Sadly, you completely missed the point. While it is true that you must watch closely to whom you give, it is at least as important to consider what you give, and whether it's really such a good idea at all.
A flood of donated second-hand clothes from the first world practically killed off Africa's textile industry, and its peasants are starving because of free food from the United Nations—who can compete with free goods?
Not only that, but people are being entangled into a dangerous dependency. If their own industry is kept low and their markets non-competitive, they are dependent on a steady flow of aid. This not only applies to food and clothing. Developed nations provide third-world countries with roads, water supply and medical infrastructure for free, but when the aid dries off the infrastructure will collapse because no-one can provide upkeep and maintenance.
Aid organizations often boast about the jobs they create. But what good are those jobs if they are paid by charity alone? Even worse yet, these jobs keep invaluable skilled workers from entering the local job market, where they could help close the divide between developed and third-world countries.

I'm not proposing not to help at all—of course not. But helping people is much more difficult than simply throwing food, money and power plants at them. Such measures mainly help aid organizations and their affiliates.
Build infrastructure, but make them pay fees. Help them to fight corruption, so that their taxes are put to good use. Educate people. Provide troops to put an end to violence, so that the country can start to rebuild itself. They always say "teach a man to fish."