Charities as a Whole - Shams? (Cleveland: closing, salaries, office)

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

Read the audit. Reputable nonprofits go through an independent audit; most post them on their own websites, or on GuideStar.

Ours, btw, is 4 percent.

What is yours? That is a very good rate. 96% to the actual charity is outstanding, and close to what I would expect from a true non-profit. I guess I am just too contrasted that many non-profits are not charitable but just another way to escape paying taxes.

[Ohioan58]

I used to send out a batch of cards from the American Heart Association every year to people on my street. The Heart Assoc. would pressure and guilt me into accepting the batch of mailings every year (I had to pay the postage myself to send the donation letters out to neighbors.)

The briar losers on my street never, ever donated a penny, not even after one year when I inserted a personal note in the envelope stating that I believed in the charity after losing my mother.

With the exception of one stand-up fellow that used to live across the street from us, who would donate every year. He gave the house to his kid and that young couple now there has *never* donated. (Spoiled brats.)

So what we have done with Heart Assoc. for the last two years is to throw away the mailers that they continued to send out and we donate something ourselves and feign that we sent out the mailers. It's easier than arguing that we never get anything with their phone rep that calls us. You can't get them to shut up or leave you alone.

So I have been in the position of soliciting donations. I have done so on a personal level and it's been bupkis in return.

Ohiogirl, the problem with entertaining a phone solicitation from someone that is calling from a new charity is that the donor has no opportunity to research the charity. You're supposed to make a spot decision right there. You can't say maybe or send me something, they are in sales mode and want that pledge now.

Since I was ignored by people that somewhat knew of me for soliciting donations, in return I feel absolutely no responsibility to listen to a spiel from someone I do not know.

I think most people are selfish idiots, I am less selfish than average, and I'll hang up whenever I please, because I do enough to benefit society.

[Sarah Perry]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

As a fundraisier for a nonprofit social service organization, I would encourage you all to:

a) Don't dismiss a charity just because it's a charity. Some of us do very good work, and do the best we can with the resources we have.
b) Investigate the charities you're interested in donating to. The nonprofit's website, CharityChannel, and GuideStar are good sources of information. Ask questions. Call the nonprofit and ask to speak to the development director.
c) All nonprofit organizations have administrative expenses: rent, utilities, salaries for the executive director and other mangers who provide oversight and guidance to the people who work directly with clients, and salaries for people who pay the bills and handle personnel and payroll. There's nothing wrong with this; these people help the nonprofit organization run more smoothly and allow people who are best at working directly with clients spend more of their time doing so. An acceptable threshold for administrative expenses is 15 percent or less.

Thank you.

You make very good points, and I didn't intend my posting describing my own personal approach to charitable giving to be insulting to nonprofits in general or to the people who work for them. In fact, I've spent most of my working life involved with various types of nonprofits.

That said, my household already receives as many as 10 or 12 unwanted phone calls a day, and I simply don't want to be solicited at this point in my life. And my church does offer me a more or less ideal avenue for helping others. If it didn't happen to be so directly focused on aid to the less fortunate, I might have a different attitude about more secular charities.

[Sarah Perry]

I don't like the Heart Association thing, because I feel pressured to be neighborly. I have no particular desire to contribute to that particular charity, but I always write out a small check when the inevitable envelope arrives from the neighbor up the street.

That reminded me that perhaps my aversion to solicitation began during my years working an an office when the pressure to "meet our United Way goal" could get really intense. Now, THAT is a tactic I do find extremely objectionable. The individual who decides if you get a raise or promotion arm-twisting you to sign back part of your paycheck. I honestly think it should be illegal.

[Joeytraveler]

After reading this and other posts the one thing I'm grateful for is not having a land line.

[houstonlol]

yeah, most charities are a sham. the bigger the charity, the bigger the sham. for example, red cross has about 20% in admin fees and another 20% in travel fees. Their executive gets paid over 1 million dollars. You're trying to help some poor people iwth their b ellies sticking out and flies all over their faces, but in reality, you're paying for some wealthy fat cat's trip to bermuda.

Same iwth american cancer society. There's tons of cancer cures out there, but the cancer society only laughs at you if you even so much as inquire about them, doesn't do any research into them, and spends most of their money on administration and ceo salaries. Their CEO got over 2 million. What little research does get done is for the super expensive stuff that is beyond anyone's reach, such as radiation....meanwhile, they don't tell you that cancer cells feed on sugar and that if you eat a diet high in sugar you're feeding your cancer.

[WILWRadio]

The Salvation Army is reputable. They are the only major organization that I will contribute to. Years ago a study was done showing just how many of the major charity organizations gave more than 75% of their contributions directly to the charity itself. Only a few including the Salvation Army actually gives at least 75% of the money raised back to the community. Most are well under that and yes, in my eyes, should be considered scams.

[kjbrill]

I aqree with the comment on the United Way. One year the president of the company I worked for agreed to be the resident in charge for the United Way. Next thing I know I am being giving a list for people to solicit for the United Way. They were all doctors with practices in the area. After my attempts, what were my contributions - zero.

But then we come back home. Did I feel pressured to contribute to the United Way - you Betcha! Did I feel it had a bearing on my promotions and salary - you Betcha! Do I feel this is ethical or even legal - NO!

This is part of the reason I have a negative attitude toward charitable organizations. Many of their tactics are subject to scrutiny. Coercing people though their workplace is to me a big NO NO!

[Ohioan58]

^ United Way is absolutely evil.

Good thing that this kind of donation pressure has collapsed with the engineered and deliberate removal of good career level jobs from our society. It was always larger employers who did the United Way almost-mandatory donation thing with veiled threats if you did not contribute anything.

The smaller businesses and sweatshops couldn't care less because they don't have a big public image to uphold.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by Ohioan58

Ohiogirl, the problem with entertaining a phone solicitation from someone that is calling from a new charity is that the donor has no opportunity to research the charity. You're supposed to make a spot decision right there. You can't say maybe or send me something, they are in sales mode and want that pledge now.

If they have no material to send you, or won't send you anything, then you are wise to dismiss their pitches. If they won't answer your questions, or offer to get back to you with answers, then you are wise to dismiss their pitches. Reputable charities these days want to be transparent.

Originally Posted by Sarah Perry

That reminded me that perhaps my aversion to solicitation began during my years working an an office when the pressure to "meet our United Way goal" could get really intense. Now, THAT is a tactic I do find extremely objectionable. The individual who decides if you get a raise or promotion arm-twisting you to sign back part of your paycheck. I honestly think it should be illegal.

I didn't dislike the United Way until I worked for a United Way agency. So much of its model is just wrong.

Originally Posted by WILWRadio

The Salvation Army is reputable. They are the only major organization that I will contribute to. Years ago a study was done showing just how many of the major charity organizations gave more than 75% of their contributions directly to the charity itself. Only a few including the Salvation Army actually gives at least 75% of the money raised back to the community. Most are well under that and yes, in my eyes, should be considered scams.

You have to more precisely define "directly to the charity itself" and "back to the community" before making your decision to donate or not to donate. Do you mean that the charity spends more than 75 percent of its contributions on programming? If so, that's pretty good. People who run the charity's programming have to be paid, after all, and those salaries do indeed give "back to the community" in the form of services provided to the clients. Do you mean that the charity spends more than 75 percent of its contributions on salaries? Whose salaries -- staff members who work directly with clients, or the administrative staff?