Back in October, I posted about the idea of leveraging the wiki ethos to help bridge the chasm between donors and recipients in the charitable giving space. The post talked about how Kiva comes close to this idea in their micro-lending approach.

EditMe recently made its 325th loan as part of our ongoing Kiva Lending Program, and it reminded me to follow up on this post and share some of the interesting thoughts and feedback it received in the comments on this blog and (more actively) on the Kiva LinkedIn group.

In the original post, I posited that somebody would inevitably solve the obvious problems that would surface with the removal (real or perceived) of a middleman in the charitable giving game. By all means, charitable giving organizations provide several much needed and valuable services, and many of the comments highlighted these. Specifically, charitable organizations market a cause to potential donors, collect money, provide tax exemptions, validate recipients and disseminate funds in a transparent and fair process. There's no getting away from these needs; the question is, how invisible can it be?

One commenter reminded us that, though it may seem otherwise, Kiva and its Field Partners do act as middlemen. Field Partners act to validate recipients, tell their story (acting as a conduit, but also potential filter/editor), and manage fund dissemination. Kiva works so well, it's easy to forget these facts.

Comments on the LinkedIn group raised the issues of tax exemption and validation (to prevent a scam artist feeding frenzy). This point goes directly to the problem that needs solving. While Kiva has not removed the middleman altogether, they have made that function all but invisible to donors. To the donor, they are giving a loan to an individual or a specific group of individuals. To recipients, they are getting a loan (not from the individual lenders, but from the Field Partner). The experience serves the needs of the donor - a feeling of connection to a process that motivates lending. To the recipient, knowledge of individual donors is less important, though, in terms of a feedback loop, still potentially valuable.

A number of compelling web sites were offered up as work in the area of web-enabled charitable giving and are work a look:

CharityNavigator.org provides a database of charitable giving opportunities that can meet the most specific criteria. A veritable clearing house, it provides detailed statistics on each organization, including a breakdown of expenses, revenue statistics, and efficiency metrics.

Jolkona.org provides a similar clearing-house model, but is more focused on a shopping-cart style browse and buy model for bite sized donations to dozens of compelling organizations that provide a specific impact metric such as the number of trees planted, number of Tibetan girls educated, and so on.

ModestNeeds.org is perhaps the best existing implementation of a wiki charity. They provide small grants to "prevent otherwise financially self-sufficient individuals and families from entering the cycle of poverty, when this might be avoided with a small amount of well-timed financial assistance". Take a recent testimonial from a grant recipient as an example of the impact such grants are making (and the feedback received by donors):

"I can't express enough how grateful I am to receive such a wonderful gift! I was starting to lose hope that I would be able to get my tooth fixed and the pain I was going through was affecting every aspect of my life. When I awoke Tuesday morning and saw that my application had been funded I was so happy, so excited, that I ran in to wake up my four-year-old daughter and tell her all about how people we don't even know had given us money so Mommy could get her tooth fixed. She shared in my excitement, her little beautiful face lit up, and she gave me a big hug and kiss! Thank you so, so much. You are all angels! Lots of Love and Happy Holidays!"

If that's not direct feedback on the effect of a charitable donation, I don't know what is.