Choosing Efficient And Effective Charities
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-19/choosing-efficient-and-effective-charities
In the late 19th century, the growing wealth inequality of the Gilded Age led to social unrest. Americans began looking to private charities to solve public problems, and later, changes to the U.S. tax code provided financial incentives for donating money. Today, there are more than one million charitable organizations in the U.S., addressing everything from water quality to drug education. These groups now account for 10 percent of the U.S. economy. Critics say charities have little oversight and are not held accountable for measurable results. Major charities insist they are responding to donor calls for transparency. Diane and guests discuss how to choose efficient and effective charities.
Guests
Ken Stern
chief executive officer of Palisades Media Ventures, a Washington, D.C.-based public affairs company, and former chief executive officer of NPR.
Lisa Meriwether
director of development at United Way of Central Virginia.
Major Ron Busroe
community relations and development secretary at The Salvation Army.
Katie Clapp
president and co-founder, FRAXA Research Foundation
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Since the Susan G. Komen scandal,and the that charity being turned into an arm of the Republican Party. Collecting money,then using the money against the people it was intended to help,was ugly. I gave to another woman`s charity to try to ease woman`s charities financial losses. But all I wound up doing was wondering,who did I really give my money to..??
I gave a car to the Lady of the Wayside. I still wonder.Is this a real charity,doing good work..?? They advertise on our local right wing radio station. Did I donate to the Republican Party..??
501-C3..501-C4......Not for profit,charities,and campaign donations are to closely related.
Dan Pallotta makes a great case about the limitations currently imposed on managing non-profits. His Ted Talk is available on You Tube. Is it realistic to think that the double standards used to evaluate non-profits and the rest of the economic sector will be eliminated, and allow for profits to evolve to function more like for-profit organizations?
Some charities pay their executives very little, while others pay inordinate amounts to their executives. Before I give to a charity, I want to know that the bulk of my money is going to do good works and not to enrich an executive.
A good resource is IRS form 990 which is public information and which is available at www.guidestar.org . While you have to register to use this site (it's free), you can access the 990s for the past 3 years.
You will find that some well known charities have presidents getting salaries over $1 million, while others pay very reasonable salaries, and while still others pay very low salaries.
Also, particularly when some charities clearly spend a lot soliciting donations by using paid telemarketers (and my policy is to tell the telemarketers that I never respond to a telephone solicitation and regard it as a violation of my privacy), I find myself wondering if a donation would pay for good works or for fund raising. The 990 will help to answer that question.
As a member of the not-for-profit community, I have seen great excess, especially related to the salaries of senior executives at hospitals and universities in particular. I believe that I am quite well educated in the workings of the not-for-profit industry, yet I approach each new organization that I may consider funding with a wary eye...I always consult GuideStar, Charity Navigator (although they charge an organization now) of Charity Watch. If an organization does not have a good rating I will not give to it. Also, I make sure to check the 990's for all non-profits, which legally must list the salaries of their top executives. It can be quite eye-opening.
What about the use of Charity Navigator.org as a way to measure the financial effectiveness of a charity?
I have worked for a charity for the past year. The company claims to be working to better the deaf community but it appears that this is a Craigslist/Facebook scam. After working with them for 6 months they never paid me the way my contract outlined and when I went to them for my money, the CEO started threatening me.
I am located in Ohio and it is very easy to set up a non-profit and start collecting donations. This company 'offers' a variety of services but in my experience and from the experience of others, they do not pay their people or deliver the services they have promised. We have contacted an attorney who is looking into this for us.
I wish there was a way for the state to look harder at these organizations before granting them non-profit status. Also, I wish there was a way we could notify the state when a situation like our's take place. I'm afraid they will pack up and disappear in the middle of the night and then resurface again as another scam.
While the Salvation Army does do many good things, they still have changed their policies that discriminate against the gay and lesbian community.
I feel the best charity shouldn't be run by bigots.
The guest expressed surprise that corporations use questionable methods of "encouraging" employees to contribute. Her surprise is utterly disingenuous. If she does not know, she should make it her business to know. I am a recently retired corporate executive (Fortune 50) and 100% employee participation was a major issue every year. The executive tasked to manage the United Way drive each year was under serious scrutiny and tasked with achieving 100%. Those who do not contribute are identified to senior executives. I personally found it uncomfortable every year.
Could we make a new rule for charities and non-profits and that is for them to post on their web sites the money that comes and goes and to and from whom and also say thank you to individual contributers and their amounts?
I am shocked by your naiveté in expressing disbelief that strong arm tactics are used to force people to donate!! Absolutely every employer I've had made you give to United Way! And their executives are 'donated' to head up the local effort so everyone including the United Way knows.
Their payroll deduction plan is akin to methods used in dictatorships.
Fifth Third Bank, NBD, Hudson's Dept. store, and more...
Don't embarrass yourselves further, please.
I was just about to leave a comment (I used to donate to the Salvation Army until I discovered that as a "religious group" they actively do not support or are against supporting the LGBT community) when that subject was brought up and cleared up as wholly untrue! Thank you!
I also worked for an organization, a large bank in the mid-west that was a 100% contributor for United Way. I was taken individually into a conference room where I found my pledge card already filled out. My manager sat across from me waiting for my signature. I was a relatively new employee and felt completely intimidated and signed the pledge card.
I have worked in three different situations over twenty years where the United Way contribution was coerced.
Did I hear a reference to a formal partnership between the United Way and the Salvation Army?
Don't forget to have your listeners look at their local charities. Sometime those who are nearby, do the most for thier community!
Nonprofit organizations deserve quality leadership as do for profits. Yet nonprofit executives are expected to live like paupers. Dan Pallotta speaks to this well in his book, Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine Their Potential.
For everyone that complains about fundraising - How do you expect nonprofits to actually cultivate donors? It's necessary marketing and not everyone opens their checkbooks without a request for a donation.
I find it interesting that the Salvation Army does not publish a Form 990 that includes salaries. Check out the number of vice presidents and senior vice presidents at NPR and their salaries. So tell me. What measurable and tangible outcomes does NPR realize with my donations? Not every outcome is measurable and everyone needs to realize that reality. Relieving a child or adult's hunger cannot be measured but I would hope we wouldn't stop donating to organizations that offer food to those who are food insecure.
There's no single answer.
Local charities-
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/hbl083.jpg,
www.efn.org/~hkrieger/hce154.jpg,
from the series, "Hamlets of Lane County".
Most of my giving to charitable organizations I designate to where needed most. If they have some hot issue currently they need to use it for, fine. If they need it to fix the commodes in the office, that's fine too. I do trust the organizations I give to, but I have found in the last few years that my giving is going to fewer organizations, (ie:about the same amount of money, but not as spread out).
I did have a very unfortunate experience a number of years ago. I gave to a particular organization for a particular cause, (I'm withholding the name of the charity though I am very tempted not to). When I got my receipt, I noticed the donation was used for another cause. I wrote them about this. I was curious why they didn't use it for the cause I gave to them for. No response. I wrote again. No response. I think I did this 4 times and got no response. Then I started writing take me off their mailing list. I had to do this maybe 4 times before I got a response. They were led by someone who was pretty well known. I got a letter that had some questions on it and said "tell so-and-so to shut up" where so-and-so was this leader. The truth is if early on they had given me an explanation saying "we got more donations than we needed for x so we used it for y" or "we made a mistake" or maybe something else, I would have gladly let it slide. Their response was very irresponsible and arrogant and even though I agree with some of what they stated they were trying to do, it undermines my respect and belief in the organization's work and the people involved with it.
I'm glad the guest from the Salvation Army took the stance that they aren't against the LGBT community. Searching the HRC website, however, brought up an article that points out their position on homosexuality. http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-salv...