Like that "charity" institution that I see on televsion, where you sponsor a child from Africa for 20 dollars or so a month.
I had a friend who worked who said that 99% of goes into organization and only 1% reaches the actual orphan/person.
Like Magic Johnson's AIDS?
Thank you, Troll OP. Nice to see the heartless asswipes are up and about this morning.
There are groups who keep track of this sort of thing. You can google it and find out which charities give the greatest percentage of their contributions to "overhead" and which ones keep a respectable/responsible ratio.
10% of the money goes to buying food for Sally Struthers.
I have heard a couple of years ago that a huge percentage of charities do crooked things with the money ,BUT there are many charities that are truly genuine and honest. You just have to check out the background of a charity and check if there were any complaints or other issues before you donate money or whatever.
I think the Cancer Society is a very good charity from what I have heard through the grape vine.
That isn't the Christian Children's fund? is it? because I have heard they are the real deal caring and giving to children abroad.
Most charitable organizations disclose how much goes to overhead and how much goes to the cause. You have to do the research, and yes, some are crooked and try to look better than they are.
Surprise surprise, some people aren't nice.
But some people are.
Op, did you just find this out? Are you 12?
OP = Captain Obvious
Christ on a crutch, the world of information is at your fingertips and here's another thread started by someone who heard something from someone and holds it out as fact, painting all charities with the same brush.
There are untold watchdog organizations that report what portion of donations goes toward fundraising/administration vs. toward the stated goal of an organization (the usual guideline is that under 35% is good/acceptable, and that over that figure raises genuine concerns.)
Google answers all questions -- except those of the most dimwitted.
I agree. I worked for the make a wish foundation during the holidays. I was doing cold calls. In one case, we told people we where raising about 150k for one kid, and I swear we raised ten times that amount before that campaign finished. Other people who worked there permanently told me what a load of crap it was and the kids didn't see a tenth of the money.
The pay was great.
These Bibles are delicious.
That friend is in your head,OP?
OP, It's not 99%, but it is something high, like 80% (I forget) that goes to administration costs.
[quote]I think the Cancer Society is a very good charity from what I have heard through the grape vine.
The Cancer Society is celebrating its 100th birthday this year and cancer is still thriving.
My friend did medical work in Africa 3 times and and Save the Children genuinely delivered what they needed when they needed it. Plus they covered her with health insurance, which no other relief org she'd worked for had offered.
She hadn't worked with Doctors Without Borders so she doesn't know if their operation is better.
Charity seemed better, fairer and cleaner when the WASP-os were handling it. Now that fundraising has become a career for most involved, I steer clear.
What about the SPCA commercials featuring "Angel," by Sarah McLaughlin? How much goes to those tortured pit bulls and filthy-through-no-fault-of-their-own terriers?
OP, you repulsively ignorant twit (just the type who has never given a dime to a non-profit in her life):
Several resources provide all kinds of information about charities and other non-profits worthy or unworthy of consideration for giving. The Better Business Bureau, GuideStar and Charity Navigator are just three.
The fact that you proclaim your facts from an association with someone who probably was a contracted telemarketer, and then extend your cache of knowledge to charities in general marks you as the type who really should go shove your tongue up Mitch McConnell's ass rather than bother us here.
Sure, that particular organization may be bad. A lot are. But you and the other asses here hardly are the ones to proclaim anything with confidence except you are sitting on skid marks.
Great charity is God's Love We Deliver. They bring hot meals to the disabled. They began by bringing food to those with AIDS in NYC.
The Christian Children's fund is now called ChildFund. I guess they realized "Christian" is a toxic word to a lot of people these days. They actually are rated reasonably high (3 out of 4 stars on Charity Navigator), and their CEO is not paid exorbitantly.
I know some of these celebrity upper scale charity fund raisers spend most of the money on the party itself. Very little goes to the cause after expenses. You never hear about that part though. The media just reports how much was raised. For alot of people charity is just an excuse to throw an elaborate party.
How do these "sponsor a child" things work anyway? Do you have to "sponsor" the entire family, or do you basically separate the child from the family?
It's got to be one or the other.
The goal of large charities is to advertise the charity and grow the charity (get more and more contributions). It's never about helping people. Charities are a business
I was so glad that Lance Armstrong's charity has had a light shined on it for the public. His charities goal was basically to advertise Lance Armstrong so he could get more sponsors. It was NEVER about helping people. In his own words it's was all about cancer awareness. How do they do that? They advertise about Lance Armstrong.
Regarding cancer charities, they don't fund a lot of research. In the last 50 years most cancer research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and it's subsidiary the National Cancer Institue (NCI). The NIH and the NCI are both government organizations. They're funded/ paid for by the taxpayers. When you hear about a drug company coming out with a new drug and how much it costs them, you do not hear about the fact that they more than likely got a big fat grant from the NIH/ NCI / or other governmental program (all paid for by the taxpayers)
And the best part you never hear. These drug companies don't pay back these grants to the taxpayer funded organizations when their drugs go on to earn their companies billions of dollars. The drug companies can bitch all they want about the cost of research. They ALL receive some form of taxpayer welfare. They just like the scumbag oil companies
Thanks for this thread! I used to sponsor a child over a decade ago and had to stop for financial reasons. I used some of the charity researching sites posted here and found one that donates 83% of their cost directly to the child. I've now hopefully brightened a little girl's day in the Philippines.
DL, makin a difference!