It has been publicized that our economic state has affected many charity organizations. I was fairly consistent contributor to several organizations; American Lung, Heart, Leukemia, Alzheimers, some local police organizations food banks.

Today I received a call from an organization and I hung up the phone and was taken aback by the organization - "Children Without Hair". I was flabbergasted. I know its a pitifully sad circumstance, but in light of the world of horrorible childhood diseases, hunger and pockets of natural disasters....it just didn't seem appropriate. I felt sorry for the young lady who was making the solicitation. I did hang up on her.

What are your thoughts on the state of charity.

I do what I can, when I can... but (never more) from an unsolicited phone call. I always felt I got effed (without the benefit of a reach-around)

To me it's just more spam

"Children Without Hair", tho, my first thought would be, umm... wait a few years! (joking)

Gotta research first, before pouring $ into anything.

I give what I can to Saint Jude's Children's Hospital, American Association for Cancer Research (through Calvary Hospital/Hospice) and Graymoor (a Catholic shelter for homeless men in Garrison, NY) on a yearly basis. These are all reputable charities. But I tend to agree with Geoffy about doing research.

A few years ago I bought some candy (I know, no big deal) from these kids outside the A&P. They told me it was for a basketball team (uniforms and traveling expenses). About a month later, they were exposed as a total fraud. One of the kids' parents masterminded the whole thing. They brought in over 40 thousand dollars!

I felt like a total idiot, even though I spent less than 60 dollars. But it taught me a valuable lesson. Not even "innocent" looking children can be trusted when they claim to be doing charity.

Well, I always buy something from kids going door-to-door because I remember what it was like when I was in Boy Scouts trying to peddle. Outside of stores, though, sometimes -- just a buck or two.

Here in my neck of the woods it turned out the Salvation Army was paying a well known political hack $50,000 a year to sit on its Board. No one could exlain what he did to deserve the money. Those storefront bell ringers got nothing from me this year.

You need to sick Carl Hiaasen on him, DT. Exposing Florida lowlifes like that is his specialty.

I'm more interested in the historical and economic conditions that accomodate the need for charities to exist.

The latest scam for charities is that they call and say, "Thank you for your support in the past," when in fact we never gave to them. Or, we'll give--and two months later they're on the phone again asking for another "annual" donation.

One of the most important criteria that we have for giving is to determine how much of every dollar solicited goes toward the charities' overhead--and how much is spent on the cause.

I give annually to scholarship funds to my high school and college. I have also given to the Public Interst Law Foundation of my law school (Boston College), which provides payment to young attorneys, who work in the public sector.

The charity that gets most of my support is the Sisters of Mercy. My aunt was the North American Mother Provincal of the Sisers of Mercy, and I've always been amazed by their tireless dedication.

The British Heart Foundation is my charity of choice having lost my father and uncle to heart attacks!

I prefer to give my time rather than write a check. I've chaired events, sold ads in journals or playbills, sat on boards, chaired committees, just volunteered in various ways. My father was a firm believer in contributing money to the local volunteer ambulance corp and fire department, since they're volunteer organizations. That's something I've tried to continue.

I agree, Babe. I donate a lot of time to both the New York Public Library and the Westchester County Library Systems. I hate their policies, but I still like to encourage reading.

Good for you PB, reading very important. Our coalition government, in their wisdom, are looking at closing lots of rural libraries in order to save a few more pounds........

What a world eh?

Cheapskate

Even though we differ on our political economic views I like the point Capo's getting at. It's a shame that such leading and high profile causes rely solely on donation income to either fund research or help for those in need.

The most frustrating thing I find about charities is the guilt others can put on you if you choose not to donate. I'm not a bad person and in the scheme of things I'm quite charitiable compared to many but I shouldn't have to raise this or some of the beliefs I have (particularly on concentrating on the charities which are important to me) in defense of myself.

Furthermore this gets complicated when you want to debate with the people that get paid for standing on the street collecting donations - like Turnbull mentioned you want to know how your money is actually being used to help the cause. I'd be a little miffed to learn my money has paid to pay a someone who believes they've got a personality and stops me in the street (you know the types!). I know charities have certain amount of marketing and collection work to do but the paid workers frustrate me. I'll stop here before this ramble turns into a rant.

You discovered my secret.

I worked for a non-profit for years, and I know firsthand that their employees sacrifice long hours for little pay, usually because they believe in the cause. And I am also well aware of the many "non-profits" that are the sort you and Turnbull describe. They spend a disproportionate amount of money on themselves (offices, salaries, fundraisers) than on programs and services. It's a disgrace.

The other thing that's frustrating is the duplication of efforts. Google "Cancer Organizations" and you'll be amazed at how many there are. Here is a database of "many, but not all" such organizations. Cancer Organizations And they're all incredibly competitive over dollars.

I volunteered for many years for the local United Way chapter. They act as an umbrella for several charities, and give out money and goods (toys, clothing and so on) through an application process to their member organizations. I was shocked to find out how difficult it was for the United Way to get applications by the deadline. They had to nag and browbeat these non-profits to submit their applications. How ridiculous is that??

I find black-and-white (dinner-time friendly, because it eradicates the flesh tones, just like Men's Health is heterosexual friendly for doing the same) slow-motion montages with noble voice-overs pleading to 'give just £3 a month' (though it was £2 last year) to help save the very child who's looking at the violently exploitative camera a bit nauseating really.

The overriding principle of the charity sector - given academic weight by the growing field of 'International Development' and related fields - is to endorse philanthrocapitalism.

It's a crock, frankly.

Awesome word. I wish I used it in my dissertation Strategic Philanthropy.

Ahh - subject close to my heart -- I post the below in another post in the past (I dont know how to post links to other posts - so I copied and pasted here)
Would be happy to give my personal thoughts on the management of particuliar charitable organizations -- but rather speak personally to you than post on the site.





As a non-profit geek for the last 21 years (wow - I can’t believe it has been that long), I am one of the biggest proponents of the industry (yes although unique in many ways - still an industry). Yet at the same time I have always been one of the biggest critics of the industry. As a non-profit, we should be held to higher standards and we are dealing with the publics trust. Non-profits must be good -- make those great stewards of the community’s resources.

I encourage everyone to scrutinize every dollar you donate (and then, of course, give lots!)

Ask questions!!!!
1. What is the mission of the organization?
2. How will my dollar be spent?
3. How much does the organization spend on A) Mission or Program related costs B) Fundraising Costs and C) Administrative Costs
4. Ask to see the organization’s Annual report.
6. Ask to see their Form 990 – the form that all non-profits are required to complete for the IRS. This form has the above mentioned figured clearly identified.

If the organization cannot answer these questions, or at the very least guide you to someone that can – don’t give them a dime!

If an organization is spending (at least) 75-80% on Program or Mission based expenses – it is using its resources wisely. An organization needs to spend 20-25% on the necessary evils of fundraising and admin expenses.

A good resource is www.guidestar.org. This site has a profile and the From 990’s of nearly 100% of the non-profits in the U.S. You need to register to use the site; however, it is free to do so.

Partagas, I remember you and I having this exact conversation through a PM several years ago, when seeking your advice, after I was asked to serve on a committee to raise money for several charitable organizations. It was sound advice then and is sound advice now.

People give from the heart, and to me that is what counts. To care about another human being in need, to have compassion for those who may be less fortunate than we are, is a beautiful thing. There is nothing wrong with giving from your heart and at the same time using your head when you do.





So basically you do not agree with people making charitable contributions to help others who are in need of food, shelter, education or medical attention?

If it's in place of viewing society as in need of a wholesale redistribution of wealth, where food, shelter, education and medical needs are not privatised in the interests of the corporate and political elite, then no, I don't agree with it.

And as such, philanthrocapitalism is a crock, frankly.