Live data from Hacker News

Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

propublica.org

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#21
post #14

There are lots of apps to plan and track one's investments. Maybe there should be an app to track one's donations too. If I could see a history of what was the ROI (in terms of money spent on actual programs) of my monthly donations, and also easily reallocate those donations to other charities, I'd certainly check up on that app every once in a while.

I don't know if this is any help but it looked interesting:

https://www.charitywatch.org/top-rated-charities

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#22
"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work".

Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#24
Only donate to smaller non-profits, get to know them first, find out if the administrators take any income from the non-profit, then make up your mind to donate or not.

For example, one charity I like [0] runs a school and the administrators don't take any income from it.

[0] https://www.dominino.de/spenden-helfen

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#25
post #14

There are lots of apps to plan and track one's investments. Maybe there should be an app to track one's donations too. If I could see a history of what was the ROI (in terms of money spent on actual programs) of my monthly donations, and also easily reallocate those donations to other charities, I'd certainly check up on that app every once in a while.

I've used Charity navigator for years. They have alway been a very good source of high-quality charities to ensure the bulk of the donation goes to the actual cause. It even has audit information breaking down the distribution of funds. Givewell is another recommendation.

https://www.charitynavigator.org

https://www.givewell.org/

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#26
post #22

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work". Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

It doesn't even need malice or selfishness, this kind of thing can also be lack of skill.

A lot of for-profit businesses also take a lot of investments and fail to make much money.

I did a sponsored walk as a kid, I don't think I even raised enough to cover the cost of the petrol to get to the place it was at.

And I hear hospitals have to ask people to not do sponsored skydives to raise money for them, owing to the mean amount raised being lower than the mean cost of the healthcare they need to provide due to skydiving accidents.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#27
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped donating to a very well known charity organization when I found that 85% of the annual costs were administrative, 10% we're property costs, and only 5% went to actual programs. This may be just the way the local chapter is set up, but it's fucking greasy.

Why do people post comments like this and not name the offenders?

Do you really need an answer or are you as guilty as they are?

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#28
post #26
post #22

"charity spent millions to raise thousands" is a very usual way of tax evasion. The charity owner has parties with friends and family as guests. This is taxes as "charitable work". Can this be improved? Yes, this was going to be improved but the politicians were invited to a fundraiser where they got good food and some freebies. And then it stopped. Or something like that...

It doesn't even need malice or selfishness, this kind of thing can also be lack of skill. A lot of for-profit businesses also take a lot of investments and fail to make much money. I did a sponsored walk as a kid, I don't think I even raised enough to cover the cost of the petrol to get to the place it was at. And I hear hospitals have to ask people to not do sponsored skydives to raise money for them, owing to the m…

But why would hospitals have to cover the cost of skydiving accidents if they didn't even organize the fundraiser?

(side note: Living in Europe, I never heard of skydiving as a popular way to do fundraisers – interesting!)

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#29

Go to Northern VA. There are a lot of mansions owned by non profit higher ups.

I work at a non-profit (although not one that fundraises and solicits donations), and while I do earn less than could make in the private sector, I still fully expect to be paid at a level commensurate with my skill and experience. If you want to attract good people you have to pay at least close to what they could make working somewhere else.

Re: Some fundraisers pay >90% of the funds to themselves

#30
post #14

There are lots of apps to plan and track one's investments. Maybe there should be an app to track one's donations too. If I could see a history of what was the ROI (in terms of money spent on actual programs) of my monthly donations, and also easily reallocate those donations to other charities, I'd certainly check up on that app every once in a while.

Another resource I’ve found super helpful is The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer. Very interesting read/listen and gets you thinking about the most impactful ways to give. Free to download or listen as well: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/the-book
Post reply on HN