Charities

[Ridgerunner]

As normal I found this thread too late. I'll still make my comments about overhead.

But first, you really do need to investigate the charity before you give them money or anything else. If you have certain criteria, you need to make sure they match your criteria. Plus there are a lot of scams out there. A common scam is to use a name very close to a recognized legitimate charity's name. Unless I know them for sure, I assume any phone call or any mailing I get is a scam until proven otherwise. And I don't work hard to prove otherwise. It's too easy to just hang up or throw it in the trash and stay with the ones I know.

I volunteer at a local organization that is 6 area churches of different denominations coming together to serve local people that need help. Overhead is very low. Everyone that works there is a volunteer. We use our own transportaion. Buildings, land, and such are donated through the churches or people. We still have to pay for insurance and utilities, such as that, but since no one draws a salary and we don't own or maintain any vehicles overhead is very low.

On the other hand, you get a place like St. Jude's. They do great work but their overhead is pretty high. They not only have a very expensive building with expensive equipment to purchase, upgrade and maintain, they pay a lot of expensive people a good salary. They need professional administrators, not volunteers to run it. I'm sure their insurance bill is quite high.

Administrative costs are a part of my criteria, but look at what they are doing with those administrative costs. Don't assume just because they look a little high that they are a scam. Sometimes there is a legitimate reason the administrative costs look high.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Capvin, speaking of research, did you do any research, like looking at some of the OP's previous posts, before making your comclusion? Just a thought.

 

[Capvin]

Ridgerunner, I did. And please understand that I have no problem with the social position that she believes in. You took the time to give a reasonable answer to her post, but to me, that is not what she was looking for. You legitimately addressed the concerns a lot of people have when contributing to a charity and that being, What are their administrative costs and how much of a percentage goes to the charity? That was not her point. Instead she claims she wants to find some charity that has no connection, no matter how remote, to her view and to get there she begins to list legitimate corporations who may, in some ultra conservative viewpoint, may have a remote connection and she takes to time to list them. These are not charities. Every Tuesday morning I load my truck with foodstuffs, canned goods and fresh produce that I get from the local farm and drive to my local foodbank. Tuesday is the day they give out the food. I do not make it a precondition for anyone to tell me their political or social position. It is enough that they are hungry. I still do not believe the posting but I am very willing to be proved wrong.

And you mention that wonderful institution, St Judes, started by Danny Thomas. Could you find a more worthy charity? However, Marlo Thomas, who has a direct connection to St. Judes is very liberal in her ideas regarding right to life so, following the OP logic, that is not a worthy charity.

 

[Ridgerunner]

St. Jude's may not meet Mom's criteria for administrative costs either. I didn't look it up to see what the percentage is. I seem to remember they spend a fair amount on fundraising which some would consider overhead. Part of overhead depends on what you count as overhead.

I didn't see anything in previous posts that supported a trend of trolling. Some political talk, but not really trolling. Maybe you read it differently that me.

When I see something I think is trolling on this forum, I tend to report it to the moderators and let them do their job instead of assuming the role of forum policeman. And I tend to ignore the post. If it is trolling, why feed them? If it is not trolling and I responded as you did, I'd consider that bad manners. I have enough trouble figuring out the inner motivations of people I know personally let alone a stranger on the internet.

 

[mom'sfolly]

The other thing with charities and other kinds of non-profits is that sometimes you have to look at them, see if their overall mission is something you can get behind, and either overlook the part that you don't agree with, or work to change them.

For me, Boy Scouts of America fits that description. My kids are involved in Scouting, my dh is a scout leader, and some of our money goes to scouting. I am not involved. The troop has asked me to be a merit badge counselor, but I can't reconcile my aversion to BSA's policy on gays with my volunteering. So I sign petitions, I write letters, I speak to my scout leaders, and I try to change the organization in my own small way. They do good for so many kids, including my own, that I cannot completely reject BSA; but I keep my involvement to a minimum. And the money I give goes to my local troop; to be used by people I like, admire and trust.

 

[chickened]

When giving there is something I read once that says "do not let the right hand see what the left hand is doing" giving is personal and is done for internal reasons not for a pat on the back.

On another note I think St. Jude is a great charity but really see no logic in why someone that supports abortion would give money to an organization that treats sick children, just doesn't make sense but I am sure some do.

 

[mom'sfolly]

Really, ChickenEd?

Just because someone is pro-choice or supports a group like Planned Parenthood doesn't mean they are anti-child. I cannot believe that you are that naive, so I can only assume you are looking for some kind of over reaction. You aren't going to find it here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The other thing with charities and other kinds of non-profits is that sometimes you have to look at them, see if their overall mission is something you can get behind, and either overlook the part that you don't agree with, or work to change them. 

For me, Boy Scouts of America fits that description.  My kids are involved in Scouting, my dh is a scout leader, and some of our money goes to scouting.  I am not involved.  The troop has asked me to be a merit badge counselor, but I can't reconcile my aversion to BSA's policy on gays with my volunteering.  So I sign petitions, I write letters, I speak to my scout leaders, and I try to change the organization in my own small way.  They do good for so many kids, including my own, that I cannot completely reject BSA; but I keep my involvement to a minimum.  And the money I give goes to my local troop; to be used by people I like, admire and trust.

I was a Boy Scout leader for years, even after my boys were out of the organization. I think Boy Scouts a good example of another point. There are many organisations we could use for this point.

There was recent publicity of child molesters in Scouting. Boy Scouts is basically a volunteer organisation. There are professional Scouters in administration that to try to keep the organisation on the path intended. The Scouting program when properly applied tries to set the boys up to be successful and teaches them responsibility by having the older boys do a lot of the organizing and training within the troop. This method is so good that any boy that earns Eagle and then joins the military gets an immediate rank promotion. They have learned to be leaders.

But the Boy Scouts collects boys in one location and puts them in contact with volunteers. This collection of boys is a tempting target for child molestors, just like a playground sports team, many school groups, or any other organisation that works with kids. The Scouts have a basic rule that is pounded in during required training. No adult is to be left alone with any one kid. There always has to be either another adult or another kid present. That protects the adult from false charges as well as the kid from a predator. But you are dealing with humans, some of whom don't follow the rules and some that can find a way around the rules.

There are occasional failures. Considering the size of the organisation and the type of things they do, it is surprising to me that there are not more failures. I don't condemn the entire organisation because of the failure of a few people. It's a judgment call. If those failures become a trend, then I'd change my opinion.

 

[Capvin]

I don't think Mom was talking about the danger of predators in scouting. Her comment was quite different and you seemed to ignore it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I had no comment on hers. I agree with her. I was making a totally different point, just using her reference to Boy Scouts as a segue.

I'm still talkling about the OP's topic, how you rate charities. Different people have different criteria.