How to destroy your company's image in one fell swoop

[taks]

And I believe that if more than 50% of the donations get used for charitable necessities it's still considered a charitable organization.

nope... there's no rule, only that their assets must be dedicated to at least one charitable cause. there are many that only donate a few % of the total take, some that don't even raise enough to cover costs. the only laws that would exist anyway would be regarding tax status: i.e., is the organization exempt or not.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I guess it's because many people may not recognise it, and instead associate snakes with biblical connotations.

 

I think it's more to do with wanting to make bloody certain it's seen and recognised on the battlefield. Not that our current enemies care...

 

As for percentages, I don't honestly know what is an acceptable percentage. Working that out could constitute a damn fine PhD thesis, IMO. I suspect it would be a lot lower than you chaps are arguing. The difficulty of course would be rating organisational style and behaviour against performance, or rather a measure of performance.

[Gorgon]

I know a guy who used to be a phoner for a charity, around 30% went directly to operations, some kind of African project, the rest payed for wages and headquarters.

 

There ought to be some kind of official government stamp of approval on these things that the companies can't get if they aren't serious enough about it.

[Walsingham]

I don't want to sound disparaging, but if you put a figure on it then the accountants will just massage the figures. I think a ratio of bang for buck would be better. Which would allow organisations to arrange themselves flexibly. I mean, for example:

 

Charity A: Puts 50% of its funds into the field.

 

Charity B: Puts 10% of its funds into the field.

 

Sounds clear cut, but in this imaginary scenario charity B is employing mainly indigenous personnel, resulting lower wages. This in turn leads to charity B getting better prices on accomodation and raw materials. They also use a large percentage of raised funds in a spread portfolio of investment to smooth out bumps in funding. This means overall that charity employees are able to long-term commitments to the work, building skills, experience, and delivering a long-term effect.

 

 

Charity A by contrast employs mainly Western students on gap years who draw no salary but require extensive insurance, medical cover, and special accomodation and support in country. Moreover, they have virtually no training, accrue little experience, and deliver little effect. A fact which is lost on the organisation's management who are 100% part-time, and lack strategic awareness.

 

 

I am not for a moment sugesting that the figures in themselves mean virtue or otherwise. But I'm illustrating how they could arise and be good.

[Guard Dog]

I work with a dog rescue charity and it is a 501c organization (meaning donations are tax deductible in the US). The volunteers are unpaid and 100% of the donations go to operations. But it is very small believe me. Last year I think they took in about $40k. The only board member that gets anything close to a salary is the lawyer, and she is paid an annual fee for her services. Anyway, it has been my experience that the smaller groups like that one tend to be more cost efficient than others.

 

For example, when I compare our cost/income ratio to the Peggy Adams Animal Rescue League (a major force here in West Palm Beach) it is not even close. Peggy Adams takes in around a million dollars a year but only about 40% go to animal care and rescue. But, they have paid employees, a facility, an event staff, an army of lawyers, and a marketing firm on retainer. But inspite of their financial ineffecincy they do a lot more for animal rescue than we ever could.

 

The point I'm getting at here is the bigger charities are usually cost/benefit inefficient but on the whole they do more good in the world than the smaller ones because they have a longer reach. 40% of a $1M is a lot better than 100% of $40k.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Even if the Red Cross has done some bad things, and maybe still are, it doesn't make the lawsuit any better.

[Walsingham]

Even if the Red Cross has done some bad things, and maybe still are, it doesn't make the lawsuit any better.

 

Like I said.

[taks]

the problem of assessing what constitutes "good" vs. "bad" in terms of what percentage goes to the charitable cause itself is not necessarily one of operational costs, but fund raising costs. certainly there's a lower limit where operational costs are the majority, particularly with those charitable organizations that operate at a loss (the sea turtle one operates at a loss, for example). above that point, say an order of magnitude, efficiency comes down to how much money it takes to raise $1. some have such poor methods (often the ones associated with law enforcement, btw, which constitutes half the bottom 10), they have very little left to actually give to the cause. some have such a strong name in the community (be it local, national, or even international), such as the red cross, that they don't really have to spend a lot to make a lot. the larger ones will obviously have more to spend on their cause _unless_ they're operationally inefficient, which is sometimes the case.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Wait, I know it's me being stupid, but could you explain that again?

[Gorth]

You might spend 3.75$ on materials and a bus ticket into the city centre to go out and campaign for "Save the Sea Turtle from our cooking pots!"

 

Being a very unsexy, yet delicious animal, you might collect 4.00$ during a days collecting.

 

On the other hand, you might spend 25.00$ on a poster with a "Red Cross" and a good looking girl (which you paid the 20.00$) helping a little hungry looking, large eye kid... and a bus ticket into the city centre and end up collecting 100.00$ to save the starving children of Sudan.

 

One only spends 3.75$ the other a staggering 25.00$

[Walsingham]

OK, good. I got that bit, then.

 

But money isn't the same as effect. My example was trying to make this point. You can spend less more intelligently and do a lot more. The UN does the inverse all the time. Spend millions on sewage tanks for a village and it turns out the plastic rots.

[Gorth]

 

True. But I would attribute that to stupidity and incompetence more than neglect and inefficiency.

 

Perhaps a bit of corruption? The sewage tank manufacturer might be the nephew of the project manager.

 

Maybe some kickback is involved?

 

I have no idea how open organisations like the Red Cross are to public scrutiny and accountability, but then I don't think I ever gave anything to them.

[taks]

I have no idea how open organisations like the Red Cross are to public scrutiny and accountability, but then I don't think I ever gave anything to them.

i believe it is an IRS requirement that a charitable organization be 100% open to audit, i.e. all their numbers _should_ be public. finding the data, however, may not be a simple task for the hoi polloi.

 

walsh, what i was getting at was in reference to an earlier statement by calax that an org. needs to donate 50% to be considered a "charity." in fact, percentage has nothing to do with it. the scam charities simply set their operations and fund raising costs extremely high to account for the deficit. i.e., we (the fundraisers) are sitting around calling people asking for donations. of course, we did it in a posh hotel, with room service, and took limos to get there. the fact that we only called on one day, from some hotel on miami beach, and used the limo service as well for the whole week, is immaterial. we raised $20k and spent $19.4k "fundraising."

 

the sea turtle folks are simply barking up a tree that nobody cares about... (their efficiency was listed as $3.40 cost per $1 raised... poor sods).

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Example from the bookshelf of economy versus effect. Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere in his immensely fun book "Looking for Trouble (Harper Collins, 1995):

 

"Official parsimony ranged in matter from high strategic importance to the most trivial details. ...the MOD in a drive to save costs, abruptly announced a thirty percent cut in the RAF's fuel, which drastically reduced the fast jet pilots' level of operational readiness. On a lower level, the Command Secretary suddenly proposed to charge