobalGiving.co.uk's corporate supporters?
In addition to the funding partners above, GlobalGiving.co.uk has benefitted from support from leading online companies such as Expedia, Google, Isango and PayPal. For example, Expedia will be providing banner advertising on key Expedia properties and engaging staff to support projects on the site. Meanwhile Google has provided a Google grant and assistance for GlobalGiving.co.uk to engage in effective online advertising. Another example is Booz & Company, who have kindly hosted GlobalGiving's UK launch reception and also provided free office space and infrastructure in GlobalGiving.co.uk's start-up phase.

So, 10% isn't really 10% - these extra funds/support come from sources that, one could argue, could have supported other charities (maybe ones who are charged with more 'inefficient' fundraising) and helped them get closer to that 10% figure.
However I think GlobalGiving is a great option, what I dislike is the ongoing lack of intelligent review of such options on Intelligent Giving.

Hard to disagree with Anon2 here.  IN fact, I'd go further. 

 I took the first one I got to again, and it's sustainable communities in Ghana.  Administered through Tools for Self reliance.

I actually quite like TFSR (personally, and based on the highly scientific 'feeling with no research' methodology), but it seems if I give my tenner to GG then they get £1.28, TFSR get £11.52.  Both GG and TFSR tell me it costs a tenner to buy hacksaw blades, so if I go to TFSR website and give that way there's an extra £1.28 for them to play with.  9 of us do it, then there's an extra set of hacksaw blades.  Suddenly GG seems a less positive plan, and simply a shop front, leaving me even more sure that KIVA is the way I'd go.  Now it might be a good way of getting the message out there (but probably less efficient than Face to face fundraising), so really WHY would I give through it, if I were giving intelligently?

Is it direct, or merely restricted?

I don't comment like this to dishearten you Adam, or anyone at IG, these are the kinds of questions and thought processes that I (And many fundraisers and charity staff like me) out into practice every day.  How can it be done more efficiently, is this the best way, can it be better / quicker / more relevant / more important.

As an aside, I recently charged a dozen groups with fundraising, and they've all, business-people each and every one, they've all come back and said 'It's not as easy as I/we thought, this'.....

The first project I looked at (an AIDS project in South Africa) was administered by a Californian Charity (IDEX), which in turn funds a partner (Positive Womens Network) that may or may not be doing the work on the ground. So it's not quite as direct as it seems at first glance.

Are the various links in the chain not raising project funds elsewhere too? So could more funds be raised than the project requires? if so, are they refunded? And if you identify a worthy project via GG, wouldn't it make more sense (to extend Adam's dubious 'chugger' policy) to cut out the middlepeople and donate directly to the project?

Finally, given that ethical and moral views are highly subjective, how easy is it to vet the moral stances taken all the way down the line?

None of this should be taken as criticism of the projects, and I can see the benefit of regular feedback. It's just not as clear cut as Adam makes it seem, I think.

I'd be interested to know how GlobalGiving goes about vetting the projects it lists. 

As we know at Intelligent Giving, vetting isn't easy, and this is particularly true for projects in developing countries.  To do this properly you need people on the ground who can really see for themselves what's going on. 

The traditional way of giving to a developing country is via an outfit such as Oxfam, which often  gives grants to local charities.  There's a good reason for using this   Outfits like Oxfam have the resources to make sure donations go to reputable causes.   Yes, donors end up paying 2 lots of admin charges - Oxfam's and the local charity's - but maybe that's a price worth paying for making sure their money  doesn't end up doing more harm than good.

 Hey!  I'm sounding like a stick-in-the-mud!  I really love the sound of these outfits that aim to by-pass traditional charities and link donors direct with beneficiaries,   but I've come to realise that it isn't that simple.

Peter Heywood, Intelligent Giving

 Is this really new?  What makes it different from, say,  The Big Give......http://www.thebiggive.org.uk?

Peter Heywood, Intelligent Giving

Agree with much of this. I would actually prefer it though if GG took 20% and half of their income was spent on helping those individual grass roots charities to learn from each other. The one problem with this approach is that there might be a tremendous amount of knowledge transfer lost across the projects and importantly over time - something that having one charity or body overseeing and guiding them collectively would provide - or is that just development work? Be good to get GG's perspective on that and ask whether it is something they plan to explore in the future?

Ouch - think I might actually agree with Adam here though; if it serves to grow the number of people actively engaged with overseas development, entrepeneurship etc then that can only be a good thing; GG's remit really should be on extending the reach of support within the UK. Otherwise I think they've done something the sector needed and hope they have tremendous success.

For comparison I prefer the KIVA model though - you get your money back as well as donating to a specific project... and arguably economic growth is the model for overcoming poverty looking at the state of play on the MDG's. (what a boring statement for a friday afternoon!)

Hang on one minute, mikemuses and Ginsters - I really do agree with you. GlobalGiving allocates a portion of each donation for necessary support costs associated with the projects. That means a portion of every donation it receives stays in the UK, or wherever the charity has its head office. GlobalGiving recognizes that no project can run without overheads.

Equally, I know that charities need unrestricted funds. But I like the idea that donors can take control of their donation when they want to. If charities - and IG - explain why charities need to fork out for running costs, I think donors might choose to pay for them, some of the time. But GlobalGiving's approach stands a chance of encouraging people to give more per se - and that would be a brilliant outcome.

Again, I really have a lot of sympathy with both of your points of view. If GlobalGiving had a policy of shipping all money given through its site direct to projects, then I would not have endorsed it. That sort of behaviour would be irresponsible. Charities need to fund their running costs, and GlobalGiving  recognizes that.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Don't know what happened with the multiple empty posts.

All I wanted to add was that, in practice, the Charity Commission doesn't have 'strict rules' on anything, ethical or otherwise.

Don't shoot the messenger

Well said Mike.

We should be educating people as to the inherent dangers/limitations of ring fencing donations rather than simply heading down that route because it's more marketing friendly... Hang on, surely you should be with us on this one Adam (see recent posts on NSPCC ads)!

I've been having precisely this same debate with a major corporate funder and I've finally swung them round. They originally held the view that we had to tell them exactly what we were spending their money on so that they could 'demonstrate the impact',. I pointed out that I'd gladly restrict the funding to a specific item for them if that's what they wanted, but that wouldn't achieve their stated purpose. Why? Because the simple act of buying a hydraulic bed and giving the supporter the copy of a receipt doesn't prove that you've actually changed anyone's life.

The discussion went on and to be fair they were prepared to listen. I asked whether they trusted my organisation; whether they were convinced of a need and confident that we could make a positive difference to people's lives. "Oh yes, definitely" they told me. I then got a bit cheeky and asked why , therefore, they didn't seem to trust us to spend the money where it was needed most. I pointed out that it's our staff who really deliver the goods and that they can't operate without the building they work in and the attendant support services.

I'd also recommend drawing a direct analogy between their donation and a business investment - it worked with me. I asked them to imagine that they were looking for an extra £100k (by way of example) to take their already successful business forward. Five different investors offered them £20k each, but after further discussion it emerged that what they really wanted to do was buy certain bits of equipment for the business or withdraw their offers. I'm sure you can see where this is going...... One guy then said, but in that instance they're investing their own hard earned cash because they're going to see a return. Absolutely the point.

Come on Adam, I was led to believe that Intelligent Giving exists to promote the idea of people making considered decisions about how to make the biggest impact with their donations. Anyone can do instant donor gratification. 

Don't shoot the messenger

Hang on... Now perhaps I'm just being arsey here, (and it wouldn't be the first time in my life), but if they take 10% to cover the costs, what makes it different than a charity with admin costs of around 10%?  Now 10% is low, but then it's small and grass rooty - it SHOULD be low.  In fact, I want ALL of it to going to help supply water - why should the 'charity' get 10%!!!!  Without it they could help 10% more people....

Sure I can see that the bit I give goes exactly where I want - which is fine, but slow - it'll likely take them a lot of time to get a big project covered.  A charity that is operating a service now and ongoing can't necessarily trust that the money will come in fast enough to keep it going. Infrastructure needs an income base, and most work needs infrastructure.

Don't get me wrong, I like the concept - I even support some things along these lines, but it's not always workable.

Adam, I'll give you some cash if you can promise that not a penny of it, or any tax you reclaim on it goes to your salary, powering your systems, or paying any bills.  Deal?  What If I offer you £10million - but I want it all to go on creating profiles for Scottish charities and NOTHING else?  We still on?

Often charities NEED unrestricted funds, Adam, and shouldn't you be helping to explain why?

YES, your entire donation can go to helping give kids in this hospice a special treat - but none of it on boring stuff like electricity to power their life support equipment.  Their last second of life will be full of joy - but much sooner than it needs to be.

What charities need to do - the ones that don't have the luxury of focussing on only specific projects rather than the overall needs of people - is inspire people that the 'boring but crucial stuff' - like electricity and nurse wages are in fact exciting.

We have a local charity in my area promoting itself on the fact that EVERY PENNY you give goes to the cause, and people like it.  You might not, as it supports a hospital ward, buyng kit the NHS doesn't, including things like DVD players for people staying longer. But every penny raised goes to the 'cause', because a big company covers all the admin costs.  Really, it still has admin costs - and there's nothing to suggest they're lower than they would be otherwise - maybe they're higher in fact, after all, they're 'covered' regardless.

Again, I'm not saying that GlobalGiving, or any of the bundles of similar ones are bad, just that their model is not something that could wok everywhere.

To me it seems like when we first started talking - when there was no IG site, and only a blog, we covered why there are other costs, and why there's a need for unrestricted funds, now we seem to be going back the other way.

Is it me, or are we going round in circles here?

Couldn't agree more, Adam. And they're great people to boot!

Furthermore, it has the potential to turn donors and beneficiaries back into real people. I think that where possible, charities should be built around the people & projects they support, starting with one project, leading to a cluster of projects, etc., etc. Many will argue they do this, but over time become distracted by process, and self-preservation.