11–20 of 88 posts
Strangely, what they're selling is some kind of automated surveillance camera system.[1] "Whatever you funded, we can monitor it." [1] https://charitysense.com/#how-it-works
"It’s just that almost nobody looks." Looking will blow up too many cushy deals for too much of the Powers That Be. A great deal of it is non-show "chairmanship" jobs for the family and friends of politicians. Legal bribes. Feeding Our Future was another fine example of the shenanigans that go on in the US. Power Forward Communities was setup with $100 and captured $2 billion in EPA grants; caught while still doing o…
I believe that many (most?) non-profits are a combination of grift and money laundering. I would love to see requirements that 75%+ of all non-profit revenue has to pass through to the community, that non-profits may not transfer funds to other non-profits, and that directors and officers cannot be compensated and have very modest limits on expenses.
This would be great. I would also like to see non profits close shop once their goals are reached or fail rather than transform into a new thing just so the top people who make up the organization can continue to have a paycheck.
Nobody wants to give you a huge grant to continue doing what you're already doing, you only get grants for doing something completely new and grandiose. If you're lucky, you may get like 20% of the grant to cover your other expenses that don't come with a caveat of having to spend it on something completely new.
Not saying that there's not grift in the nonprofit world, but my experience with a lot of people who work in this space is that they're good stewards of the funds and very dedicated to trying to help the world be a better place.
I believe that many (most?) non-profits are a combination of grift and money laundering. I would love to see requirements that 75%+ of all non-profit revenue has to pass through to the community, that non-profits may not transfer funds to other non-profits, and that directors and officers cannot be compensated and have very modest limits on expenses.
At most I advertise my for-profit website and try to gain personal fame, but if I was trying to do those 2 things, I'd spend it directly on those 2 things.
Kids benefit and I second-hand benefit.
One of my groups of friend groups has a lot of people who work at non-profits that are really dedicated to good causes. They are people who care and wanted to find jobs with purpose. The companies they work for aren’t, as far as I can tell, trying to grift or swindle.
Yet their overall efficiency looks a lot like this chart: Very little money makes it out of the program because it’s so expensive to pay for all of their staff, office space, and meta-activities like doing more fundraising.
From the outside looking in, there is a lot of malaise and inefficiency that just gets accepted at this level. They know they’re taking a pay cut relative to private industry so they, in turn, put in less effort. Many of them invite us to meet up in the afternoons because they’re “working from home” or just leaving the office early. Every time they encounter hard work the solution is to hire more people. Some of them switch to for-profit companies for a while before coming back to non-profits for the laid back working environment. It’s just accepted, to them, that non-profit means it doesn’t have to be efficient or a lot of work.
Maybe my second hand experience is unique to this little bubble I’m in, but whenever I see statistics like this I think it’s more normal than not.
For anyone even more skeptical of where your money goes when you donate to a nonprofit, there are plenty of resources out there for researching this. CharityNavigator is a popular one, but I donate primarily to GiveWell: https://www.givewell.org
For anyone even more skeptical of where your money goes when you donate to a nonprofit, there are plenty of resources out there for researching this. CharityNavigator is a popular one, but I donate primarily to GiveWell: https://www.givewell.org
yes, what we need is for charities to operate on a quarterly reporting cycle, so that their administrative overhead increase, and (like public companies) they can be myopically focused on short-term performance.
They're usually given for a fixed period of time to do something grandiose by the end of it and the NGO has to report how they've spent every cent of it, usually at the end of that grant, but sometimes along the way as well (every X months). Not to the IRS, but to grant-givers.