Its just been revealed in a CBC investigation that only 22% of the money donated for cancer research goes to actual research, DOWN from 40% in 2000. The largest portion goes to fundraising and administration. When approached for comment the Canadian Cancer Society said they also emphasis on education programs, put that amount has remained the same same since 2000.
Do You Give To Charities, Think About It.
- Thread starter blackrock13
- Start date
While the CBC just did their investigation on this, it's nothing new. Conspirists have said that they are not looking for a cure, rather just grow the chairity and rake in all that money. Let's face it, if you've lost a friend or loved one to cancer, you tend to give to that chairity. The knock on fundraising is that it becomes bigger than what they were actually formed to do and that it eventually becomes a monster and overtakes its primary function. Goodwill was exposed many years ago for its own monster. Their president was earning a six figure salary, no mention was made of the people directly beneath him and the charity itself only saw a small percentage of monies raised, but well above the minimum to be considered a charity under the law. While all of this is true, let's not forget that in cancer research there has been some good gains made, maybe not a cure though.
Some charities are better than others. Cancer Society is not a very good one, apparently, at controlling costs. I look for smaller charities that have low administrative costs. Any charity that employees professional fundraisers I would not support. You know that most of the money you donate goes into the pockets of the fundraisers.
Any major charity has an infrastructure, and the cost(s) that goes along with it.
You have volunteers and employees, out-sourcing resources and vendors, etc.
I try to balance my donation(s).
Some to the larger, more well-known, and to some smaller, less-known.
You have volunteers and employees, out-sourcing resources and vendors, etc.
I try to balance my donation(s).
Some to the larger, more well-known, and to some smaller, less-known.
This leaves me very conflicted in some ways. Sure charitable orgs should be very prudent with donated money, but they also need administration and good people in the administration. What's next... do we tell the researchers themselves to work for free, or pay them all minimum wage? If the researchers earn what they are worth, why shouldn't the administration?
Cancer researchers are mostly medical scientists with advanced degrees.
Many of them hold academic position in an university or a doctor's job. I
doubt many of them would end up voluntary workers without the financial
support from charities.
Running a charity is a lot like running a business. There are expenses and at the end of the day you don't always get to keep as much of the money for the cause as you would like to. For sure there are corrupt charities too, but if nobody gives there will be NO charities.
I think it is best to educate yourself on where the money is "suppose" to go and try to help out local charities by donating time or materials that are needed.
When the girls from the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge section ran a raffle this year at Christmas to raise money for the local womens shelter, we called the shelter and asked what they needed and went out and bought those things in order to make sure the clients' money all went to helping the women. Of course people don't always have the time to do that.
It was recently reported that under 20% of the funds raised for Haiti after the earthquake didn't get to 'the people'. But how do you monitor something like that when the government is corrupt but the people are in need of any small bit of help. Tough issue indeed!
I think it is best to educate yourself on where the money is "suppose" to go and try to help out local charities by donating time or materials that are needed.
When the girls from the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge section ran a raffle this year at Christmas to raise money for the local womens shelter, we called the shelter and asked what they needed and went out and bought those things in order to make sure the clients' money all went to helping the women. Of course people don't always have the time to do that.
It was recently reported that under 20% of the funds raised for Haiti after the earthquake didn't get to 'the people'. But how do you monitor something like that when the government is corrupt but the people are in need of any small bit of help. Tough issue indeed!
Unfortunately charities these days has become a place for a bunch of fat cats to work at.
There is no way anyone associated with charities should be making 6 figure salaries, but there are a lot of charities that have people working for them making that kind of money.
I have personally stopped donating to any kind of charities due to this fact. I have over the last few years started to give money directly to people that need it.
There is no way anyone associated with charities should be making 6 figure salaries, but there are a lot of charities that have people working for them making that kind of money.
I have personally stopped donating to any kind of charities due to this fact. I have over the last few years started to give money directly to people that need it.
I understand that it takes money to run a charity, but when the reason d'etre is to do research an find a cure for cancers an d the money for that research get cuts almost in half, there's something wrong. One of the things that brought this to the surface was a team of researchers at McMaster(?) was told they wouldn't be getting any more funding this year. Good researchers will always find work, but I know a few who are doing work way below their skills set.
There are good size charities that run well and still get 80/90% of the money where it's supposed to go Why is the Cancer Society not even close and going on the wrong direction.
There are good size charities that run well and still get 80/90% of the money where it's supposed to go Why is the Cancer Society not even close and going on the wrong direction.
I think there was a Globe and Mail article from a few months back showing how much (percentage-wise), went to administration costs, etc. The ones that really stuck out in terms of high admin costs were Heart and Stroke, United Way (from what I recall of the article). The one that I've donated to in the past is the Salvation Army. I think they're a good charity...
Give to the Salvation Army. The head of the SA makes $16,000.00 per year. 98% of all proceeds actually make it to the charity. The rest are fronts of some make or form.
BS
BS
It's not the charities chewing up the donations. Several companies like Public Outreach and Fundraising Initiatives Inc. allow charities to outsource all the management and collection. quite a savings in manpower. but, on the other hand, the charities lose control of the methods. also, it costs a lot. when you see a charity booth at a mall, check it out. it probably is being run by public outreach. those sweet young girls asking you to save somebody somewhere are on an hourly wage. they're not volunteers. some are on commission. as always, investigate before donating.
i too like sally ann. they take care of local people and are staffed by volunteers. one of the few good charities.
i too like sally ann. they take care of local people and are staffed by volunteers. one of the few good charities.
Did you give money to the starving children in Ethiopia?
http://ethioforum.net/ethiopia-buying-200-tanks-worth-over-100-million-from-ukraineEthiopia buying 200 tanks worth over $100 million from Ukraine
June 9
KIEV: -- Ukraine on Thursday agreed to a deal with Ethiopia for the supply of more than 200 tanks for over $100 million (800 million Ukrainian Hryvnas), UKRINFORM news agency reported.
Ukrspecexport SC, the Ukrainian state-controlled arms exporter, signed a contract with the Defense Ministry of Ethiopia for 200 T-72 tanks. This was one of the largest contracts signed by the weapons exporter over 15 years of operation.
I have one charity that I give to exclusively because I figure that if my dollars are going to do any good, they're better off assisting one organization a lot than a bunch of little organization only a little.
Interesting statistic. Compare it to what executives at the Sick Kids Foundation make:Give to the Salvation Army. The head of the SA makes $16,000.00 per year. 98% of all proceeds actually make it to the charity. The rest are fronts of some make or form.
BS
http://www.thestar.com/HealthZone/NewsFeatures/article/564287
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/703659
This is the one that really gets me. I can't think of a more worthy cause than Sick Kids Hospital but that makes me wonder whether you really need to pay someone $600,000 plus to head your fundraising efforts. Is it really that difficult to convince people to donate to Sick Kids Hospital? And then I am accosted walking downtown (I don't live in Toronto btw) by summer students paid to solicit donations on the street and I wonder, "Is this really what $600k +++ gets you in a fundraising executive - outsourcing the job to some for profit company that pays students to harass people on the streets?"
I sometimes drop something to CowboyKenny (cowboysdiary) and who is it going for is his thing... I've done my part, so that's good for my karma...
