IFAW's direct mail company
Posted by Cranberry Cake  |  November 18, 2009 5:56:44 AM

I am more and more disgusted with all of the big national animal groups. All they spend money on is junk mail and stamps. I give local.

My husband came up with a story in the Wall Street paper that the junk mail firm IFW uses is being investigated.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125555431834885705.html

Do the animals a favor -- give to local shelters.

4 stars is a joke
Posted by Wayne0117  |  November 4, 2009 12:32:47 PM

I lived in the UK and I used to get all manner of crap from these people -- my favorite was the most hideous tea towel you have ever seen. This was to get me to donate! They must be spending a fortune on this, and i just can't believe they really deserve 4 stars -- i think they have ot be cooking the books.

IFAW Funding
Posted by Tiffany  |  May 21, 2009 9:05:54 AM

Just to add to this thread: I believe, also, that it makes sense to cut out the middle man, as IFAW seems to be at times. However, in certain instances that is not possible. For example IFAW is currently working with the Malawi Department of Parks and Wildlife to remove a herd of elephants from Malawi before they are shot. It is not feasible for me to send money directly to the Malawi government, so I will use IFAW to help fund this effort. Just one more aspect of this to consider.

Grant giving organizations
Posted by EC_Country  |  May 14, 2009 12:30:08 PM

I do not mind that IFAW is distributing grants since I do not have the time or resources to track down all of the charities (especially small ones that may not be listed on Charity Nav.) that do good work. When I donate money to them, I am trusting them to make good decisions as to which international animal welfare groups will use the money in the best possible manner.

Good point IAC
Posted by Adams  |  April 27, 2009 5:55:00 AM

Hadn't been to check on this site in a while and just saw your response. You raise a really good point, except when I give a donation to IFAW I expect big part of it to go towards protecting animals. (of course everyone has some overhead) However if IFAW is awarding grants to other groups that protect animals, what prevents me from donating directly to the group actually doing the work? When you read the fine print it looks like IFAW is really just the middle man here. Guess it shows you how the program to admin ratio can be quite misleading. How effective is IFAW at using my donations? I fear the answer to that is not very effective which is why I've shifted my annual giving away from fund managers like IFAW and towards groups that actually do the work protecting animals. Just sad to realize this after my husband and I have given to IFAW for many years.

IFAW
Posted by IAC  |  January 21, 2009 10:31:57 AM

Thanks for the info. Actually, the inserts with the donation materials mention projects that are "IFAW-funded" and describe mobile operations. It would be hard for one org to go to so many places in the world. I don't have a problem if it's fundraising and then giving grants to applicant organizations, who then use the money to work projects in their local community.

Inaccurate financial information
Posted by Adams  |  January 12, 2009 7:20:58 AM

I did some research and learned that IFAW doesn't actually do what they claim but rather does so through grant funding. That's certainly allowable, but IFAW does not portray themselves as a funding organization. Rather it appears IFAW misleads donors claiming the organization is actually protecting animals. The truth is they collect donations as a third party and allocate funding to those protecting animals.