All charities are worthwhile but the ones I support the most are the heart and stroke foundation and cancer research. My mother suffered a massive stroke a couple of years back and just last year she was diagnosed with cancer. I donate to others as well but those two are my main ones.

As a cancer survivor... I would say any that study the cure for this awful disease... but am more inclined to say ANY that I known that MOST OF THE FUNDS that we donate w/ be applied towards the cause and not towards their fees, licenses, POCKETS! I would like to mention any charity about children, policemen/firemen and pets too.

That's a question I struggle with a lot, because there are SO MANY GOOD ones. I finally decided to limit myself to 5 for contribution purposes. But I choose a new 5 each year.

I donate to 3 charities and the 3 are as followed The Red Cross The MS Foundation The Salvation Army. The Red Cross to help people all over the world The MS cause I have a friend who has ms Salvation Army cause to help peole in my own neighborhood.

The ones that aid children. I feel cheated when I read articles on corrupt charities and what percentage of your donation actually goes into research and aiding those who are in need.

the answerbag charity that gives point`s to the needy.

Any charity that has to do with helping children, because they are our most vulnerable and needy treasures...and that would be all over the world because I make no distinction between "us/ours" and "them/theirs".

The Methuselah Foundation is the most worthwhile. It is a charity devoted to fostering efforts to extend the healthy human lifespan, helping us all live longer and healthier, with the ultimate goal of indefinite lifespans. This may seem almost "selfish" or irrelevant in comparison with charities that focus on fighting cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimers, etc., but if you think about it, it's not. Nearly every horrific affliction, including nearly all cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, mental decline, and all-cause premature death - the vast majority - is caused by the damage that occurs as a result of the aging process. Trying to attack any one of these diseases or causes of death is just attacking a symptom, desperately scrambling to plug one leak after the other in the sinking ships of our aging bodies. The problem is aging. Certainly, some young people can get type 2 diabetes, die of heart attacks, or suffer from various forms of cancer, and those matter too, but by and large, the vast majority of these cases are over 40, and as one gets older, they become ever more statistically likely to suffer and die from one of these ailments. Even for those younger people who suffer from our top killers, anti-aging research will be of benefit, since an understanding of how to combat, prevent, or reverse aging inevitably leads to and requires a better understanding of metabolism and its damaging end products, and how nuclear and mitochondrial DNA damage can contribute to the scourges of aging, including cancer. We need all of us to step up and recognize our greatest and most vicious killer as so-called "natural aging", the not only kills us but robs us of physical and mental vitality, and even often the will to live. All involuntary death is a tragedy. Donating to anti-aging research is a way of saying "NO MORE" to aging and death, and "I WANT TO LIVE!" Aubrey de Grey once said: "Aging really is barbaric. It shouldn't be allowed. I don't need an ethical argument. I don't need any argument. It's visceral. To let people die is bad." Benjamin Franklin wrote that he dearly wished he could be chemically preserved so that he could see the future. But I am not a person enduring a "veil of tears" in my present life only on the basis of hope for some future technological paradise. I am enthusiastic about life right now. The present world is such a rich treasure-store of marvelous opportunities that my most abiding interest in the possibilities of the future is the possibility of extending life. I am not even certain that my desire to endure is only connected to my desire to learn and accomplish new things. The thousandth time that I smell a flower, eat a strawberry, sing a song or kiss a cheek may be every bit as wonderful as the first. People ask me if I am afraid of death. To me this question is a macho red-herring. Would I be afraid of the death of someone I dearly loved? Yes, but fear is a misleading way to represent how I feel about the possible loss of the precious life of a loved-one. So it is with my own life.

I tend to lean toward the charities that help battered women and sick children. But, I do my due diligence to make sure where my money is going before I ever give a penny. I've known too many battered women, and a local children's hospital fixed the heart of my little niece, one Thanksgiving many years ago. At the time, she was just over 1 year old and still could not sit up, (too weak from a hole in her heart). This hospital fixed her and NEVER pushed for ANY money! They asked, at check-in, that if the family could ever afford a few dollars, to please remember their hospital. That was still THE BEST Thanksgiving that I've ever had, (and I'm 48)! Today she is a healthy, adult Mom.

I like charities that provide people with options and opportunities so that they have a means of changing their lives if they wish. I contribute time and money to education and training, either as part of a charitable group or on my own.

I am very changeable about the way i feel towards what constitutes charity. Sometimes it is animal shelters, medical research or the hungry, helpless or homeless. Other times i think charity begins at home or if i see someone begging. I sometimes give to friends who may be struggling at the time. Sometimes i shut down and give nothing. Then i truly pay.

Any that have to do with child abuse

All the 'under-funded' ones - Alzheimers, RNLI,(Lifeboats) that get no help whatsoever from the government, too much money is thrown at the 'popular' ones, IMO

I also think that all charities are good charities, but you have to do a good amount of research before you donate to one. By going to www.charitynavigator.com you can look at stats about how much they give to administration, fundraising, and projects. I personally am a strong advocate Save The Children, One, World Vision, and Youth Aids. I feel passionate about defeating the disaster that is poverty, but Enviormental, Economic, Agricultural, and/or Cancer, Animal, Children and Infant well being.... the list goes on, just remember to research and figure out what your concern is directed to and where your money is going. And feel aprehensive about contacting an administrator or campaign director if you have questions, concerns or comments.

Charity is giving alms, assisting in whichever way one can. By ANY means one can accomplish this act would be worthwhile.

I support charities that involve protecting something that can not protect itself. Examples... RSPCA RSPCC RSPCB . Also cancer charities, I do not support AIDs charities as AIDs kills only about 5% of the people that cancer does and yet gets about 200 times the funding, cancer needs more money (as does AIDs, but cancer needs it more)

ive sponsored world vision, but they dont seem to have a huge impact, but i still feel the cause is worthwhile i support the salvation army, mainly because it sent some pamphlet promoting education and i felt that thats the solution to the poverty cycle

The charities that allow the needy to sustain themselves and not rely on charity. Most are not looking to be fed by someone else, they want to be self-reliant and part of a functioning society.

The Stephen Murray Fund......http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/373504 ...go there please

I did volunteer work for a disaster relief center and I did volunteer work in a non-profit animal shelter.... I would not donate to them. I have found several charities to be corrupt. I don't trust ANY of them. If I had money to donate, I'd rather ship blankets or non-perishable food myself. Buy blankets for the homeless or give them sandwiches. A lot of charities keep about .80 of every $1 donated. If I am donating... every single penny should go to the people who need it.

Any charity that is legit is hard to say that they are not worthwhile. Anyone who is working to make something better and using the money for that casue is commendable. I give money to the Salvation Army, I think they do a good job in a lot of different areas. I also will help out the disabled Veterans and the local homeless shelters when I can. I like to see my money stay local since I know it will do the most for my community as well as not wondering if the national organizations are just filtering the money too much and not getting things done as they should.

Anything that helps the Soldiers in other countries!

Generally, as an indicator of whether or not the organization itself is worthy of getting any of my money, I look at how much of my dollar is used for expenses vs. how much actually goes towards the charitable part. There are organizations where 50% or more of the money they receive goes towards the administrative costs of running the charity. This means a LARGE part of my money actually goes into somebody's pocket between my wallet and the person at the other end. I don't like that. I generally start with who or what I want to donate to and then see what charities are available to support it and make my decision based upon the administrative costs from there. So I will typically check out charities I'm interested in supporting because I like what they do, like Navy/Marine Corps Relief Society for example. Then I see how much of my dollar is actually going to help needy Sailors and Marines (100% in this case). If I wanted to support a charity that helps "at risk" kids I might look as 'Street Schools for At Risk Youth' with an operating cost of 36.2% in 2007 and 'Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America' with an operating cost of 7.2% in 2007. To me, a significantly larger portion of my donation will actually go towards kids who need it if I give to Big Brothers and Big Sisters (92.8% as opposed to only 63.8%) Here's a useful link to read about a bunch of charitable organizations, their stated missions, and their operating costs: http://www.cfcnca.org/files/docs/RK/2007CatalogofCaring.pdf

Many are worthwhile so the question is somewhat unfair - like asking which of 3 children is the "best". All legitimate charities have a mission and a constituency. My own choices are arbitrary - but no one can support everything so I focus on a few charities including: Local Unity church - a place of healing and peace IRC - International Rescue Committee - international aid which cuts across ideological lines Covenant House - a Catholic charity serving kids caught in the street life here in the US Heifer Project - donations of livestock to promote self sufficiency in developing nations Clinton Foundation and Carter Center - both support humanitarian and medical projects worldwide and project an excellent image for the US in the process.

Many are worthwhile so the question is somewhat unfair - like asking which of 3 children is the "best". All legitimate charities have a mission and a constituency. My own choices are arbitrary - but no one can support everything so I focus on a few charities including: Local Unity church - a place of healing and peace IRC - International Rescue Committee - international aid which cuts across ideological lines Covenant House - a Catholic charity serving kids caught in the street life here in the US Heifer Project - donations of livestock to promote self sufficiency in developing nations Clinton Foundation and Carter Center - both support humanitarian and medical projects worldwide and project an excellent image for the US in the process.