Humanitarian Donations: Where Does Your Money Really Go?

Of every €100 donated to a major French NGO, how much actually reaches the field? Between €62 and €90, depending on the organization. But behind these numbers lies a more complex accounting reality. A breakdown.

In 2024, French households declared €3.6 billion in donations to charitable organizations. December alone accounted for 23 % of annual fundraising. Behind these figures, one nagging question returns with every scandal, every appeal to generosity: where does this money really go?

The answer, contrary to popular belief, is not opaque. French law requires NGOs collecting more than €153,000 in public donations to publish a Compte d'emploi des ressources (CER) — a detailed report on how funds are used. But reading this document requires a key that no one hands the donor. And that's exactly where the real story is.

Here's what no one explains to you when you click “Donate.”

The “80 % to the field” illusion

When an NGO advertises “80 % of your donations fund our social missions,” donors usually hear “80 % goes directly to beneficiaries.” That's wrong — or rather, incomplete.

The “social missions” line of a French CER doesn't only cover concrete aid in the field. According to the official documentation of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), it includes:

operations in France and abroad
operational support (logistics, human resources, procurement)
public information and awareness
some funding granted to other organizations

At Médecins du Monde, the scope is even wider: it includes parts of coordination, program management, political advocacy, and a share of premises and IT.

This nuance is no detail. It radically reshapes how the ratios should be read.

The ratios of France's six largest NGOs

Here, drawn from the most recent publicly available financial reports, is how the resources of the six best-known French NGOs break down. These figures aren't a moral ranking: they reflect different operating models and different fundraising strategies.

Organization	Social missions	Fundraising	Operations	Source
Médecins Sans Frontières	90.1 %	4.7 %	3.5 %	2024 financial report
Action contre la Faim	90.0 %	6.0 %	4.0 %	2023 financial report
Médecins du Monde	81.5 %	13.9 %	4.6 %	2024 financial report
UNICEF France	79.2 %	16.2 %	4.6 %	2024 activity report
French Red Cross	69.4 %	14.1 %	16.5 %	2024 “Essential”
Oxfam France	62.0 %	29.0 %	9.0 %	2024-2025 “Essential”

The gap is striking: 62 to 90 % for missions, 4.7 to 29 % for fundraising. Yet none of these NGOs is in breach of any rule. Here's why.

An organization like MSF spends very little on fundraising because it benefits from a base of recurring donors built over decades — it “lives off its annuity.” An organization like Oxfam France, younger and more political, spends heavily on donor acquisition because it is in a growth phase. An organization like the French Red Cross carries heavier overhead because it runs vast national infrastructure — over 600 health and social facilities in France.

In short: a low fundraising ratio is not, in itself, a guarantee of virtue. And a higher ratio may signal a necessary investment in the organization's long-term sustainability.

Unrestricted, restricted, emergency funds: the structural trade-off

The other blind spot NGOs rarely highlight: how your donation is earmarked.

Three cases exist.

Unrestricted donations. The organization uses them as it sees fit, according to its priorities. The most flexible — and therefore the most useful to the NGO. But also the least traceable for the donor, who has no guarantee that their money goes precisely to the cause that moved them.

Restricted donations. Earmarked for a specific project (“borehole in Ethiopia,” “aid for Ukrainian refugees”). More traceable, but often a trap: if the emergency moves elsewhere, the money stays locked. During the 2022 Pakistan floods, several NGOs ended up with earmarked surpluses they couldn't redirect, even as needs exploded in the Horn of Africa.

Emergency or pooled funds. You give to a general cause (“humanitarian emergencies”), and the organization allocates as needed. Alliance Urgences, which brings together seven major French NGOs, works this way: funds are distributed among members according to an annual allocation key. Faster, more efficient — but less readable for the donor.

This is the sector's structural trade-off: traceability slows down action, flexibility makes it opaque.

The “€1,200 = one well” trap

It's probably the most common humanitarian slogan: “For X euros, you fund Y.” A well, a kit, a meal, a vaccine.

Except that none of these objects are standardized.

Take the example of a borehole. charity: water, one of the most transparency-praised American NGOs, publishes its details: a “sponsored” borehole listed at $10,000 can actually cost $9,200 or $10,800 depending on context. The NGO performs a final reconciliation case by case. And its full reporting cycle — from pledge to operating certificate — can take 21 months.

WaterAid, another reference, cites a Nepali case where a 180-meter borehole cost about 4.3 million Nepalese rupees, or £28,000 — close to €33,000. That's three times the price advertised by other organizations for the same type of work.

Why such gaps? Because the “well” of a slogan is not the same as a deep borehole in an arid zone. A “well” may be:

Type of work	Indicative cost	What it covers
Hand pump on a shallow water table	€500 – €2,000	Hardware only
Deep borehole with solar station	€10,000 – €30,000	Hardware + local training
Captured-water system with multi-year maintenance	€30,000 – €100,000	Full program

None of these variants are scams. But the “€1,200 = one well” promise is, at best, a partial share; at worst, a far simpler installation than a sustainable borehole. Either way, the donor doesn't really know what they're funding.

The same logic applies to food rations (the WFP pays $12.50 per person per month in Bangladesh, $15 in Cameroon), to hygiene kits, to vaccines. Costs vary with country, security context, and logistics.

The Restos du Cœur affair: a French case study

In September 2023, in an emotionally charged climate, Patrice Douret, the chairman of Restos du Cœur (one of France's largest food charities), announced on TF1: “For the first time since [comedian and founder] Coluche, we are going to have to turn beneficiaries away.” The association then launched an exceptional appeal for donations. The French public responded en masse. The State also released several million euros.

Nearly two years later, on 19 June 2025, the French Court of Audit (Cour des comptes) published a sharp report. Its conclusion:

In other words: the association had available reserves that it did not mobilize before launching the emergency appeal. Auditors also recommended that the State “calibrate the size of subsidies more carefully” in the future.

The Restos du Cœur disputed the analysis, telling AFP that keeping “at all times” the funds needed for “several months of operations” is a matter of “rigorous prudence.” The debate remains open.

But the case is emblematic for two reasons. First, because it lays bare a structural gray zone: at what level of reserves can an NGO legitimately trigger an emergency appeal? No clear regulatory answer exists today. Second, because it proves that French oversight works — the Court of Audit publicly said what no one wanted to hear, in measured but unflinching terms.

That is rare. And it is precious.

Executive pay: France's great opacity

Here is the question everyone asks and that no French NGO addresses head-on: how much do the chair, the CEO, the secretary general of an NGO actually earn?

In the United States, the answer is public. The Form 990 that every nonprofit must file with the IRS makes the disclosure of the five highest salaries mandatory. Charity Navigator and Candid centralize this data in databases freely consultable by any donor.

In France, nothing of the sort. Disclosure of executive compensation is not part of the obligations imposed by the ANC 2018-06 regulation, which governs the accounts of NGOs. Some organizations communicate voluntarily (MSF publishes a global range, the Red Cross mentions indicative scales), others not at all.

What we know:

Organization	Public information available
MSF France	Executive pay scales aligned with major international NGOs — no individual salary published
French Red Cross	Facility directors at around €47,000 annually — the CEO position is not publicly disclosed
ICRC (International Red Cross)	Pay scales aligned with international NGOs, with employer-paid pensions at 17 % of salary
Restos du Cœur	Volunteer chair, executive salaries not detailed publicly

The lack of transparency does not imply abusive pay. Most major French NGOs compensate their executives in the €80,000 to €180,000 annual range — less than a senior CAC 40 executive, far less than a comparable American nonprofit CEO. But the French donor has, to this day, no simple way to verify these orders of magnitude.

It is a real democratic problem. And it is a fight few voices in France carry.

The hidden costs of digital giving

Another, much more recent blind spot: fundraising platform fees.

When you donate via a third-party platform (HelloAsso, GoFundMe, Leetchi, KissKissBankBank), your donation passes through a multi-layered chain of fees:

Step	Fees deducted
Third-party platform fees	0 % to 8 %
Banking fees (card / transfer)	1 % to 3 %
NGO fundraising costs	4.7 % to 29 %
NGO operating costs	3.5 % to 16.5 %

Donating directly on the NGO's website removes the first layer of fees. It is the first rule for a donor who wants to maximize the impact of their gift.

The monthly recurring direct debit is even more efficient: it now accounts for 45 % of French fundraising according to France générosités, and costs the NGO far less in management fees than a one-off donation. The recurring donor, by their stability, is the most powerful tool in the entire humanitarian sector.

Five scandals that reshaped the sector

Talking about transparency in giving also means looking squarely at the cases that have marked the sector in recent years.

Oxfam GB (2018-2021). Allegations of sexual abuse by employees in Haiti, concealed by British leadership, led the Charity Commission to conclude that there had been “mismanagement” of past safeguarding. The NGO published a strengthened action plan in 2021. Donations to Oxfam dropped by several million pounds in 2018.

Aides (France). The Court of Audit issued a certificate of compliance on the use of donations, while flagging “weaknesses in the information provided to the public” and in oversight of international transfers to a network partner. The NGO functions broadly well, but with zones of fragility.

UNRWA (2024). After accusations targeting some Palestinian employees, several major donors (United States, Germany, United Kingdom) froze their funding to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. The UN launched an independent review. The case shows how reputational risk can freeze cash faster than an audit can land.

WFP in Sudan (2024). Reuters revealed an internal investigation into two senior officials of the World Food Programme in Sudan, accused of fraud and withholding information from donors. A textbook case of disconnect between field reporting and donor reporting.

EU emergency aid in Syria (2020). The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) recommended recovering nearly €1.5 million after detecting corruption and procurement manipulation in an NGO active in Syria. A canonical case of procurement fraud in an emergency context where safeguards weaken.

A low administrative ratio, taken in isolation, is therefore not enough to guarantee reliability.

How to give well in 2026: five simple checks

If the analysis above leaves your head spinning, here is the actionable version. Five reflexes to give intelligently, in less than five minutes per organization:

1. Check that a CER (compte d'emploi des ressources) is published. Any French NGO collecting more than €153,000 in public donations a year must produce one. It is generally available on the website, in the “Transparency” or “Accounts” section. If the organization does not publish it, that is a red flag.

2. Check that an external auditor is in place. For NGOs recognized as being of public utility, or above certain thresholds, an annual audit by an external statutory auditor is mandatory. The auditor's report should be public.

3. Look for an independent label. Don en Confiance and the IDEAS Institute issue labels after thorough review. They don't cover all serious NGOs (the label is costly, and not every organization applies), but their presence is a strong signal.

4. Prefer direct donations over platform donations. Give on the NGO's own website rather than via a third-party platform, except in special cases. You skip the first layer of fees.

5. Prefer recurring donations over one-off donations. Monthly or quarterly giving costs less to the NGO, gives them financial visibility, and triggers the same tax benefits.

Watch out for fake fundraisers

A final point that deserves its own mention: fraudulent fundraising is on the rise.

US authorities issued warnings in 2024 about “fraudulent charities” impersonating real organizations after every natural disaster. French public services remind donors that phishing, fake websites, fake online crowdfunders, and fake door-to-door collectors serve both to extract money and to steal personal data.

A few weak signals that should always raise a flag:

artificial urgency (“only 2 hours left to give”)
vague identity (no SIREN number, no address, no legal notice)
collection through unsolicited private messages
approximate logos or repeated typos
unusual payment channels (direct transfer to a personal IBAN, untraceable cryptocurrency)

A real association will always provide:

its SIREN or RNA number
a physical postal address
an automatic tax receipt for the donation
the ability to consult its accounts

To verify the legal existence of a French association, the official site data.associations.gouv.fr centralizes prefectural declarations. It's free. It takes thirty seconds.

The real question

In the end, the question is probably not “where exactly does each euro go?” No serious NGO can answer this with absolute precision, because funding mixes, because emergencies move, because humanitarian logistics is, by nature, a world of the unforeseen.

The real question is: does this organization have the controls, the verifications, and the culture of transparency that allow the donor to know, in broad strokes, that their money is being well used?

It is this culture that distinguishes serious NGOs from the rest. It cannot be reduced to a ratio. It is measured by the quality of the annual report, by the existence of an internal whistleblower system, by the presence of an external auditor, by the regular auditing of field partners, by the smoothness with which the organization answers uncomfortable questions.

Main sources

This article is updated regularly based on the latest financial reports published by French NGOs. If you work in the sector and would like to flag a missing element, a nuance or a recent development, please write to us at hello@kero.media.

Humanitarian Donations: Where Does Your Money Really Go?