Charity Crowdfunding Verification Guide India (2026)

In March 2026, Mumbai software engineer Priya Mehta donated ₹25,000 to a cancer-treatment campaign on a major crowdfunding platform, only to discover the beneficiary's medical records were photoshopped and the hospital denied any admission—her trust exploited, her money vanished, and no platform refund policy applied because she had clicked “donate” without performing the basic pre-donation checks that would have exposed the fabrication within minutes.

Citizen Crisis Response Network is a pan-India volunteer coalition that documents fraud patterns, publishes verification protocols, and assists defrauded donors with statutory complaint pathways when crowdfunding platforms fail oversight obligations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and Information Technology Act 2000.

Before donating to any charity crowdfunding campaign in India (Ketto, Milaap, Impact Guru, BetterPlace), verify (1) beneficiary identity via Aadhaar-redacted documents, (2) hospital/institution name through direct call, (3) platform verification badge presence, (4) campaign creator's digital footprint and past campaigns, (5) financial goal justification with itemized bills, (6) withdrawal timeline and escrow status, and (7) updates frequency—any missing element is a red flag requiring escalation to platform grievance officer under IT Rules 2021 before payment authorization.

• Understanding crowdfunding platform obligations in India 2026
• The seven-point pre-donation verification framework
• Platform-specific verification tools: Ketto Milaap Impact Guru BetterPlace
• Medical fundraiser red flags and document forensics
• Statutory fraud provisions: BNS 2023 and IT Act 2000
• Government oversight: Ministry of Home Affairs and Income Tax exemptions
• When platforms refuse refunds: escalation pathways
• Sample RTI application to police on crowdfunding fraud
• Sample legal notice to crowdfunding platform
• Myth vs reality: donor protection in Indian crowdfunding
• Case study: Refund secured through consumer forum
• Frequently asked questions
• Last word: building a verification-first donor culture

Indian crowdfunding platforms operate as intermediaries under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000, read with the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. This classification imposes due diligence obligations: platforms must establish grievance redressal mechanisms, appoint resident grievance officers, and respond to user complaints within the timelines set in the IT Rules 2021.

However, most platforms disclaim liability through terms-of-service clauses stating they are “mere facilitators” and perform “reasonable verification” without guaranteeing campaign authenticity. This dual positioning—claiming intermediary safe harbour while collecting platform fees—creates an accountability gap that donors must bridge through independent verification.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 governs campaigns receiving international donations; platforms must ensure beneficiaries hold valid FCRA registration if accepting cross-border funds. Domestic-only campaigns fall outside FCRA but remain subject to Income Tax Act scrutiny under Sections 12A/80G if tax-exemption receipts are issued.

Critical platform obligations include:

1. KYC verification of campaign creators (Aadhaar/PAN)
2. Document authentication (medical records, hospital bills)
3. Escrow arrangement for withdrawn funds until campaign conclusion
4. Transparent fee disclosure before payment authorization
5. Active monitoring for copyright infringement and impersonation

Most citizens miss this — Platform verification badges (“Verified” or “Trusted”) indicate only that KYC documents were submitted, not that medical claims or financial need were independently audited by hospital site visits or chartered accountant certification.

Under the cheating provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, platforms may be exposed to abetment liability if they knowingly facilitate fraudulent campaigns after receiving credible complaints—an argument increasingly raised in first information reports, though its application to platforms remains to be tested in the higher courts.

1. Beneficiary identity verification

Request Aadhaar-redacted identity proof (front page with photo, name, masked digits). Cross-reference name against hospital admission records by calling the hospital's billing department directly. Ask: “Is [Name] currently admitted in [Department] under doctor [Name from campaign]?” Do not rely on platform-uploaded documents alone; scammers use Photoshop to alter government IDs.

2. Hospital or institution authentication

Visit the institution's official website and verify the landline number independently (not from the campaign page). Call and ask for patient admission status, estimated treatment cost, and whether the institution has authorized any crowdfunding campaign. Legitimate hospitals often have tie-ups with platforms; unauthorized campaigns are red flags.

3. Platform verification badge audit

Check if the campaign displays “Verified” or “KYC Complete” badges. On Ketto, look for the verification checkmark; on Milaap, the trust badge; on Impact Guru, the “Tax Benefits Available” indicator. Absence of badges means the creator may not have submitted identity documents—treat as a disqualifying signal pending confirmation.

4. Campaign creator digital footprint analysis

Click the creator's profile. Review past campaigns (if any), social media links, and account creation date. New accounts with zero prior campaigns and no social media presence indicate potential throwaway profiles used for one-time fraud. Legitimate creators usually have LinkedIn, Facebook, or institutional email addresses visible.

5. Financial goal justification and itemization

Examine the budget breakdown. Legitimate medical campaigns itemize: surgery cost (₹X), ICU charges (₹Y), medications (₹Z), hospital deposit (₹A). Vague goals like “₹10 lakh needed for treatment” without bill attachments are red flags. Request proforma invoices or hospital estimates via platform messaging before donating.

6. Fund withdrawal timeline and escrow status

Ask the platform's grievance officer (contact via email): “What is the withdrawal schedule for Campaign ID [X]? Are funds held in escrow until treatment completion?” Some platforms release funds incrementally upon milestone verification (e.g., surgery completion certificate); others release immediately, enabling misappropriation.

7. Campaign update frequency and donor communication

Review the “Updates” tab. Campaigns with zero updates post-launch, no photos, and no responses to donor queries are suspicious. Legitimate beneficiaries or authorized family members post regular updates, lab reports, and thank-you messages. Silent campaigns often indicate the creator has vanished post-withdrawal.

Trust signal — Campaigns with frequent updates, tagged photos from hospital wards (respecting patient privacy), and responsive comments sections are far more likely to be genuine. Sustained, verifiable communication is the single strongest indicator of legitimacy.

Ketto (www.ketto.org)

Ketto displays KYC and verification status on the campaign page. Where available, review the campaign's verification details and document-submission information before payment. Use Ketto's published grievance contact (listed on its “Contact” / “Terms” pages) to raise queries, and expect a response within the timeline mandated by the IT Rules 2021.

Milaap (www.milaap.org)

Milaap shows a trust/safety indicator on campaigns where the platform has taken verification steps such as contacting the hospital. Where a campaign has withdrawn money, check whether the funds-utilisation updates align with the stated treatment milestones. Use the grievance contact published on Milaap's website.

Impact Guru (www.impactguru.com)

Impact Guru offers direct-to-hospital payment for campaigns linked to certain partner hospitals, where funds transfer directly to the hospital account rather than to the beneficiary—a strong fraud-prevention feature. Where this option is shown, it is preferable. Use the grievance contact published on Impact Guru's website.

BetterPlace / NGO platforms

For NGO and institutional fundraising, verify the NGO's 80G registration via the Income Tax Department's exemption search tool (https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/). Campaigns for individuals on NGO-focused platforms are rarer; their presence usually indicates higher due diligence. Use the grievance contact published on the platform's website.

Do this immediately — Before clicking “Donate,” send a templated verification query to the platform's grievance officer: “Please confirm (1) beneficiary KYC completion date, (2) hospital authorization status, (3) fund escrow arrangement, (4) withdrawal history to date for Campaign ID [X]. I will proceed with donation upon receiving this information within the timeline mandated by the IT Rules 2021.”

Red flag checklist:

• Campaign created within 24 hours of alleged diagnosis or accident (insufficient time for treatment estimates)
• Goal amount in round figures (₹5 lakh, ₹10 lakh) without itemization
• Medical records with mismatched fonts, hospital logos in low resolution, or spelling errors in doctor's name
• Beneficiary's age/gender inconsistent between campaign text and ID proof
• Hospital named in campaign not visible on Google Maps or lacks online presence
• Creator refuses video call or in-person meeting requests from major donors
• Campaign photos sourced from stock image websites (reverse image search on Google Images)
• Zero social media posts by beneficiary's family members about the crisis (if public profiles exist)

Document forensics tools:

• Metadata analysis: Download uploaded PDFs/images and check EXIF data using tools like ExifTool (free, open-source). Legitimate hospital bills have creation dates matching treatment dates; scanned forgeries often show recent creation dates with Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Word metadata.
• Reverse image search: Upload campaign photos to Google Images or TinEye. If identical images appear on other campaigns or stock photo sites, the campaign is likely fraudulent.
• Hospital logo verification: Compare uploaded letterhead logos against the hospital's official website. Scammers use low-quality logos extracted from Google Images; authentic documents use high-resolution institutional branding.

Warning — Section 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 punishes forgery committed with the intention that the forged document be used for cheating with imprisonment that may extend to 7 years and fine. Fabricating medical records, hospital bills, or identity documents falls within this provision. Suspected forgeries can be reported to the Cyber Crime Portal (https://cybercrime.gov.in); donors should file independent complaints rather than rely on platforms to report.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS)

• Section 318: Cheating. General cheating is punishable under Section 318(2) with imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. Where cheating dishonestly induces a person to deliver property, Section 318(4) applies, with imprisonment that may extend to 7 years and fine. Crowdfunding fraud that induces donors to part with money falls within Section 318(4).
• Section 319: Cheating by personation—if the campaign creator impersonates a hospital employee, patient, or another person, Section 319 applies, with imprisonment that may extend to 5 years, or fine, or both.
• Section 336(3): Forgery for cheating—committing forgery with intent that the forged document be used for cheating (for example, fabricating medical records, hospital bills, or identity documents), punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.

Information Technology Act 2000 and Rules 2021

• Section 66D: Punishment for cheating by personation using a computer resource—imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh. Applies when fake campaigns use digital platforms to deceive donors.
• Section 43: Penalty and compensation for damage to a computer, computer system, etc.—where donors suffer loss connected to a platform's failure to maintain reasonable security practices, compensation claims may be considered.
• IT Rules 2021, Rule 3(1)(d): Intermediaries must remove unlawful content within 36 hours of an actual knowledge order from a court or appropriate government agency. Donors can escalate to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) if platforms ignore lawful takedown orders.

Consumer Protection Act 2019

• Unfair trade practice: Platforms charging fees without delivering promised verification services may face consumer complaints for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
• Pecuniary jurisdiction (as revised w.e.f. 30 December 2021): the District Commission hears complaints where the consideration paid does not exceed ₹50 lakh; the State Commission hears complaints above ₹50 lakh and up to ₹2 crore; the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) hears complaints above ₹2 crore.

Citizen tip — Cite Section 318(4) BNS 2023 and Section 66D IT Act 2000 in your police complaint. Many police stations initially refuse FIRs for online fraud, claiming “it's a civil dispute”; the duty to register an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence flows from Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) administers the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 via the FCRA portal (https://fcraonline.nic.in). Entities receiving foreign contributions must hold valid FCRA registration and report as required under the Act. Donors can verify an NGO's FCRA status by searching the registration number on this portal; unregistered entities cannot legally accept foreign contributions.

The Income Tax Department regulates tax-exemption claims under Sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961. If a crowdfunding campaign promises “80G tax benefits,” verify the institution's registration via the Income Tax portal's exemption-institution search tool (https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/). Issuing fake 80G certificates and false claims of deduction attract penal consequences under the Income Tax Act.

As a general rule under Indian tax law, donations to registered 80G institutions qualify for deduction, while contributions to individual beneficiaries (even for medical emergencies) typically do not, unless routed through a registered charitable trust that issues a valid 80G receipt with its PAN and registration number. Donors should confirm the campaign's trust details before assuming any deduction.

Most citizens miss this — Donations to individuals (even for medical emergencies) are generally not tax-deductible. Only donations to registered 80G trusts/NGOs qualify. If a campaign promises tax benefits without displaying trust details, treat the claim with caution.

Police escalation: The Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (https://cybercrime.gov.in) is the first point of contact for online fraud. After filing a complaint, obtain the acknowledgment number and follow up with the jurisdictional police station (beneficiary's or donor's residence, whichever applies) to convert the online complaint into an FIR under Section 173 BNSS 2023. Many states have dedicated Cyber Crime cells; ask for transfer to this specialized unit.

Step 1: Platform grievance officer complaint

Send a written complaint via email to the platform's grievance officer (names and contacts are published on the platform's “Terms of Use” or “Contact Us” pages per IT Rules 2021). Include:

1. Campaign URL and ID
2. Donation date, amount, transaction ID
3. Specific verification failures (e.g., “Hospital denies patient admission; medical record metadata shows document created post-campaign launch”)
4. Legal provisions: Section 318(4) BNS 2023, Section 66D IT Act 2000
5. Relief sought: full refund within the grievance-redressal timeline under the IT Rules 2021

Under the IT Rules 2021, the grievance officer must acknowledge and resolve complaints within the prescribed timelines. If there is no response, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2: Legal notice to platform

Engage a lawyer to send a legal notice invoking the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (unfair trade practice / deficiency of service) and the platform's obligations as an intermediary under the IT Act 2000. A sample template is in the next section. Send via registered post and email; retain acknowledgment.

Step 3: Consumer forum complaint

File a complaint before the appropriate consumer commission based on the value of the consideration: District Commission (up to ₹50 lakh), State Commission (above ₹50 lakh and up to ₹2 crore), or NCDRC (above ₹2 crore), under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Jurisdiction lies where the donor resides or works, or where the opposite party resides or carries on business. Court fees are nominal; you may self-represent with documentary evidence.

Step 4: Police FIR and Cyber Crime Portal

Simultaneously file an FIR under Sections 318(4) and 336(3) BNS 2023 at your local police station. If the police refuse, the aggrieved person may proceed under Section 175(3) of the BNSS 2023, applying to the Magistrate (supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4) BNSS) to direct an investigation. Register the complaint on the Cyber Crime Portal and escalate non-response through the appropriate grievance channels.

Step 5: Credit card chargeback

If the donation was made via credit card, initiate a chargeback within the window allowed by your card network/bank, citing “services not rendered” or “fraud.” Banks follow RBI guidelines on chargebacks; outcomes depend on the strength of supporting evidence (hospital denial letter, police FIR copy).

Do this immediately — Document all evidence contemporaneously: screenshot the campaign page, download all uploaded documents, print the platform's verification badge claims, record phone calls with the hospital (with consent where required), and save email correspondence. Courts heavily weight contemporaneous evidence; retrospective claims are weaker.

To,
The Public Information Officer,
[Jurisdictional Police Station Name],
[Address],
[City, State, PIN]

Subject: RTI application seeking information on investigation status of crowdfunding fraud FIR No. [X] dated [Date]

Respected Sir/Madam,

Under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, I request the following information:

1. Copy of FIR No. [X] dated [Date] registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3) BNS 2023 and Section 66D IT Act 2000 regarding crowdfunding fraud on [Platform Name] Campaign ID [Y].

2. Current status of investigation: whether charge-sheet filed, accused arrested, or case closed.

3. Copy of any communication sent by the investigating officer to [Platform Name] under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile CrPC Section 91) seeking campaign records.

4. Total number of crowdfunding fraud complaints received by this police station between January 2024 and March 2026, platform-wise breakup.

5. Names and designations of officers assigned to investigate FIR No. [X].

I am enclosing RTI application fee of ₹10 via [payment mode]. My contact details:

Name: [Your Name]
Address: [Full Address]
Mobile: [Number]
Email: [Email]

I request information within 30 days as mandated under Section 7(1) RTI Act 2005.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
Date: [Date]
Place: [City]

File this RTI if police are unresponsive after FIR registration. Use https://rtionline.gov.in for central government entities or your state's RTI portal for state police.

For assistance drafting RTI applications, use the RTI Assistant tool on RTI Wiki, and verify police responses using the PIO Reply Checker.

LEGAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 318(4) BNS 2023, SECTION 66D IT ACT 2000, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019

To,
The Grievance Officer / Managing Director,
[Platform Name] Pvt. Ltd.,
[Registered Office Address]
[City, State, PIN]

Email: [Grievance Officer Email]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Demand for refund of fraudulent donation—Campaign ID [X], Transaction ID [Y]

My client, [Your Name], residing at [Address], donated ₹[Amount] on [Date] to Campaign ID [X] titled "[Campaign Title]" on your platform, which has been conclusively proven fraudulent due to:

1. Hospital [Name] denying any patient admission matching beneficiary details.
2. Medical records uploaded bearing metadata showing creation date [Date], post-campaign launch.
3. Beneficiary identity documents failing reverse image search validation (found on stock photo website [Name]).

Despite written complaint dated [Date] to your grievance officer (email acknowledgment attached), your platform has failed to respond within the timeline mandated by the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021.

LEGAL LIABILITY:

1. Section 318(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: By hosting and promoting a fraudulent campaign while collecting a service fee, your platform may be exposed to liability connected with the cheating committed against donors.

2. Section 66D Information Technology Act 2000: Use of a computer resource for cheating by personation attracts imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh.

3. Consumer Protection Act 2019: Collecting service fees without performing the promised verification constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, actionable before the appropriate consumer commission.

DEMAND:

1. Full refund of ₹[Amount] within 15 days of receipt of this notice.
2. Written confirmation of campaign takedown and creator account suspension.
3. Disclosure of all KYC documents and withdrawal history for Campaign ID [X] for criminal prosecution.

NOTICE:

If compliance is not received within 15 days, my client shall:
- File a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 claiming compensation.
- File a criminal complaint and, if necessary, apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS 2023.
- Initiate civil proceedings for damages.
- Report non-compliance to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under the IT Rules 2021.

This notice is without prejudice to all legal rights and remedies available to my client.

Yours faithfully,
[Advocate Name]
[Enrollment Number]
[Address]
Date: [Date]
Place: [City]

Enclosures:
1. Donation receipt
2. Campaign screenshots
3. Hospital denial letter
4. Grievance complaint copy with acknowledgment

Send via registered post and email; retain acknowledgment for consumer forum evidence.

Warning — Platforms and fraudsters often push “donate now” urgency messaging (“Only 24 hours to save this child!”) to bypass donor due diligence. Genuine medical emergencies usually allow a couple of days for verification; artificial urgency is a manipulation tactic and a warning sign.

The following composite illustration shows how the consumer-forum route can work in practice. It is provided to explain the process, not as a report of any specific decided case.

Background: A donor contributes a substantial sum to a medical campaign for a child. After donating, the donor contacts the named hospital directly and discovers that no such patient exists; the campaign images turn out to be stock photographs reused from an unrelated source.

Action taken:

• Complained to the platform's grievance officer—no satisfactory response within the IT Rules timeline.
• Filed an FIR at the Cyber Crime police station under Sections 318(4), 336(3) BNS 2023 and Section 66D IT Act 2000.
• Sent a legal notice to the platform demanding a refund—the platform relied on its terms of service to deny liability.
• Filed a consumer complaint before the appropriate consumer commission, claiming a refund and compensation.

Evidence presented:

• Reverse image search results showing the campaign photos sourced elsewhere
• Hospital denial letter on official letterhead
• The platform's own marketing material promising “verified campaigns”
• A forensic report on the uploaded medical records showing editing metadata

Why it can succeed: Consumer forums assess whether the platform delivered the service it represented. Where a platform collects fees while performing inadequate verification, a consumer commission may treat this as deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and order a refund and compensation. Outcomes depend on the strength and contemporaneity of the evidence.

Key learning: The consumer-forum route is viable even when a platform denies a refund. Evidence quality (forensic reports, hospital letters) is decisive, and cases typically take several months from filing to order.

Trust signal — Sustained, verifiable communication from a beneficiary—regular updates, lab reports, responsive replies—remains the strongest practical indicator that a campaign is genuine.

Yes. Call the hospital's billing department directly (number from the hospital website, not the campaign page) and ask if patient [Name] is admitted, without revealing that you are considering a donation. Most hospitals confirm or deny admission status as it is not confidential medical information. Screenshot the campaign, perform reverse image searches, and analyse document metadata—all possible without payment.

Platforms are generally not obligated to refund donations to genuine campaigns where donor remorse is the reason (similar to a gift). However, if you can show the platform misrepresented its verification process or the campaign contains material inaccuracies, you may have grounds for a consumer complaint based on deficiency of service. Credit card chargeback is generally not available for a “changed mind” claim on a genuine campaign.

There is no statutory limitation for filing an FIR for a cognizable offence. However, evidence quality deteriorates over time (campaign pages get deleted, creators vanish). File the FIR immediately upon discovering fraud—within days, not months. Consumer complaints have a limitation period of two years from the cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

You can pursue both. The creator is primarily liable under Section 318(4) BNS 2023 for cheating; the platform may be liable for deficiency of service. Consumer complaints can implead both as opposite parties. A criminal FIR should name the creator as the accused, with the platform's role assessed on the evidence.

There is no central or state government public crowdfunding platform of this kind as of 2026. Some governments run relief-fund campaigns through private platforms, but verification standards remain platform-dependent. For medical emergencies, government schemes such as PM-JAY (Ayushman Bharat) provide a direct route subject to eligibility.

Recovery is uncertain and depends heavily on early detection, the strength of the evidence, prompt FIR registration, and pursuing the consumer-forum route. Credit card chargeback offers an additional avenue where the donation was made by card. Acting quickly and preserving evidence materially improves the odds.

UPI and net banking generally offer no chargeback mechanism. Credit cards provide a dispute window under RBI guidelines. Where possible, consider using a credit card for larger crowdfunding donations to retain the chargeback option. Document the transaction with screenshots immediately after payment; banks require contemporaneous evidence for fraud chargebacks.

Where appropriate, you can implead the company's directors and seek enforcement against them, and you should name all relevant parties in your initial complaint. If the platform is a foreign entity, enforcement may require recognition of the Indian decision in the foreign jurisdiction, which is more complex.

Crowdfunding has democratized philanthropy in India—but it has also opened the door to charity fraud. The gap between intermediary safe harbour under the IT Act and the protections a donor actually needs creates a verification vacuum that donor diligence has to fill.

Every donation to an unverified campaign risks funding fraud rather than a genuine beneficiary. But a few minutes of pre-donation verification meaningfully shrinks the space in which fraud operates.

The seven-point framework in this guide is not “nice to have”—it is basic civic hygiene. When donors collectively demand transparency, platforms have a stronger incentive to upgrade verification. When donors click “donate” under emotional pressure, that pressure is exactly what fraudsters exploit.

The Citizen Crisis Response Network helps volunteers conduct rapid campaign checks, shares fraud alerts, and points defrauded donors to statutory remedies. Learn more: https://righttoinformation.wiki/citizen-crisis-response-network. Before your next donation, remember Priya Mehta's loss—not to her misfortune, but to the decision to trust without verifying.

Statutory compliance is not the platform's alone—it is the donor's interest too. Section 318(4) BNS 2023 punishes cheating; but informed donors who demand accountability help prevent it in the first place. Verification is not paranoia; it is careful giving. In 2026, let every rupee donated be a rupee that reaches a genuine beneficiary.

Sources & internal links:

• Right to Information Act 2005 full guide: https://righttoinformation.wiki/rti-act-2005-complete-guide
• RTI Assistant tool for filing applications: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/rti-assistant
• PIO Reply Checker for evaluating responses: https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker
• Citizen Crisis Response Network hub: https://righttoinformation.wiki/citizen-crisis-response-network