The government merely establishes requirements without conducting inspections. Typically, each country has two or three primary charity certification labels.

In many instances, articles emerge exposing charities that have committed significant errors or even engaged in fraud despite their certification. This is primarily because it’s relatively simple to appear reputable on paper, but the actual outcomes remain uncertain.

For instance, consider the scenario of building wells in Africa. Frequently, charities pledge to construct a specific number of wells but fail to fulfil their commitment, neglecting to provide maintenance training or educate the beneficiary community on their proper use. They often merely capture images and consider the project completed. This clearly constitutes a failed initiative. Only on-site audits can detect this form of donation misuse. 

In another example, several charities have been exposed for manipulating their budget allocations. Most charity certificates stipulate that no more than 20% of funds should be spent on marketing expenses. However, some charities cleverly categorize marketing costs as “awareness and education.” This underscores the limitations of relying solely on annual reports for evaluation.