I think with any charity you are essentially giving up the ability to choose where your money goes. You just have to trust they will use it to the best of their ability to help the cause. So for me, that means my choice lies in which charity to let them use my money for.
I like what the Humane Society does. I like what the Wildlife Defense Fund does, and the Red Cross. I do not get to choose if my money goes to paying their president, running their marketing campaign, or actually feeding a homeless pet. But it is my hope they my contribution enables them to help the cause, ultimately.
I know you know this, lisa.
I also understand that you feel wronged by Kiva misleading people into thinking the funds were directly earmarked to certain folks in need.
However, if you think about it, that makes no sense for ANY charity. They need funds to run the organization, to pay rent on their offices, to buy computers, to market themselves, to design their website and ads, to do the zillion things any organization does. If everyone is sending money directly to a donor, then where does the money come to run Kiva itself? It makes no sense to bypass the general fund - the system would quickly fall apart.
I don't see this as a problem, personally, the misleading part. I think it is part and parcel of charities. You 'adopt' a polar bear. You 'buy' an acre of rainforest. You 'feed' a child. It gives the donor a nice sense of ownership. And your funds really DO go towards those things...just in a more indirect fashion.
You just have to trust the charity will do what they see fit with your money and that ultimately the people you 'chose' to loan to will benefit.
