Skip Navigation, Jump to Content.

Home

About

FAQ

Criteria

Contact

Forum

Privacy Policy

List of Charities

Links

Sample Charity

Press

Content Ratings

Site Map

Other awards:

Descriptions of all graphics

Criteria

Version 1.42 - Changes listed at bottom of page

In cases where I am awaiting responses from either the site's own administrators or the beneficiaries, the review page will say "Review Pending." If replies to questions are not received within one month, the specifics of the outstanding requests will be posted.

Unfortunately, if I cannot verify some elements, particularly the first Critical criterion, I cannot give the site a grade. If there is no way for me to determine that the money is being received by the beneficiaries, I must leave the review in the limbo of Pending status indefinitely. The entire point of Charity Check is to give people confidence that the buttons they take time to click are actually generating funds for charity; if this cannot be confirmed, I will not recommend the site.

Of course, site administrators always have the option of posting data that would prove that the money is going where it is said to go. Merely posting totals, without backup evidence, is insufficient unless the beneficiary is willing to confirm receipt. It would be too easy for a site to lie about the money going to the beneficiary.

I realize that some of the criteria are quite demanding. I have tried to structure the list so that all of the potentially subjective criteria are not on the Critical list. Users should keep in mind that any site that receives a grade is most likely a legitimate site. What separates an A from a C is largely accessibility, design, and other elements that make the site easy and pleasurable to use. I anticipate that very few sites will get As, but I hope they are prompted to improve.

Some sites have multiple charities, and in some cases a parent site manages several one-click sites. I've decided to categorize sites as follows: if a site has the one-click page and all other associated pages (FAQs, Donation Totals, etc.) all contained in one section/domain such that the site could stand alone without users ever visiting the parent site, I consider this a separate site. For example, the GreaterGood.com or Care2.com one-click sites are all self-contained units with separate FAQs, etc., for each one-click charity. On the other hand, if a site has many charities and many one-click pages, but the supporting pages such as the FAQ and Donation Totals are an aggregate of all of the one-click pages, all of the one-click pages will be reviewed together under the one site. For example, Ecology Fund has many charities, but manages them all on a single site. This distinction allows me to give thorough reviews where items could differ from site to site under a single parent, but spares me from performing duplicate reviews for sites that do not warrant individual treatment.

Grading

	A grade of A+ is given only to sites that fulfill all of the criteria, including any portions marked as "strongly recommended." This is a very rare grade, indicating the best of the best.
	If a site matches all Critical criteria and all Important criteria, but fails on a few Useful criteria OR passes all criteria but doesn't fulfill "strongly recommended" portions, it gets a grade of A.
	If a site matches all Critical criteria, but fails on one or two Important and/or Useful criteria, it gets a grade of B.
	C grades are given to sites that fulfill all Critical criteria, but fail on several Important and/or Useful criteria.
	If a site fails to meet all Critical criteria, it will get this rating, even if all Important and Useful criteria are met.

I reserve the right to rescind and/or change grades as necessary. I also reserve the right to require that the grade graphics link back to the review page for the site (see the FAQ entry on abuse of the graphics for more information). I also reserve the right to make subjective decisions on grading, including but not limited to adjusting grades based on overall performance.

All grades and graphics are the property of One-Click Charity Check, and are distributed only by permission.

Critical Criteria

1. I must be able to confirm that the beneficiaries are actually getting the money. This can happen in any of the following ways:

   • posted financial details on the one-click site (strongly recommended)
   • posted scans of cheques or other equivalent money transfer receipts on the one-click site (strongly recommended)
   • confirmation by an authorized, third-party accounting or consulting firm that the financial details of the one-click site are sound, and the third party has confirmed that the beneficiaries are actually getting the money
   • email or phone confirmation from the beneficiary that confirms they are receiving the money that the one-click site says it will give them
   • posted financial details on the beneficiary site that confirms amounts received from the one-click site

   At least one of the above must be met, but sites with more than one could potentially have a higher grade. I will not seek email or phone confirmation from beneficiaries if I don't have to because one of the other criteria is present.

2. Contact data for the one-click company/individual must displayed somewhere on the site. Email or form is required due to the nature of the enterprise; if you are going to expect people to use the Internet to donate, it's only fair that you allow people to use the Internet to contact you. This is especially important since people in other countries may have questions, and won't want to spend money on a long distance phone call. Phone number and postal address are strongly recommended, but not required. But if you're taking money in, you should be willing to legitimize yourself by posting full contact details. I do understand, however, that private individuals running sites may not wish to post this information, which is why it is not required.

3. There must be a clear description of who gets the money. Name(s) of specific beneficiary(ies) is required, and contact information for the beneficiary(ies) is strongly recommended. If the site is collecting donations for an as-yet unnamed beneficiary and all other criteria is met, the review will cite that the grade is assigned, but withheld pending a beneficiary be found.

4. There must be clear indication that the site is still operating, and not abandoned. A delay of more than a month for any regular report will be considered an indication of abandonment, and the site will not be recommended until back in operation. A previous grade will be rescinded if the site appears abandoned. This is one of the reasons why the grade graphic MUST link back to the site's review page; so that people can check that the grade is still valid. Sites appearing to be about to fail this criterion will be notified by email and be given a week (or until I have time to do the review) to provide some kind of clearly dated update.

5. The site must not require users to visit another site for a donation to count. There can be multiple buttons to click for different charities, but they must follow the one-click model; that is, the user clicks on the graphic or button, and a page loads with advertisements from sponsors who now are obliged to pay the site the appropriate amount. Sites that require a user to visit a sponsor's page or do anything other than click are not in the scope of this review, nor are E-cards or email for donations. However, a site that has a one-click, free donation format with other elements such as sponsor clicks as ways to increase donations are allowed, but I will not be reviewing these sideline formats.

6. The site must count donations regardless of user input or registration. If users must do anything other than click, the site does not qualify here.

Important Criteria

1. There must be no apparent conflict of interest. While it is acceptable for a for-profit company to have a donation section, anything that indicates a possible conflict of interest between the charitable portion and the operator will lower the grade. I decided to move this to this section instead of having it as a Critical criterion because of the possibly subjective nature of deciding whether or not there is conflict of interest.

2. All possible ulterior motives should be listed, such as religious affiliation, being part of another organization, being part of a marketing campaign from some corporate entity, etc. Even if the motive is pure, anything that could make a user not want to participate should be stated up front. For example, some people do not feel comfortable assisting religious-based charities that conflict with their own faith, or do not wish to fund an environmental project that is being run by a corporate entity known to be a polluter.

3. The site should strive to have up-to-date and accurate information throughout. This doesn't just apply to donation totals, but also includes information on the progress of projects that the money funds, current information on subjects relating to the charity, etc. For example, if the site is raising money to fight a disease, the information posted about the disease should be as current and accurate as possible.

4. The site should have a good frequently asked questions (FAQ) area that explains how the site works, whether multiple clicks work, etc.

5. The money should not just be collected for the future; it should be in use now. Some people might be nervous about giving money to a "planned" clinic to be built, in case enough funds aren't raised or some other problem prevents the eventual construction. In cases where a site is raising money for a future project, the site should specify what deadlines are present, what happens if enough money isn't raised, and if the project should be cancelled, where the money that was raised will go.

6. The site should specify how much each sponsor pays per click, and if that translates into another amount (such as time in a clinic, acres of land, etc.), that too should be shown. The currency should be noted, since the web is a global medium and foreign visitors may falsely assume the currency.

7. There should be a clear privacy policy.

8. Users should be able to access information about the site, such as the FAQ, Privacy Policy, etc. before clicking to donate. Sites that require the user to donate before providing links to information are asking the user to donate blindly, and that is unfair.

Useful Criteria

1. The site should be accessible to the disabled or to slow computers so everyone can click to donate for free. I will run the Bobby test as a standard part of all reviews. I will use the Advanced Options test, specifically looking for a minimum of A level acceptance. When Bobby isn't available (it is now a for-profit product and usage is limited, but it's the only online test I am aware of), I will download the page to be tested and run it through A-Prompt, which is what I now use to test my own pages. In general, I will only test the main page. If the main page passes, however, I will test several other pages on the site. If the site as a whole appears to be Bobby Approved, I will also run an HTML validator. A site that is valid HTML and Bobby Approved will get full marks in this category.

   In order to determine the site's usability in a non-graphical format, I will attempt to use portions of the site in a Lynx browser. Sites that pass Bobby and are valid HTML are more likely to be useable in Lynx.

2. The site does not induce pop-up windows, disable browser buttons, or otherwise hijack the user's browser or computer. Such activities not only hamper accessibility, but are really annoying.

3. Easily navigable sites are preferred. Some indications of good navigability are:

   • navigation information on every page (strongly recommended)
   • navigation should not require javascript, frames, etc. without an alternative
   • all links should work and go where the user will assume they're going
   • sites with multiple charities make it easy for a user to click through each one without accidentally missing one (i.e. when you've clicked on charity A, the sponsor banner page has B, C, and D buttons, and as you click through, ones you've clicked go away)

   Sites should strive to make navigation easy for all users, meaning that navigational graphics have ALT tags or other workarounds. Image maps should have alternatives as well.

4. Aesthetically pleasing and uncomplicated sites are also preferred. Multiple flashing GIFs (not including the ads, over which the site presumably has no control) are a bad idea, as are colour schemes that are painful to look at or make the site difficult to read. Overuse of javascript and other toys limit accessibility, make the pages take longer to load, and are completely unnecessary. Pictures related to the cause are an excellent idea, but taste and tact should be exercised when selecting pictures. Pictures of a graphic nature (such as unpleasant medical photos or pictures of abused animals) may have a reason to be there, but should not be on the main page and should have a warning.

5. The site should not promote, inadvertently or otherwise, poor behaviour such as spam. For example, if a site has a "recommend" service, the site should be very clear that spamming using that service is not appreciated, and does not help the cause.

6. Cookies should not be required for donations to count. Many people still use browsers and computers that do not support cookies, and many more prefer to deny them.

7. If the money collected is only going to one country or smaller geographical division, this should be noted so people from other countries can decide where to dedicate their time.

8. It is a good idea to include detailed, accurate information about why the money is needed. For example, a site that sends money to food agencies should cite hunger facts and data, or a site that sends money for an environmental effort should cite facts about the problems, etc. Statistics should be used responsibly and fairly, and not massaged or taken out of context in order to mislead readers.

9. Donation totals not only help the site seem fresh and current when updated regularly, they also give users a sense that their clicks are doing some good. Furthermore, they provide a way for beneficiaries to check and see that the money they're receiving reflects the number of clicks made. Donation totals do not have to be posted daily, although that is preferred. Weekly or monthly totals (either comprised of a single total or a batch presentation of daily totals) are acceptable, but it's a good idea to state the frequency of posting so users don't wonder why no totals have been posted recently.

Changes to Criteria

The version number will be handled as follows: changes involving fixes to spelling, grammar, and typos that have no impact on the meaning of the criteria will not be included in the numbering, nor be listed here. Changes involving a few minor additions or clarifications will be listed here, and the second decimal in the version number will be increased. Changes involving many minor changes, or those involving complete re-wordings of a single criterion, or those involving a new criterion being added or a criterion being removed, will be listed here, and the first decimal in the version number will be increased (with the second decimal being reset to zero). The whole number of the version will only be changed because of necessary rollover (ie the previous set has passed x.99) or for massive restructuring, including but not limited to shifts of criteria between categories (i.e. Critical, Important, Useful), new categories, removal of categories, or any other significant change to the body of the criteria as a whole, and the decimals will be reset to zeros.

• Version 1.42, February 27, 2003: Fixed link to old Bobby test, and clarified accessible test procedures.
  • Old wording:
    • The site should be accessible to the disabled or to slow computers so everyone can click to donate for free. I will run the Bobby test as a standard part of all reviews. I will use the Advanced Options test specifically looking for a minimum of A level acceptance. In general, I will only test the main page. If the main page passes, however, I will test several other pages on the site. If the site as a whole appears to be Bobby Approved, I will also run an HTML validator. A site that is valid HTML and Bobby Approved will get full marks in this category.
  • New wording:
    • The site should be accessible to the disabled or to slow computers so everyone can click to donate for free. I will run the Bobby test as a standard part of all reviews. I will use the Advanced Options test, specifically looking for a minimum of A level acceptance. When Bobby isn't available (it is now a for-profit product and usage is limited, but it's the only online test I am aware of), I will download the page to be tested and run it through A-Prompt, which is what I now use to test my own pages. In general, I will only test the main page. If the main page passes, however, I will test several other pages on the site. If the site as a whole appears to be Bobby Approved, I will also run an HTML validator. A site that is valid HTML and Bobby Approved will get full marks in this category.
• Version 1.41, October 3, 2002: Added notification policy to a criterion in critical category:
  • Old wording:
    • There must be clear indication that the site is still operating, and not abandoned. A delay of more than a month for any regular report will be considered an indication of abandonment, and the site will not be recommended until back in operation. A previous grade will be rescinded if the site appears abandoned. This is one of the reasons why the grade graphic MUST link back to the site's review page; so that people can check that the grade is still valid.
  • New wording:
    • There must be clear indication that the site is still operating, and not abandoned. A delay of more than a month for any regular report will be considered an indication of abandonment, and the site will not be recommended until back in operation. A previous grade will be rescinded if the site appears abandoned. This is one of the reasons why the grade graphic MUST link back to the site's review page; so that people can check that the grade is still valid. Sites appearing to be about to fail this criterion will be notified by email and be given a week (or until I have time to do the review) to provide some kind of clearly dated update.
• Version 1.40, August 7, 2002: Added criterion to Useful category:
  • The site does not induce pop-up windows, disable browser buttons, or otherwise hijack the user's browser or computer. Such activities not only hamper accessibility, but are really annoying.
• Version 1.30, February 17, 2002: Rewording of the first criterion in the Useful category:
  • Old wording:
    • The site should be accessible to the disabled or to slow computers so everyone can click to donate for free. I will run the Bobby test as a standard part of all reviews. I don't expect many to pass, but this is important. If the site fails the Bobby test only on a few very minor points, they may still get credit for decent accessibility. However, standard HTML items such as ALT tags on all graphics are strongly recommended. Sites that feature valid HTML according to W3C specifications may also offset accessibility issues to some small degree.
  • New wording:
    • The site should be accessible to the disabled or to slow computers so everyone can click to donate for free. I will run the Bobby test as a standard part of all reviews. I will use the Advanced Options test, specifically looking for a minimum of A level acceptance. In general, I will only test the main page. If the main page passes, however, I will test several other pages on the site. If the site as a whole appears to be Bobby Approved, I will also run an HTML validator. A site that is valid HTML and Bobby Approved will get full marks in this category. In order to determine the site's usability in a non-graphical format, I will attempt to use portions of the site in a Lynx browser. Sites that pass Bobby and are valid HTML are more likely to be useable in Lynx.
• Version 1.21, July 13, 2001: A clarification made in the Important category:
  • Old wording:
    • The site should specify how much each sponsor pays per click, and if that translates into another amount (such as time in a clinic, acres of land, etc.), that too should be shown.
  • New wording:
    • The site should specify how much each sponsor pays per click, and if that translates into another amount (such as time in a clinic, acres of land, etc.), that too should be shown. The currency should be noted, since the web is a global medium and foreign visitors may falsely assume the currency.
• Version 1.20, July 8, 2001: A new criterion added to the Useful category:
  • Donation totals not only help the site seem fresh and current when updated regularly, they also give users a sense that their clicks are doing some good. Furthermore, they provide a way for beneficiaries to check and see that the money they're receiving reflects the number of clicks made. Donation totals do not have to be posted daily, although that is preferred. Weekly or monthly totals (either comprised of a single total or a batch presentation of daily totals) are acceptable, but it's a good idea to state the frequency of posting so users don't wonder why no totals have been posted recently.
• Version 1.10, May 29, 2001: A new criterion added to the Important category:
  • Users should be able to access information about the site, such as the FAQ, Privacy Policy, etc. before clicking to donate. Sites that require the user to donate before providing links to information are asking the user to donate blindly, and that is unfair.
• Version 1.01, April 20, 2001: the third Important criterion and the last Useful criterion, both of which deal with the nature of the background information on the one-click site, have been updated to include statements regarding the accuracy and appropriate usage of the information.
  • Old Criterion: Important #3: The site should strive to have up-to-date information throughout. This doesn't just apply to donation totals, but also includes information on the progress of projects that the money funds, current information on subjects relating to the charity, etc. For example, if the site is raising money to fight a disease, the information posted about the disease should be as current as possible.
  • New wording, with changes highlighted: The site should strive to have up-to-date and accurate information throughout. This doesn't just apply to donation totals, but also includes information on the progress of projects that the money funds, current information on subjects relating to the charity, etc. For example, if the site is raising money to fight a disease, the information posted about the disease should be as current and accurate as possible.
  • Old Criterion: Useful #7: It is a good idea to include detailed information about why the money is needed. For example, a site that sends money to food agencies should cite hunger facts and data, or a site that sends money for an environmental effort should cite facts about the problems, etc.
  • New wording, with changes highlighted: It is a good idea to include detailed, accurate information about why the money is needed. For example, a site that sends money to food agencies should cite hunger facts and data, or a site that sends money for an environmental effort should cite facts about the problems, etc. Statistics should be used responsibly and fairly, and not massaged or taken out of context in order to mislead readers.