Thread: Worthwhile Charities "help"

Tweet

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Without taking things off topic and down the rabbit hole I'll respond:

Yes, they still give away $400,000,000 which gives them the rating they have, but that still does not wash with me as it cost $1,600,000,000 for them to be able to do so. Just imagine if you will what just half that administrative money could have done for their target assistance audience.

Bill S.

As you say, "Without taking things off topic and down the rabbit hole I'll respond:"
The Charity Watch writeup is confusing unless you read and understand the entire article, and then check their tables of efficiencies. Because they are not required to file the same paperwork as the "normal" non-profits (Salvation Army is classified as a "church") their numbers were communicated in their format, and your math doesn't wash. Their "expense" of $1.6B is actually their distribution to their programs, and being out of $2B collected that gives them an efficiency rating of 80% that year. More recent figures have the SA as high as 84%. They "...rank high on finance, but low on governance" (Charity Watch's words), which is policies. I have no idea what their efficiency rating is for NZ, and with that I am done. You can lead a horse to water.....

I'll respectfully disagree with your post, as I've seen the numbers from an insider many years ago. Charity Watch is just one of four such oversight sites and newsletters I read on a monthly basis as I have several automotive collection families who are constantly asking who, what, or where they should donate.

philanthropy.com
CharityNavigator
givewwell
give.org

there are a few of these that are partially biased for one reason or another. One that I refuse to post because they are extremely biased based on who owns the web site (IE: not in the best interest of the end user).

The bottom line is that you as the end user make your own decision on who you want your donations to go to. Good, bad, or anything in between is a choice only you can make.

Bill S.


PS: Our next planned big ticket donation (at least a few years off) will be going to Shriners. Why, because they took care of our sons spinal issues, not once, but twice without seeking anything from us at a time when we were struggling.

Originally Posted by rspears

As you say, "Without taking things off topic and down the rabbit hole I'll respond:"
The Charity Watch writeup is confusing unless you read and understand the entire article, and then check their tables of efficiencies. Because they are not required to file the same paperwork as the "normal" non-profits (Salvation Army is classified as a "church") their numbers were communicated in their format, and your math doesn't wash. Their "expense" of $1.6B is actually their distribution to their programs, and being out of $2B collected that gives them an efficiency rating of 80% that year. More recent figures have the SA as high as 84%. They "...rank high on finance, but low on governance" (Charity Watch's words), which is policies. I have no idea what their efficiency rating is for NZ, and with that I am done. You can lead a horse to water.....

mello just give to the " buy HOSS a new BOSS " foundation .. I`ll hook you up with a deposit number ..

I offer that if (note IF, no accusation, no claim) the person that you talked to was either mis-informed or quoted the numbers to you in a way that was less than clear, then you may be mis-informed on this one. Bottom line, your math does not support the efficiency ratings published in the watchdog links that you subscribe are accurate. I respectfully disagree with your post, too, and believe that neither of us is going to convince the other on this, so I'll not comment further.

What I DO agree with is your statement, "The bottom line is that you as the end user make your own decision on who you want your donations to go to. Good, bad, or anything in between is a choice only you can make." It is up to each person to make informed decisions on how they use their dollars, and to do their own due diligence. Ya'll have a great day, and Hoss, good luck with your charity drive.

Originally Posted by mrmustang

I'll respectfully disagree with your post, as I've seen the numbers from an insider many years ago. Charity Watch is just one of four such oversight sites and newsletters I read on a monthly basis as I have several automotive collection families who are constantly asking who, what, or where they should donate.

philanthropy.com
CharityNavigator
givewwell
give.org

there are a few of these that are partially biased for one reason or another. One that I refuse to post because they are extremely biased based on who owns the web site (IE: not in the best interest of the end user).

The bottom line is that you as the end user make your own decision on who you want your donations to go to. Good, bad, or anything in between is a choice only you can make.

Bill S.


PS: Our next planned big ticket donation (at least a few years off) will be going to Shriners. Why, because they took care of our sons spinal issues, not once, but twice without seeking anything from us at a time when we were struggling.

Very good Pros and Cons, Gentlemen - - - thanks for all of them.

In my attempt to find some good sources, here is one that a friend emailed me yesterday.

I have been donating to Team Rubicon the past 3 or 4 years. It pairs military veterans who are knowledgable and “battle hardened” from combat zone deployments with First Responders to emergency disasters. Team Rubicon was one of the first organizations on site in Moore, OK after the tornado. It gives veterans a true purpose, mission and objective. Disaster Response Veterans Service Organization | Team Rubicon and video from its website Story of Team Rubicon | Disaster Response Veterans Service Organization | Team Rubicon

When we had multiple severe storms with damaging tornados a few years ago, I worked on 2 teams disaster relief vehicles. I donated all labor. Too bad they were econoline buses with powerstrokes. But, these groups pay for everything out of their own pocket and don't ask for anything when they roll into a storm site. Their expenses had to be crazy. They had jaws of life and other rescue equipment, 15 chain saws of various sizes, paid for excavator crews to come in, and much more. It's too bad there aren't orgs that can help fund outfits like that.

i get plenty of enjoyment just helping people on the spur of the moment .. someone may not have enuff money at the grocery store to pay for what they want .. i have a few bucks to spare .. a little girl recently wanted a piece of candy that mama could`nt afford .. i gave her a buck .. another woman in the rescue mission i shop at needed some gas money to visit her sick child in another state .. i usually give to the people who stand at stop lites begging for handouts ..it feels good to give ...