Charities - overhead vs programs

Recommended reading, economic debates, predictions and opinions.
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Bylo Selhi »

Nemo2 wrote:see through envelope with a nickel attached, (in an attempt to highlight how little one can donate per day I presume)
Nope. They have research(*) that shows people are more likely to open an envelope if they see that money is enclosed, even if it's only a nickel, and/or more likely to make a donation if they're given something of value up-front, even if it's only a nickel, some address labels, a bookmark or similar tchotchke.
And it's a bloody waste of, (probably previously donated), money.
(*) Yup. The "research" I mentioned above, along with the nickel and address labels, was paid for by donors who thought they were paying for MS research :(
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by pmj »

From MS's 2008 return at CRA: http://tinyurl.com/6uvmye4 [edited to add link]
Income ~ $30M = ~$20M tax-receipted, + ~$10M from other charities.
Expenditures ~ $30M = ~ $15.5M charitable programs, ~$13M fundraising, ~$1.5M management and administration.

Thus an MER ~ 48% before allowing for MER's extracted from the ~$10M received from other charities. Let's charitably :shock: assume 25% MER at those other charities - so they needed to raise $13.3M to deliver $10M - making MS's total MER ~ 64%. Lots of nickels in envelopes :( .
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
CathyF
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 79
Joined: 01 Feb 2012 08:15

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by CathyF »

A lot of "charities" are only in the giving business for themselves. That is, they love to give to themselves. It isn't about the cause.

I try to donate to charities I think are doing good, and have low overhead. Mostly I give to local charities, although also some national ones. I'm afraid to look at what the national ones waste, as it would probably anger me and cause me never to give to them again.

I never donate to United Way, despite their extortionist practices. They claim a low overhead (something like 13%), but why would I waste 13% when I can give directly to the local charities I really want to support instead? I cut the middle-man out of that loop.
adrian2 wrote:we as a family are still quite far from the often cited 'target' of tithing (10% of gross / net income).
Wow! 10% of your income! We are a long way from that "target", too. Donating that much is taking away your ability to ever retire! I suspect that charitable groups make up that "target" to try and get people to give more. Like waiters that suggest a 20% tip or something. Sorry, I'm a strict 15% gal on tips. I probably donate less than 2% of income, maybe 2.5% tops if I include things like fundraisers. :-p
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Bylo Selhi »

CathyF wrote:Donating that much is taking away your ability to ever retire!
Frugal living (by saving more than you spend) is what makes it possible to retire comfortably. If you're frugal you'll find a way to make donations along the way, if not in cash then by volunteering, etc. Then when you retire it will be easy to donate 10% or more every year without strain. Of course this sounds a lot easier than it is for most Canadians to implement. But the key to success is frugal living, not donating or tithing.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33398
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by AltaRed »

I believe tithing originated with religious organizations to extort money from its followers. IIRC from my younger days, the Catholic establishment established(?) or suggested(?) 10% tithing and that ultimately bought the business over the centuries its over-the-top RE such as the Vatican, Notre Dame, etc. and the horde of riches secured within. Perhaps this is common within most religious sects.

Regardless, tithing or charitable giving is a personal choice within modern day society and each person donates according to their conscience. Example: I can understand why a family would donate to cancer charities if they had a family member affected/lost to cancer.

Personally, I resent tithing and most charitable giving due to the corruption of money by the middleman and now give only to front line charities where the middleman component is negligible.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by pmj »

CathyF wrote:I never donate to United Way, despite their extortionist practices. They claim a low overhead (something like 13%), but why would I waste 13% when I can give directly to the local charities I really want to support instead? I cut the middle-man out of that loop.
Overheads at different UWays vary considerably. UWay Ottawa has a much higher overhead - and most of their funds go to other charities which impose another layer of overhead. UWay Ottawa's effective overhead for 2008 was about 41%. There are more figures from 2007 and 2008 here: http://www.financialwisdomforum.org/for ... 63#p338863 - although several of the links are outdated, and one is wrong :oops:.

As a side rant - at CRA: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch ... eng.action there are no returns later than 2008 :shock: (for every charity I've checked).
Last edited by Peculiar_Investor on 07 Feb 2014 07:04, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: replace old domain name with www.financialwisdomforum.org to reflect new domain name effective 19-Jan-2014
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
User avatar
Pickles
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4215
Joined: 27 Sep 2006 09:44
Location: Toronto

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Pickles »

pmj wrote:From MS's 2008 return at CRA: http://tinyurl.com/6uvmye4 [edited to add link]
Income ~ $30M = ~$20M tax-receipted, + ~$10M from other charities.
Expenditures ~ $30M = ~ $15.5M charitable programs, ~$13M fundraising, ~$1.5M management and administration.

Thus an MER ~ 48% before allowing for MER's extracted from the ~$10M received from other charities. Let's charitably :shock: assume 25% MER at those other charities - so they needed to raise $13.3M to deliver $10M - making MS's total MER ~ 64%. Lots of nickels in envelopes :( .
Charities often "donate" to other, related charities. Why do they shuffle the funds around? I assume that is done to artificially reduce the ratio of admin costs to donor dollar and enables them to look like they are actively doing good work when maybe they aren't doing anything but shuffling paper.

(Kids Can) Feed the Children, goes a step further and has set up a profit-making company called Me to We which feeds 50% of its net profits to the Kielburger's charity. I'm sure most kids participating in Me to We activities have no idea that this private company is not a charity and is not subject to regulation by CRA. The goal is to have Me to We pay all the admin expenses of the charity so they can say 100% of charitable donations go to good works. The Kielburgers also have another corporation that provides the various family members with salaries. Quite an enterprise.
Regards,
Pickles
tedster
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 8515
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 10:11
Location: Montreal

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by tedster »

I was listening to a "big" discussion about the monies "fund raisers" get when they sign up monies. The person who was talking said that it was impossible to find out what these fund raisers got forevery 100k donations (or something like that) He was talking specifically about the Sick Kids Foundation in Tronno. I felt that this was a gov't institution and the data had to be public, but Dr. Google did not help. Any views?
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by pmj »

Start at the last link in my post of 2012-02-09, 14:09
Enter Sick Children
Search
Select appropriate entry
Gets you here
http://tinyurl.com/d4sd4pj

Select any of links to 2009, 2010 & 2011 (they are all incomplete, but the data is there for external fund-raisers)

eg 2009, Q C7, lines 2700, 5450 & 5460:

C7 Did the charity pay external fundraisers? 2700 Yes
(a) Enter the gross revenue collected by the fundraisers on behalf of the charity. 5450 $ 9,604,743
(b) Enter the amounts paid to and/or retained by the fundraisers. 5460 $ 5,285,942
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
tedster
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 8515
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 10:11
Location: Montreal

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by tedster »

Thanks, this I knew but I was referring to Sections E & F and Schedule 4where the information is confidential. I am surprised that this is the case.
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by pmj »

I haven't yet found a single 2009 return that has been completed - and reviewing your comments above I note that the 2009+ format is different. When I started using the CRA reports, it was rare to find reports more than 18 months overdue - and that often seemed to be related to mis-matches between financial years and calendar years. But now they're all at least 3 years overdue - it's time for someone to start nagging....
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
tedster
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 8515
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 10:11
Location: Montreal

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by tedster »

I was just curious if those who work in "fund-raising" get a bonus relative to the monies they get. I have a feeling, and that is all it is, that these people get a huge commission if they can "target" and "sell" donors. There are those who will give $50KK towards a building so that their name will be on it. This is no small achievement so I am sure that the people involved in closing the deal get a significant bonus. No wonder it is confidential. :roll:
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Bylo Selhi »

Is your donation getting the best bang for its buck at the checkout?
Let me first say that I’m a big believer in donating to charity. In fact, I think it’s essential for any successful society to have citizens who are willing to help those that are less fortunate than they are. I make this assertion lest someone reads what is to follow and determines that I’m a Scrooge of the highest order – a tight-fisted meanie who cares more about her tax situation than she does about making a difference. So, once again, please know that I’m a big fan of supporting charitable organizations.
:thumbsup:
Let’s say I reply “Yes” to every cashier who asks me for a $1 donation, and let’s say I hit those retails establishment five or six times a week (believe me, that’s conservative – my family has been known to go to the grocery store alone three or more times a week, with our growing kids and all). Six bucks times 52 weeks of the year - that’s over $300 donated to charity, with nary a tax receipt in sight. As someone who’s always meticulously kept my charitable donation receipts and claimed them come income-tax time, it seems a bit of a waste.

One of the retail chains involved in this kind of $1 donations at the checkout claims on their website that their campaign raises $2.5-million a year from customer donations (as well as donations from employees, who I assume get receipts for their contributions). It’s a very impressive number and I'm sure a great deal of good comes of it. But I can’t help but think: That’s an awful lot of money given by an awful lot of Canadians who are not getting tax credit for what they’ve donated.
It's also much easier to send a cheque or two to favourite charities once a year. Also re those "food bank" donation bins at the grocery store, why would you pay for food at retail, then donate it to the food bank without even a tax receipt. Your donation will do a lot more good to the food bank and to you if you send them a cheque. (Besides, they have cash expenses like rent, utilities, transportation, etc. for which they can't pay with donated food.)
I do it quickly and efficiently online, through the excellent website Canada Helps.
If you really want to do it efficiently, send a cheque. That way organizations like CanadaHelps don't get to skim ~3% or more from your donation to pay for processing your payment.

P.S. Lately when a cashier has tried to shake me down for a loonie or two I smile and respond with something like, "Sure, providing you make a matching donation." I'm still waiting for a cashier (or their boss) to take me up on the offer.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by pmj »

Because I'm naturally a cynic, I wonder whether the organization collecting the donations has the opportunity to "donate" that money itself - and thus pick up any available tax credits? :?
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
George$
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2612
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 20:46
Location: Toronto

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by George$ »

I saw this list - and was puzzled by not seeing one Menonite organization - yet think they are the lowest overhead charity.
“The search for truth is more precious than its possession.” Albert Einstein
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Bylo Selhi »

The very poor "efficiency" rates for "disease" charities and several large hospitals is also depressing.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
adrian2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13333
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by adrian2 »

Bylo Selhi wrote:The very poor "efficiency" rates for "disease" charities and several large hospitals is also depressing.
As you might have guessed, my annual donation goes to the hospital which saved my life - Overall grade: A.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
User avatar
newguy
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 8088
Joined: 10 May 2009 18:24
Location: Montreal

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by newguy »

adrian2 wrote:
Bylo Selhi wrote:The very poor "efficiency" rates for "disease" charities and several large hospitals is also depressing.
As you might have guessed, my annual donation goes to the hospital which saved my life - Overall grade: A.
Top executive compensation: >$350,000
*Salary and benefits for the highest paid staff member in 2010. This information is not factored into the final grade.
Is that the top salary for a hospital staff member or a charity staff member?

newguy
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29493
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Bylo Selhi »

newguy wrote:Is that the top salary for a hospital staff member or a charity staff member?
Charity staff member. CRA's charity database provides more detailed information about salaries. All to many charities are run as if their prime beneficiaries are the fundraisers. And worse, thanks to the charitable donation tax credit, these overpaid scammersfundraisers are subsidized by tax payers.
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
User avatar
newguy
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 8088
Joined: 10 May 2009 18:24
Location: Montreal

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by newguy »

Bylo Selhi wrote:
newguy wrote:Is that the top salary for a hospital staff member or a charity staff member?
Charity staff member.
Good work if you can get it I guess. Where do I apply?

newguy
Taggart
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 6893
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Taggart »

George$ wrote:
I saw this list - and was puzzled by not seeing one Menonite organization - yet think they are the lowest overhead charity.
I agree George. That was the first organization I looked for.
bekair
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 136
Joined: 21 Jul 2008 12:32

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by bekair »

I thought The Sally Ann would be rated higher.

bbt
Benchwarmer
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 616
Joined: 04 Dec 2010 20:39

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Benchwarmer »

I am surprised that the various United Way organization in that list appear to be quite efficient. I thought based on previous comments that the opposite would be the case. Perhaps it is because their costs are added to the cost of the actual charities that do the work?
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: Charities - overhead vs programs

Post by Shakespeare »

Just sent my donation to the Mennonite Central Committee.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Post Reply