Slashdot Mirror

The National Children's Cancer Society has 14% of its expenses as fundraising. It gets two stars on the CharityNavigator review -- see http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4168.htm

By contrast, the CureSearch National Childhood Cancer Foundation (four stars) spends half that amount on fundraising, yet manages a program of the same size. See http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4167.htm

The National Children's Cancer Society has 14% of its expenses as fundraising. It gets two stars on the CharityNavigator review -- see http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4168.htm

By contrast, the CureSearch National Childhood Cancer Foundation (four stars) spends half that amount on fundraising, yet manages a program of the same size. See http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4167.htm

Public libraries, public schools, and public universities should all be shut down.

Separation of School & State

Charities should fund these services for those who cannot afford them themselves. The free market will weed out inefficient charities. There is no choice with a monolithic government. We can casr a vote for chief (assuming the vote is not lost in the black box of voting), but cannot vote with our wallets on a daily basis on individual products and services. Instead, the government removes the money from our wallets at the point of a gun.

If you're US-centric, CharityNavigator usualy has some good information on pretty much everyone, including percentages of monies raised that go to Program expenses, and so on.

For example, Plan USA has a working capital ratio of about half a year, negative reveneue growth, and positive expense growth - meaning that they're short on cash. Their overall score was a 42 out of 70. The ran a defecit of 3.4 mil last year, although they have reported assets of over 20 mil.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4337.htm

Plan USA got 2 out of 4 stars from CharityNavigator.org http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/sear ch.summary/orgid/4337.htm

Also http://www.charitynavigator.org/

How would I know where their money goes? They refuse to file financial reports like most charities by claiming a religious exemption. I demand transparency before any charitable organization reasonably expect any cash from me.

The AIP did eventually get the Salvation Army to do some disclosure, but it was back in 1998. But other religious charities, like Christian Aid regularly release their financial statements without a hassle.

Charities exist in a privilaged place in tax law that can easily be abused. So, with the privilage of not paying taxes, charities need to be transparent with their finances. The Salvation Army's use of religious exemption is unacceptable.

How would I know where their money goes? They refuse to file financial reports like most charities by claiming a religious exemption. I demand transparency before any charitable organization reasonably expect any cash from me.

The AIP did eventually get the Salvation Army to do some disclosure, but it was back in 1998. But other religious charities, like Christian Aid regularly release their financial statements without a hassle.

Charities exist in a privilaged place in tax law that can easily be abused. So, with the privilage of not paying taxes, charities need to be transparent with their finances. The Salvation Army's use of religious exemption is unacceptable.

I know we're drifting way offtopic but...

There are websites that rate charities based on how effective they are and their "rate of return" (eg. what % of $ goes to the actual cause vs. administrative costs). One is Charity Navigator. This might help you find charities that are worth your time/money. Not that I'd stop you from setting up your own foundation so you could see exactly where the money is going!

They don't involve prison terms for tax evasion but they do involve a loss of respect, influence, and social status.

I can claim that I donated $50,000 to charity last year and be praised and admired -- even though I did no such thing. Or did you mean that really wealthy people whose huge donations make the headlines would enjoy incresed respect, influence, and social status? I mean, they are rich, so, as a right-winger, you probably think that entitles them to more status, influence, and respect than the rest of us enjoy.

What makes you think that a federal tax cut would have a significant impact on what private charities receive? You probably got one of those $300 bribe checks cut by the Bush administration. Did your charitable donations go up by $300 that year? Did most people's? Hell no. They put it into their own bank accounts or bought things for themselves. Damned few put it towards charitable causes.

The private systems are much more efficient than the public systems.

What a load of bull. Why don't you read this article and then come back to discuss efficiency? You have a funny definition of "efficient." I guess you think that a charity that takes in $1000 and gives $1000 to a single crack addict is 100% efficient. I do not. Efficiency is not measured by simply determining what percentage of the money goes to the poor. It's also measured by how fairly the charity gives out that aid. If a charity gives two winter coats to 50 homeless people and 50 others freeze to death, that charity is not efficient -- even if none of their donations went to overhead.

Private charities are rife with corruption. Just look at the scandals at private charities like The United Way, The American Red Cross, and others and that becomes obvious. The President of the United Way gets paid almost $500,000 per year in salary and other compensation. How is that efficient?

They also don't give aid out uniformly and fairly. That makes it much easier to claim to be efficient. There's no cost associated with assuring that benefits are doled out fairly. A private charity can "cherry-pick" who receives aid. A Mormon charity can decide that it's going to only help poor in the local Mormon community. Another charity can decide that helping poor, urban, black people is 'not their thing' and no one can do anything about it. Many of the charities take a paternalistic approach where they basically adopt some down-and-out families and lavish assistance on them -- ignoring the needs of others in the area. If you live in a populous area, there may be a privately run "soup kitchen." If you are homeless in rural Nebraska, you're out of luck.

In fact, the public systems often are socially perverse, trapping the poor and not letting them progress. Forget about the stupid greedheads, don't you have compassion for the poor?

What a bunch of right-wing backwards-speak: "If you care about the poor, demand that the government stop providing them aid." If you have a problem with the way that the government administers the programs, then reform the programs. Don't cut them based on some unproven claim that the private sector will be step in and provide a safety net for all. In fact, social spending by the government began because private sector charities were not able to do the whole job.

I don't want someone to have to listen to some Christian sermon in order to get a meal. I don't want someone in North Dakota starving to death because he's in an area not served by any of the private charities. I don't want some family to become homeless because they were not poor enough to make the charities feel good about helping them. Yes, I have compassion for the poor, but, apparently, you do not.

Keep paying your taxes. Support government spending on social programs. If you have specific suggestions to improve the efficiency of those programs, then contact your elected representatives and pass those suggestions on. But don't put the lives of millions of people at risk based on your false claim that private charities would take up all of the slack.