Charitable Contributions - to whom now?

[_charity]

My responses in bold.

Your desire to give money where it will really be used well is admirable. But misplaced.

Why is it misplaced?

Because humanitarian aid through the Church gets more money, goods and services to those who need it than any other agency. 100% donated goes to the cause.

It is easy to find out the perecentage of collected funds that goes to the actual work.

Ah, yes, it is easy. Unfortunately, you can't do the same for your donations to the LDS church.

We aren't talking about tithing here. We are talking about donations to the humanitarian effort.

charitynavigator.org gives lists of how charities are doing.

Yes, that's a good site to go to.

The best you can find operate on about a 30% overhead. They spend 30 cents of every dollar you give in administration and fund raising costs. Others are much worse.

It takes $$ to run a charity. I think we all know this. You need employees. You need a controller. You need insurance. You need facilities. You need an attorney. You need a CEO type. You need an auditor. What is your point with this statement? Even the LDS church has all of this stuff.

But you don't see the LDS people being paid exorbitant salaries ofr charity work.

I think the main issue is deciding whether this 'overhead' is excessive. And that's where disclosure & transparency comes into play.

Rondald McDonald House of Arizona spends only 10% of the money it raises on the House.

CFR please. The reference is the website I gave you already.

Additionally, you might want to check their history - ie., what have they done over the course of the last few years. Was the current year abnormally high for donations? If so, it would be unfair to compare current year expenditures with current year donations. Typically, budgets work 1 to 3 years out.

Also, you want to check what they're doing with their excess funds. Are they spending them frivolously (un-needed expenditures, etc.) or are they investing them (saving them for future years)?

I don't know about you, but when I give funds to be used, I expect them to be used for the benefit of those who need it. Not somebody 10 years down the road.

Also beware of donating to agencies which work in response to specific disasters? Haven't you read about the really horrible mismanagement of funds that were collected for Katrina? Some estimates are that over $1 billion was mismanaged.

This is where full disclosure and transparency come into play. You shouldn't be arguing against donating to these causes. Rather, you should be arguing for greater transparency of the agencies that collect and distribute these funds. Additionally, some greater due diligence on the part of the donors, is always wise - you want to make sure that you're getting the most bang for your buck with your donation.

Transparency and accountability aren't worth much in retrospect. I want to have confidence that the money will be used well, and not just that I get to know from an accounting later how really bad it was. That didn't help any person who needed help. But, gee, isn't transparency great? I don't think so.

If you want to be of real use in some disaster, save your money in your own personal disaster relief fund, and when something bad happens, buy a plane ticket to go there and get your hands dirty helping out.

I'm not sure that's the most efficient use of someone's time and resources, but it is a good suggestion - when it makes the most economic sense.

[_Who Knows]

Because humanitarian aid through the Church gets more money, goods and services to those who need it than any other agency. 100% donated goes to the cause. [/b]

Oh please. You're being a bit naïve here. Please show me the financial statements for the church where I can verify this.

Oh wait. We do have financials for the UK branch of the church. And guess what? This is not the case.

You have nothing to back up your assertion - it's 100% based on wishful thinking.

We aren't talking about tithing here. We are talking about donations to the humanitarian effort.

It doesn't matter. Neither are disclosed by the church. Again, please show me how I can verify what you're saying.

But you don't see the LDS people being paid exorbitant salaries ofr charity work.

I don't see that with most other charities either. The CEO of your AZ branch of the RMH is paid less than $60k. Do you consider that exorbitant?

But nevertheless, you're missing the point entirely again. Let me re-iterate - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LDS CHURCH DOES, BECAUSE THEY DON'T DISCLOSE THEIR FINANCIALS.

So how can you lecture other charities about high overhead, % of donations that go to actual charitable causes, 'exorbitant' salaries, etc. when the LDS church doesn't disclose any of that?

And let me quote for you again what I said earlier:

I think the main issue is deciding whether this 'overhead' is excessive. And that's where disclosure & transparency comes into play.

I don't know about you, but when I give funds to be used, I expect them to be used for the benefit of those who need it. Not somebody 10 years down the road.

So do I. However, that's not always prudent. It also depends on the charitable cause. Your view is understandable, but quite naïve. There's (and there should be) quite a bit of financial planning and analysis that goes into the decision making.

You should also, again, look at the UK financials of the LDS church. You'll see that they don't do this either (they took in quite a bit more than they spent).

Transparency and accountability aren't worth much in retrospect. I want to have confidence that the money will be used well, and not just that I get to know from an accounting later how really bad it was. That didn't help any person who needed help. But, gee, isn't transparency great? I don't think so.

I'm not even sure how to comment on this, other than to say you're being extremely short sighted and naïve, once again.

What alternative do you propose? How can I know that my $$ is going to be used appropriately? Think about it...

[_Who Knows]

Let me go back to Charity's comment regarding the fact that RMH-AZ 'only' expended 10%, so we can see the naïvété at work here.

This is a graph of RMH's 5 year revenue vs. expenditures trend:



We can see that she is probably correct for the current year. But what does that mean? Is this a bad thing?

We can obviously see that revenues have done up quite substantially the prior 2 years, while expenditures have remained pretty much constant. Right off the bat, we should be thinking about the type of charitable work they do. They provide housing to out of town parents who have children in the hospital, who can't afford to pay for housing while they're staying with their sick child. So naturally, their 'expenditures' are probably limited by the number of spaces available in their housing (ie., they may only be able to house 200 families per year).

So to me, the consistent amount for expenditures makes sense.

Now, let's take a look at revenue. It's gone up quite a bit over the past 2 years. Why is this? Lets take a look at their financial report. It says:

At the end of 2005, we are at approximately 85% of our fundraising goal to build a new Ronald McDonald House in Tucson.
RMHC held three successful fundraising events: our first-ever Radiothon in celebration of El Denver International Airport de los Ninos in April; our 11th Annual RMHC Golf Classic in May; and our 3rd Annual Grape Expectations Wine Tasting & Silent Auction in September.

Ah, interesting. It's starting to make sense now. RMH is accumulating funds (in excess of what they can currently spend) to build a new house. Does this seem valid? Does it now make sense that their expenses are only a fraction of the revenue they took in in the current year?

Charity, may I please suggest that before you make such ignorant comments in the future (slamming a very valid and worthwhile charitable cause), that you do a little homework first.

[_moksha]

World Vision, Feed the Children and even the Red Cross appear to be effective organizantions for calling down blessings for those in need. Has anyone had experience with these or others that you might recommend?

Here is an important rule of thumb: Look to how much of the total organizational revenue goes towards supporting itself and how much is put into helping people. Some groups have an exorbitantly high overhead for gobbling up funds before the recipients see one ounce of help. United Way is a good giving source because they actually monitor the programs they fund to ensure this does not happen.

by the way, you can never go wrong giving to the Salvation Army or directly to people you know who are in need. I am not talking about those people on the street who when they have enough spare change, feed their habits which are destroying them, I am talking about people you know who could use a hand. Such giving is twice blessed: It blesses those who give and those who receive.

[_JAK]

I do not suffer the 10% protection money I used to faithfully send to the church. It never dawned on me that even teaching this concept on my mission this money was primarilly blown to build and maintain "chapels, temples and schools" - mainly edifices erected for those that already had a roof over their head and food to eat.

Peeling off such a swath of my treasure made it very difficult to alocate time or money for those that really needed me. At times I came off as being "cheap" because there was literally nothing left at the end of the month. Shame on the Mormon church for deluding me into thinking that air conditioners and comfortable chairs took precidence over even one sick or starving child.

so enough whining...

Although I've spent the last few years only donating to the "Church Humanitarian Fund" (ie. maybe the Red Cross), what organizations are you familiar with that have the integrity and honor to disclose their expenditures?

I am a firm believer that even though I have little excess, I have plenty to share with those that need primary care such as food, clothing and shelter. It just pleases and settles me to know that someone out there is receiving love in the form of a blanket or a loaf of bread.

World Vision, Feed the Children and even the Red Cross appear to be effective organizantions for calling down blessings for those in need. Has anyone had experience with these or others that you might recommend?

Inconceivable said:
Although I've spent the last few years only donating to the "Church Humanitarian Fund" (ie. maybe the Red Cross), what organizations are you familiar with that have the integrity and honor to disclose their expenditures?

You make good analysis in your post which included this question.

Habitat For Humanity is one which puts nearly all the funds to work helping the poor. This web link will give you access to information about the organization.

There are others. But, it’s important to recognize that many so-called charity organizations spend up to 95% of their funds raising more money and feeding the promoters of their charitable organization.

As for religious organizations -- churches and electronic televangelist churches or mega churches, you should be very cautious. Local church groups spend most of their collected money to pay bills and professional workers in the local situation. While some do have outreach funds, generally the percentage actually given to them is not very high.

An important objective is often to expand the base of financial support. That leads to some nice things for the supporters -- new churches, impressive musical instruments, more pastors, etc. In many cases church is the country club for the relatively moderate financial people.

What’s best for them is to be close to places like the National Cathedral in Washington DC or St. John the Divine in New York City. I could mention dozens of cities which have expansive religious programs and lovely buildings and programs to match. People go to events and feel good.

Even if you are not a supporter of the particular church organization and like social and program events, you can take part and enjoy.

However, if your intent is to give financial aid to those who are most in need of help -- the really poor, down and out people, you can put some of your wealth to work in organizations that really do help the under-privileged.

JAK

[_charity]

You can find any number of places to put your money. And there are always places which will accept volunteers, which is usually harder to find than money.


I think this is one of the strong points of the Church. We help each other through many avenues of giving. The Humanitarian is just one.

I can see what you are saying about the lack of publication of financial records. But it doesn't matter. Those who are giving donattions and tithing don't care, and anyone who might care doesn't have to donate. Perfect plan.

[_JAK]

You can find any number of places to put your money. And there are always places which will accept volunteers, which is usually harder to find than money.


I think this is one of the strong points of the Church. We help each other through many avenues of giving. The Humanitarian is just one.

I can see what you are saying about the lack of publication of financial records. But it doesn't matter. Those who are giving donattions and tithing don't care, and anyone who might care doesn't have to donate. Perfect plan.

charity stated:
I can see what you are saying about the lack of publication of financial records. But it doesn't matter. Those who are giving donattions (donations) and tithing don't care, and anyone who might care doesn't have to donate. Perfect plan.

Yes it matters. Institutions have a responsibility to be accountable. Otherwise, they can take money, keep it for their own selfish reasons or misuse it for selfish reasons. If they claim to be using the money for helping the poor for example, they should be able to show that they are helping the poor.

It may be that those giving “don’t care.” However, they ought to care. Such lack of accountability is an invitation to misuse of money and no one will know what that misuse is. It means no one is accountable for the money.

Suppose they use it to build a gambling casino? Is that O.K.? I suspect most who give money to a church organization would not like the idea that they were supporting gambling, or prostitution, or liquor sales. Yet, with no accountability, money might easily be use for just such purposes. It might build excessive and extravagant homes (plural) for deceptive gatherers of the money under the pretense that money would be used for a different purpose.

If, as you say, people “don’t care” how the money is used, perhaps they deserve to have it taken from them and used for purposes which they would oppose -- if they knew how it was being used.

That is, they deserve to be duped.

JAK

[_charity]

My responses in bold.

charity stated:
I can see what you are saying about the lack of publication of financial records. But it doesn't matter. Those who are giving donattions (donations) and tithing don't care, and anyone who might care doesn't have to donate. Perfect plan.

Yes it matters. Institutions have a responsibility to be accountable. Otherwise, they can take money, keep it for their own selfish reasons or misuse it for selfish reasons. If they claim to be using the money for helping the poor for example, they should be able to show that they are helping the poor.

I see the demonstration of that all the time. The Church gave a couple of million dollars to Catholic Charities. I was watching TV in my own hometown in the Pacific Northwest one evening. One of our local reporters had gone to Kosovo when there was a big refuge problem due to the fighting there. His report to the folks back home was about the very first planeload of supplies to get to the refuges. "From the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City," he reported. If you aren't seeing where the Humanitarian effort is being given, you aren't looking very hard.

It may be that those giving “don’t care.” However, they ought to care. Such lack of accountability is an invitation to misuse of money and no one will know what that misuse is. It means no one is accountable for the money.

There is accountabliity. The auditor report is read every 6 months to the general membership. You want to see nickles and dimes. That is what does not matter.

Suppose they use it to build a gambling casino? Is that O.K.? I suspect most who give money to a church organization would not like the idea that they were supporting gambling, or prostitution, or liquor sales. Yet, with no accountability, money might easily be use for just such purposes. It might build excessive and extravagant homes (plural) for deceptive gatherers of the money under the pretense that money would be used for a different purpose.

For myself, I trust in the layers of accountability. It isn't one person with his fingers in the pocketbook. It is committees, and oversight committees, and it would take a whole lot of people being dishonest, and then bribing the auditors. It just is not a likely scenario. Could it happen? Maybe. Is it likely? Hardly. So I trust what we get in the way of reports.

If, as you say, people “don’t care” how the money is used, perhaps they deserve to have it taken from them and used for purposes which they would oppose -- if they knew how it was being used.That is, they deserve to be duped.

I don't think it isn't that we "don't care" how the money is used. We don't care if we are given nickles and dimes reporting of how it was used. I think we expect that the donations will be used well. We, I certainly, expect that the money will be used in much better ways than the Red Cross or Salvation Army or any other charity you can name would use it. I know of the ways in which money and goods are misused by the Red Cross. I won't give anything to them but blood. And I made a mistake in giving to the Salvaiton Army one time. After years of dropping dollars in their bell ringer's pots, I sent them a check before Christmas one year. Then, armed with my address, in the subsequent years they have spent more money on trying to get me to give them more than I gave them originally. Not very smart.JAK

[_Gazelam]

People tend to fix up their own enviorments if you fix them first.

How do you fix a ghetto in the inner cities of America? Build them welfare homes? Or educate them?

[_Polygamy Porter]

Your desire to give money where it will really be used well is admirable. But misplaced. It is easy to find out the perecentage of collected funds that goes to the actual work.

charitynavigator.org gives lists of how charities are doing. The best you can find operate on about a 30% overhead. They spend 30 cents of every dollar you give in administration and fund raising costs. Others are much worse. Rondald McDonald House of Arizona spends only 10% of the money it raises on the House.

Also beware of donating to agencies which work in response to specific disasters? Haven't you read about the really horrible mismanagement of funds that were collected for Katrina? Some estimates are that over $1 billion was mismanaged.

If you want to be of real use in some disaster, save your money in your own personal disaster relief fund, and when something bad happens, buy a plane ticket to go there and get your hands dirty helping out.

Hmmm, nothing on the corporation of the president, a.k.a. CoJCoLDS.. Would that be due to them not being honest and open with their donations?