You Want to Make A $50,000,000 Bequest. Where Would it Go?

And don't forget, Blatham, the ability to think critically as well.

Dear Ms. Lola

Even without the legs, I'd like you. Plus whup ya at racketball.

No you can't

Matrix, the financial balance at the N.C. is quite disheartening. The fund-raisers make by far the most money of anyone on staff as a result of receiving a shocking percentage of the donations they raise.

I was offered a fund-raising position with them a while back. I couldn't stomach what I learned about them. I used to always buy rainforest acres for friends' new babies from them. I'll 'click' for their site, but they'll never see another dollar from me.

Could that just be the N.C. of Canada?

Here's the latest balance sheet that I could find on them and, while they could be lying, they do say that the fund-raising cost is less than 5% of total expenses and allocations...

http://nature.org/aboutus/annualreport2001/docs/art7351.html

That's a pretty good rate for a non-profit organization.

The NC in the U.S. and Braille are two of the most responsible fund raisers, with responsible management, but there are other very responsible ones as well. Most non-profits are very conscientious about how they spend the dollars they raise. It depends on what source they use to raise money. If an organization has funding sources (large gifts through foundations, government grants or large donors) other than small gifts (which usually come through direct mail or TV) they will be much more efficient in their fund raising efforts. Direct mail costs more and some organizations, for various reasons have to depend on direct mail fund raising. However, direct mail does work, it brings in the support from small donors who want to be able to give as well as the big ones. And it is money that would not be available if direct mail methods weren't used. Fund raising and it's costs is a complicated reality. And it's not always easy to determine which organizations are being responsible and which not. But there are accounting rules and the public has a right to know how the money is being spent. But it's not realistic to expect raising money to be cost free. Some organizations, by necessity, based on the type of charity involved, are dependent on methods that cost more.

ehBeth, what methods did you observe that you felt uncomfortable about?

I chose "other" because I did not consider any
of the choices, by themselves, important enough
to give it all to one. :wink: unless of course, the
one, could be ME!

I would give it to the Carter Foundation. These people are about helping poor people in many nations help themselves. I am not sure if they are directly linked to Habitat for Humanity, but I would like them to share. All I know for certain about it is is that Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter are involved in both. Aside from building houses they teach farmers modern methods, fight disease in undeveloped nations, etc.

I'm frankly surprised that anyone would think fundraisers don't earn good salaries. They want to get a good living, just as does anyone else--and where else will the money come from. I once worked in a department of a university which solicited funds, so the director had a fundraiser come to speak with those of us who might be involved. A good deal of his speech concerned how to choose which charity to work for, what percentage to ask for, and which organizations were likely to produce the best pay off. I don't think that this was the sort of talk our director had in mind. I don't suggest that these organizations are simply trying to milk the public, but i understand what eBeth is saying--fundraisers rarely share the "vision" of those for whom they work.

It's true, Setanta, I think they often don't. But if you think about it, how could they? They have spent time and money learning how to make money come in the mail.......a very valuable service, you see......and they're going to work only for those causes they believe in? I know many fund raisers who will not work for causes that are too far out of line with their own belief systems, but if you get too picky, you could go broke.

Yes, i understand that part of it, Boss. Perhaps it is more germaine to make people aware of the realities of "charity"--i'm not necessarily out to bash fundraisers.

I worked for a nationally based "charitable organization" when i first came to Ohio, and, frankly, they are rotten to the core. When i could do so without jeopardizing my livlihood, i would steer people to ways of contributing their money, or used clothing, furniture, etc. to groups with volunteers who would distribute these items, or the funds, directly, without any middlemen. Perhaps the best thing would be for all charitable organizations to operate locally. Obviously, with an organization such as the Nature Conservancy, this is not a solution.

That's true. World relief efforts can't be run that way either. The Heffer Project is a good cause and responsible........as is all of the organizations associated with the Carters.

Fundraisers "rarely" share the vision??? I think that is going a little far. Perhaps we're getting this mixed up with politics. Now in the political spectrum, where fund-raisers are rife with every single candidate, it is true that the message is frequently lost to the professionals.

Of those that we support, I expect that the fund-raising staff are connected and well-connected to their cause. If they make a living, well and good. Is that milking a system? I don't think so. I'd still prefer to give money to an accredited and professional charitible or non-profit organization. Some of those beyond what has been mentioned are NPR and Public Television stations, local hospitals, schools, temples and churches that you may know and love, organizations that help the homeless -- the more grassroots the better, ditto to prisons -- though if you don't go through a religious organization, you probably won't get in.

I already said i wasn't beating up on fundraisers. It is, after all, a profession, and although they might not have beliefs inimical to those organizations for which they solicit, it is by no means assured that they are ardent supporters thereof. I contribute to the local public radio outlet, because i listen to them on a daily basis. It gauls me though, to think about it too much. I gave them nearly $500 this year, and they have at least hundreds of thousands of listeners here in Ohio (they run about five stations). A dollar per listener per fund drive (three times a year) would meet all of their fund raising requirements. Instead, they raised just over $120,000 this last drive from slightly more than 1000 people.

When i was a boy, i learned, from my father's old money family, that the wealthy should give 15% of their annual income (after calculating the tax burden, of course) to charity. That simply doesn't happen any more, especially since most wealthy people in this country today would not qualify as "old money." I had read once that America, lacking an aristocracy, did not get its leadership from among the wealthy (the Rockefellers and Kennedys being exceptions which prove the rule). This was a piece of elitist literature which i was reading because even bad history can inform you. What the wealthy of this country used to do is support local charitable efforts, such as settlement houses, which stood in the place of today's social welfare programs. Two chances of that in our i've-got-mine-to-hell-with-you society--one fat and one slim.

I'm am sufficiently unambitious not have become wealthy, and my father has been devotedly drinking up his patrimony--i wish i could afford to contribute on that scale.

Lola -- Is that the Heifer Project? The one where you can buy up to and including an entire ark of animals? That's an interesting group. I think it would make an excellent Xmas present. A flock of Guinea Fowl? Guinea Pigs??? (What do they do with those?) Because of the animal aspect, which many of us find intriguing, it is also appealing as a way to let the younger generation find out about charity and the rest of the world.

Setanta-Too true and sorry about your pa's patrimony. The important thing is to look into your charities a little. Now, EBeth says NC is bad, but maybe that's in Can. On this side of the border, anything that is less than say 15-18% of the total take is considered reasonable costs.

There are or at least used to be some organizations that used up nearly 90% of the money. That's just plain nasty. We do have truth laws here in WA... nobody can solicit unless they publically report accurate costs. A lot of times those figures are good enough that they are part of their advertisements and solicitations.

Piffka,

Yes, I do mean Heifer Project (I'm a known world class bad speller, unrepentant, and unsavable.) The Heifer Project takes donations to send livestock animals to struggling families all over the world. The idea, especially in countries where widowed women are not allowed to work outside the home, is to provide a source of income for a needy family so they can become self sufficient and provide needed resources for their communities. It's a very good cause.

I think so too. I've seen their brochures last year and this one. They are slick... I wonder what their percentage is?? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that they are connected with a church.

edit: Well, nobody likes everybody... here's a scathing indictment of the Heifer Project (not one I necessarily agree with, as I'm not a vegetarian):

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/heifer-ffecp.html

They are a religious organization......I can't think of which off the top of my head, but can find out. But I think they are no more religious than Habitat or other Carter charties.

Church of England/ Episcopalian... did you see the link I edited in?