Sometimes Charities Make me Sick

[JollyRoger]

I sometimes have nonprofits as clients. Should I bill them at my standard rate or give them a below market rate or give them my services for free?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Salvation Army's Commissioner Todd Bassett receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.

Salvation Army? 96% What a scam! Guess who tops this list?

10 Infuriatingly Greedy Charities

The Salvation Army portrays itself as a humble religious charity, doing missionary work that reflects the gospel of Jesus. In reality, the SA is very much a business, and despite its “not for profit” status and evangelizing, the organization does fairly well for itself. Because the Salvation Army is a church, it’s exempt from declaring its revenues. In addition, the organization owns an unknown amount of high-end real estate, in which it houses its high-ranking officers; some of the houses go for upwards of $900,000. They’ve also been accused of selling off properties that have been bequeathed to them for profit, even displacing poor and vulnerable populations to do so. In England, the SA came under public scrutiny when it teamed up with the textile company Kettering Textiles Limited to run a recycled clothing scheme; it earned the organization about $26 million, and the business’s directors a combined $16 million over three years.

The SA is also not a fan of turning the other cheek. In 2006, the SA went to court with Greenpeace over the latter’s share of a $264 million dollar estate. The estate, according to the will of its owner, Hector Di Stefano, was to be divided equally among eight charities upon his death. Because of a clerical error, the Salvation Army demanded that Greenpeace was not entitled to its share of the bequest, and that the $33 million should instead be divided equally to the other beneficiaries named in the will, itself included. The two organizations eventually settled out of court. 


In many of the counties around here they even now run the prison parole programs, at great profit to their "tax-exempt" organization.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I just don't buy into the very idea that the more money you pay for somebody to run a charitable organization, the better on how that organization utilize their purse in a cost efficient way. To me that defeat the purpose of what a charitable organization actually stands for.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I sometimes have nonprofits as clients. Should I bill them at my standard rate or give them a below market rate or give them my services for free?

I think it depends on how generous you're feeling and the financial means of the nonprofit.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think it depends on how generous you're feeling and the financial means of the nonprofit.

If I am give away my time, there are plenty of individuals in more need of my services than an entity. If they don't have the financial means to pay me, then they don't have the financial means to do much charitable work.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Big nonprofits require executive talent just like any other business. Even the highest salaries listed in the OP are well below base pay for the CEOs of large companies. Plus, as the executive of a nonprofit, you are missing out on stock options and the like.

For those of you holding up the guy managing $2 billion on $13,000 per year - should you be making way less than $13,000 a year because you do not manage $2 billion?

Sure, when you donate, you should perhaps consider how much of your dollar is going to the cause. But also think of how much of your dollar when making a purchase from a for-profit company goes to profit rather than salary and overhead. The amount going to the cause represents the "profit" of a nonprofit.

That doesn't make any sense.

When you buy a good or service from a for-profit company, you are doing it because you want the good or service. The profit is irrelevant--you think the good or service is worth the price tag.

When you donate to a charity, you are doing so in order to advance a particular cause. If you give to a soup kitchen or food pantry, it's to feed the poor. So you want as much of your dollar as possible to go to providing that food for the needy, not to go to some fat cat executive compensation package.

Further, the money that actually feeds the poor is NOT profit. It doesn't sit in the bank account. It doesn't disappear into anyone's pocket. The money that provides the service is an expense and is more analogous to cost of goods sold in the for-profit world.

 

[JollyRoger]

That doesn't make any sense.

When you buy a good or service from a for-profit company, you are doing it because you want the good or service. The profit is irrelevant--you think the good or service is worth the price tag.

When you donate to a charity, you are doing so in order to advance a particular cause. If you give to a soup kitchen or food pantry, it's to feed the poor. So you want as much of your dollar as possible to go to providing that food for the needy, not to go to some fat cat executive compensation package.

Further, the money that actually feeds the poor is NOT profit. It doesn't sit in the bank account. It doesn't disappear into anyone's pocket. The money that provides the service is an expense and is more analogous to cost of goods sold in the for-profit world.

The point I was making is that if for profit companies do not have huge net income when compared to net revenue, why should be expect nonprofits (with lesser talent leading them) to do much better? You still have salaries and overhead.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

If I am give away my time, there are plenty of individuals in more need of my services than an entity. If they don't have the financial means to pay me, then they don't have the financial means to do much charitable work.

You could also argue that if someone isn't successful enough to be able to do pro bono work for a charity, they would be better served by someone who is.

 

[JollyRoger]

You could also argue that if someone isn't successful enough to be able to do pro bono work for a charity, they would be better served by someone who is.

That is true. I am just a solo lawyer that cannot devote too much time to pro bono, so my pro bono requires some faairly tough decision making. A big firm can afford to have lawyers do nothing but pro bono and can have each of its hundreds of lawyers do a little bit, thus allowingthem to broaden their pro bono base. Still, I bet most big firms in the country apply hefty billing rates to their typical non-profit client.

 

[Colonel]

Well, even as much as I would like people to give more to military charities I can't say it is bad to give to other charities. After all the whole idea is that you give to things you support. Also on a second note regarding the OP. I'm actually quite shocked that an Army guy would forward an email that bashes the American Red Cross, those people are the ones who can get messages to military folk no matter where they are in the world if a family emergency happens (ie deaths, serious medical emergencies, etc). Based on those messages people tend to get on the next plane back home.

 

[G-Max]

you can buy a rolls for 5000 pounds.

How much is that in kilograms?

 

[cardgame]

Well, even as much as I would like people to give more to military charities I can't say it is bad to give to other charities. After all the whole idea is that you give to things you support. Also on a second note regarding the OP. I'm actually quite shocked that an Army guy would forward an email that bashes the American Red Cross, those people are the ones who can get messages to military folk no matter where they are in the world if a family emergency happens (ie deaths, serious medical emergencies, etc). Based on those messages people tend to get on the next plane back home.

Didn't the Red Cross try to help the insurgents in the Middle East? Or am I confusing that with a different organization?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Didn't the Red Cross try to help the insurgents in the Middle East? Or am I confusing that with a different organization?

The International Red Cross. I remember we covered it in high school in the global class. But they're neutral which is why.

 

[BasketCase]

I mean c'mon, what kind of society are we living in, where even the charities are full of greedy bastards.

I've got the answer to this one.

Consider if you will: the human brain. The brain is, for all intents and purposes, a greedy CEO. It does nothing, and produces nothing. All the brain does is tell everybody else what to do. Yet the brain receives 20% of the entire body's blood supply. Why? Because the brain is the most important part.

And there ya have it. Being the figurative brain, and coordinating the activities of an entire organization (whether a business or a charity--doesn't matter) takes a lot of work. Without the brain, the body dies.

Given the choice between imperfect charity, and no charity at all, which would you prefer? Sure, you could write a check yourself--if you could actually find, for example, a disaster victim to give money to. That's assuming you can verify on your own that the person you're donating to is an actual disaster victim and not a scammer. The inefficient bureaucracy is something the charitable people of the world are just going to have to deal with.

 

[innonimatu]

Without the brain, the body dies.

Without the body, or any number of its pieces, the brain dies...

 

[classical_hero]

Anyone who thinks that 100% of your money will go out, are deluding themselves. You have too look at the overall scheme of things and the percentage of funds that go out and then what good they actually do.

 

[GoodGame]

In the past when I've donated to charities, I've looked the Charity navigator website and the BBB website to see how they are rated.

 

[dIZZyBlIZZy]

Anyone who thinks that 100% of your money will go out, are deluding themselves. You have too look at the overall scheme of things and the percentage of funds that go out and then what good they actually do.

True, but when you donate time instead, at least you know very quickly if it's being used properly.

 

[carmen510]

Without the body, or any number of its pieces, the brain dies...

You can cut off the limbs and remove most of the organs; so long as you have a medical ventilator & blood circulation machine (government or donors) and nutrients that can be absorbed by the "body" (money), the brain will live. Granted, you would never call such an organization "healthy", but it's just a hypothetical.

Management skills (read: executives) are quite important for large charities. There are only so many people with the skills necessary to run something as large as UNICEF or the Red Cross, and most of those people would prefer to go into corporations or private business where returns are much higher. Unless you give these people a larger incentive (besides helping their fellow man; you may want to help out, but you'd likely take several million a year rather than help starving African children if the figure was high enough), they simply won't come. I constantly see management positions open in NGOs and non-profits, because there aren't enough executives.

 

[MobBoss]

I sometimes have nonprofits as clients. Should I bill them at my standard rate or give them a below market rate or give them my services for free?

Actually, I'm fairly sure your bar membership rules dictate the number of pro bono hours you need to do as a member of the bar, doesnt it?