Sometimes Charities Make me Sick

[wolfigor]

Ooh!

Rotary International (warning, link has automatic sound )

General Manager $156,699 (0.06% )

Program Expenses (89.6%)
Administrative Expenses (3.2%)
Fundraising Expenses (7.0%)

not bad, really not bad!

 

[Yeekim]

Returns above anything else? You really think that is the most adequate mindframe for people running a charity?

If I established a charity, I'd be interested in the largest possible % of the donations being spent on the services I want to deliver. If I am, for instance, interested in helping the starving, I'd want to assure as much donations are raised as possible and that food is delivered to those really in need while it is still fresh.
Sense dictates that the more competent manager I can get, the better results I can expect in this regard
What if no competent managers are willing to work for free?

Should I say: "screw that, that's a principle thing!" and get some useless busybody who shouldn't be running a shrimp stall - but is free?

EDIT: Also, how do I know that the guy who agrees to work for free isn´t counting on skimming my funds? Should I hire someone to watch after him? What if no-one competent wishes to do that for free?

 

[BvBPL]

Re: Rotary International

Rotarians, Masons, K of C members, and the like do perform charitable works as part of their organizations, but they are fraternal organizations, not charities, so they can't really be held to the same account.

Plus, a lot of the charity work that fraternal organizations do perform is hands-on donation of labor, rather than money.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can you (or someone) expand upon that? If the charities are operational (low expenses) because volunteering is a major component, I'd imagine that's a good thing for the charities. Are you saying I won't get good bang-for-my-buck by donating to Rotary, because they're a fraternal organization?

 

[Samson]

That charity navigator is a good site. Anyone know of a more global one?

I found this charity, a tiny one, but intereseting:

HomeAid Orange County
Building hope and homes for the homeless

Revenue
Primary Revenue $489,970
Other Revenue $538,538
Total Revenue $1,028,508
Note: This organization receives $0 in government support.

Expenses
Program Expenses $361,851
Administrative Expenses $211,675
Fundraising Expenses $614,976
Total Functional Expenses $1,188,502

Excess (or Deficit) for the year $-159,994

Scott Larson Executive Director $139,800 11.76%

 

[Patroklos]

My girlfriend works for a charity, she doesn't volunteer for a charity.

At some point charities figured out that you don't get the best talent from volunteers, or rather you might get the best talent but you get it as a secondary effort from their free time instead of their full effort.

Given that, they decided they can make more money by hiring professionals to augment their volunteers and despite the higher salaries still make more money than they did without those professionals.

My girlfriend is an event planner, she could care less if she was hired by a catering company, an event venue or a charity. She just wanted a job that utilizes and pays for her skill. It just so happens that she got the best offer from a charity.

 

[wolfigor]

Re: Rotary International

Rotarians, Masons, K of C members, and the like do perform charitable works as part of their organizations, but they are fraternal organizations, not charities, so they can't really be held to the same account.

Plus, a lot of the charity work that fraternal organizations do perform is hands-on donation of labor, rather than money.

Still they are extremely efficient with the money: the bucks you give them are used at the best and not wasted.

T
I found this charity, a tiny one, but intereseting:

HomeAid Orange County
Building hope and homes for the homeless

Revenue
Primary Revenue $489,970
Other Revenue $538,538
Total Revenue $1,028,508
Note: This organization receives $0 in government support.

Expenses
Program Expenses $361,851
Administrative Expenses $211,675
Fundraising Expenses $614,976
Total Functional Expenses $1,188,502

Excess (or Deficit) for the year $-159,994

Scott Larson Executive Director $139,800 11.76%

They are really horrible!

I think that any charity using only 30% of their budget for their programs should be banned and probably investigated for fraud.

 

[innonimatu]

There is one extremely disturbing thing which people are automatically assuming in this discussion: that a charitable organization should have as its goal to perpetuate itself. Thus all the talk about good leaders, etc.

Why is this disturbing? Lets consider an organization created with the aim of relieving hunger in a certain area. A "good leader" should put an end to hunger, or instead work with the aim of maintain hungry people in order to justify the continued existence of the organization? Hell, why not increase hunger in order to increase the side and power of the organization - and by extension of its leader?
As most charitable organizations are about relieving the suffering or inadequacy of something you can imagine where this logic would lead... the perpetuation of said suffering!
Do note that this kind of behavior is the standard management behavior encouraged by business schools. Increase the size and power of the organization (here manifesting in the insistence on increasing efficiency in charities and getting "more for the buck"), morality be damned? Very appropriate to charity, sure...

A good leader of a charitable organization should work towards extinguishing the need for his organization, and putting himself out of a job. That is entirely incompatible with the mercenary business management attitude.

The Laws of Evolution (as applied to economics) have already spent six thousand years of recorded history proving that wrong. Good leaders cannot be replaced by anybody except a better leader. History is full of incidents where good leaders were removed from their posts, after which the organization from which they were removed, promptly failed.

There is no such thing as a law of evolution. But do feel free to try to enunciate one, if you want. As for history proving anything... history is full of incidents where good leaders were removed and organizations carried on. And unless you believe that either your evolution is continuously producing ever-better leaders, or that all institutions fail, you can bet that a good leaders can and have been replaced by worse ones.

You lost the argument the instant you wrote that. The argument "Anybody who disagrees with X is a fool" is never acceptable in a debate.

Yeah, I'm a really bad man, I never shy from telling the truth as I see it!

Should I say: "screw that, that's a principle thing!" and get some useless busybody who shouldn't be running a shrimp stall - but is free?

Yes, you should. Or for the median ware anyway, if that person had no other wealth or source of income. And that's a matter of principle to me.

 

[Yeekim]

There is one extremely disturbing thing which people are automatically assuming in this discussion: that a charitable organization should have as its goal to perpetuate itself. Thus all the talk about good leaders, etc.

...

A good leader of a charitable organization should work towards extinguishing the need for his organization, and putting himself out of a job. That is entirely incompatible with the mercenary business management attitude.

Would you say the same about project management, where manager's purpose is equally "putting himself out of job"?

 

[Disgustipated]

I would think if it is a large charity, it would be nearly as difficult to run as a large business, and the CEO should get paid similarly, no?

What are some good charities. I simply won't donate when I'm alive, but I would like to put some in my will, and donate heavily upon my death.

 

[BvBPL]

Still they are extremely efficient with the money: the bucks you give them are used at the best and not wasted.

Absolutely! Fraternal organizations are great and deserve our recognition and support. However, people shouldn’t give to the Rotarians with the expectation that the funds given to them will be used in the same manner as a charity. Donations to fraternal organizations will go to support the organization primarily, which, in many cases, is a worthwhile cause, but such donations do not amount to a donation to a charity.

For those of your unfamiliar with fraternal organizations, consider comparing them to scouting, which is itself a subset of fraternal organizations. Scouting organizations do great charitable work, but they are not charities. Your donation to the scouts, or to any fraternal organization, will go primarily to support the organization.

That said, it should be noted that many fraternal organizations set up charities related to their organization. Your donation directly to the Shriners or the Oddfellows will be used to support the organization, but donations to the Shriners’ Hospital For Children or the Oddfellows Fund for Putting Pants on Pantless Children (OFFPPPC) should be considered charitable. You should expect said charities to put the funds to use in a manner consistent with other charities.

Notable, the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars referenced in the email quoted in the first post are also fraternal organizations. Again, absolutely worth supporting and they do great work, but you will have to understand that your donation to the VFW will be used, in some manner, to support the VFW hall that pours cheap drafts for vets. Of course the same hall will probably be used as a meeting ground for members to help elderly vets and widows with their taxes. (and, on occasion, the hall will be rented out for weddings and punk rock shows, but that’s neither here nor there.)

 

[Samson]

They are really horrible!

I think that any charity using only 30% of their budget for their programs should be banned and probably investigated for fraud.

You think that is bad. I found this one that only uses 2.2% of its expenditure towards program expenses. And this is working on links between the police and the wider community, so you would imagine it has some sort of public exposure. You have to suspect corruption.

 

[innonimatu]

...

Would you say the same about project management, where manager's purpose is equally "putting himself out of job"?

Charities, alas, especially the ones being discussed here, were never treated as projects.

And speaking of project managers, they're usually assigned to that role by the organization they work for, and reassigned upon completion. Finishing the project does not put them out of a job. Not finishing it on time may do so.

 

[Ayatollah So]

That charity navigator is a good site. Anyone know of a more global one?

I like GiveWell because they rate effectiveness, not just efficiency. For example, for charities that are out to save lives and improve health, they'll ask how many deaths and major illnesses prevented per dollar - not just what proportion of the dollar is spent on programs.

Edit:

Your dollar goes further when you fund the right program. Let's say you've settled on the cause you care about, for example HIV/AIDS in Africa, and you're ready to choose a charity. Depending on the approach and charity you choose, the impact of your donation will vary widely, from (a) $150 to prevent a case of HIV/AIDS to (b) $1,500-$5,500 to treat (not cure) the disease for 10 years, or (c) no impact at all if you support programs that just don't work or charities that don't run their programs well.

That's probably a better explanation than mine.