Reading this thread I find it amazing how many people give to a charity without fully understanding what they are donating to and how that money is spent.
It really is quite something, that people think their social responsibility begins and end with the fact that they put some money in a box and therefore they have done a 'good thing'.
The mentality that 'all charity is good' really is something we should challenge and hats off to the OP for attempting to do so. A lot of people do try and shop ethically - fair trade wouldn't be so successful (and indeed such a selling point now) - if this wasn't the case and this is part of the same thought process and idea of being responsible for the wealth that you have. How you spend every pound has an impact somewhere. We need to do a lot more of it as a nation and as individuals.
There is plenty of destructive charity out there. I think the saying 'The road to hell, is paved with good intentions', is a pretty apt one in the context of this thread. Being critical of charity is the only way to improve it and stop some of these problems.
I personally have a problem with the way a lot of charities operate; some of which are very well known and indeed respected. Its not just about charities that give to less well off nations either.
Charities are by their very nature extremely political animals and its extremely naive to think any differently yet most people do. Would you donate to a political party without being involved and having strong views that are aligned with the parties aim? I suggest you probably wouldn't and yet most people wouldn't give a second thought to what a charities political aims are when they pop their £1 in a bucket. They have just giving to a 'good cause'. But is it really a good cause?
The way charities promote themselves is also something to be mindful of; how much of it is propaganda? Are you being somehow manipulated into giving? Simple things like, using a lone child in a television advert are incredibly loaded and very deliberate... and it affects our general perception of countries and how we view them and their ability to help themselves, if given the means to do so.
Like I say, the word charities are very often political groups to a greater or lesser extent so the word propaganda - which often has negative associations - is the right one to use. Although the word is usually seen in a bad way, it not always bad, but it does make you more weary when you think about charities as using propaganda.
Its no good to just read the stuff the charity gives out. Its always biased and can rarely tell the full story. When was the last time you saw a charity with a section about "criticisms of the charity and our responses"? In an ideal world, every charity should have that and be able to justify what they are doing in order to properly inform people about what they do. The fact they don't, really highlights the point about charities rarely being accountable and transparent about what they do.
I'm not saying that any charity is perfect; I think its actually impossible to be, but I think knowing and understanding weaknesses is crucial to the whole equation. You should properly understand the background and issues that surround the problem that the charity is trying to address and weigh up whether its really going to achieve what it aims - and whether this might have negative side effects. It is not just their problem to understand its also your problem to understand, if you feel strongly enough to put money in a tin or toys in a box.
Therefore its wise to understand the issues and what the charity is aiming to achieve and how they operate before you donate to anything. If you don't know that, don't assume that you have done your bit. Doing your bit includes thinking and finding out about the charity; it evolves effort not just abdicating that responsibility and effectively paying for your warm fuzzy feeling.
Going back to the OP original topic and reading that they donate in Bosnia I'm actually gobsmacked at the logic and insensitivity behind it. Having spent some time there and seen the problems that still exist along religious and political lines, it really does beggar belief. The need for secular actions is paramount to the future of the country and I can see no way at all how this would benefit the kids there tbh. Whilst still very poor, and in need of help from Europe in various ways, I fail to see how this would do anything but cause problems.
I wasn't aware that OCC was an evangelical charity. I did think its ways of operating were, at best dubious, but knowing its real intent is the icing on the cake. If I come across it in the future, I'll be sure to voice concerns if I can.
(And Caitlin, I don't think you are stupid, I just don't think people are taught to question things enough and I don't blame you for it. Criticising charity is actually still pretty taboo and its something that needs to change. There are enough posts on this thread that highlight the point and the OP has been slammed for doing so by some. Learning to question, the things you have been actively taught to trust, is a valuable but hard life experience.
Having the courage to realise, and acknowledge that you have been sucked in, in the past is a good thing to do. Many wouldn't. It can be easier to try and remain ignorant and try and attack people who do raise those uncomfortable questions in order to not take responsibility and feel guilty about it. Hats off to you. Unlike those who didn't RTFT...
I'm sure that you will end up giving in a way thats better, in addition to your good intentions. Don't loose all faith in charity as thats the real danger of charities like these)