Discussion » Questions » Legal » Why can charities keep asking for money without saying how much they need to solve the problem?

Why can charities keep asking for money without saying how much they need to solve the problem?

why not make all charities give a total figure of how much money is needed before they can start collecting? People would be more willing to give if they felt they were helping to meet a target that would make the charity redundant and solve the problem that they claim to be solving

Posted - December 26, 2017

Responses


  • 2219
    The poor you will always have with you.

    The need is endless. Some charities do suggest amounts for the individual gifts but that is not always popular. 

    Chuggers are a pest, but setting them a target would make them even worse.  
      December 26, 2017 4:15 AM MST
    2

  • It’s a con. Charities employ people and pay them with money from donations. What is stopping me from setting up a charity and paying myself a massive salary from donations?
      December 26, 2017 5:00 AM MST
    3

  • 2219
    It's a good idea to check the Charity Regulator's website for the charity's expense ratio. Some are indeed dreadful. 
     
      December 26, 2017 5:37 AM MST
    1

  • Not being able to register a charity without giving a figure of how much is needed would put an end to the fraud
      December 26, 2017 5:52 AM MST
    1

  • 2219
    The critical issue is how much is taken off rather than how much is donated. There won't be a track record until the first year's books have been audited.

    However, their policy might change suddenly (to get rich quick) or gradually (to stay under the radar). 

      December 26, 2017 10:17 AM MST
    0

  • If they had to say how much they needed and then they failed after getting the said amount then the charity could be closed and someone else could get to try. Making it competitive would solve problems. Letting charities take money continuously with no limit isn’t going to encourage them to solve the problem. The problem keeps the money coming.
      December 26, 2017 10:23 AM MST
    0

  • 1812
    If you can get the donations,  nothing is stopping you.  I'm looking for an executive position too, please keep this in mind. 
      December 26, 2017 9:06 AM MST
    1

  • How many people can do that and feel no remorse? There must be thousands of them preying on human generosity for personal gain. They will burn in hell
      December 26, 2017 9:17 AM MST
    1

  • 1812
     It is a most puzzling thing.  I assume they tell themselves they are making the world a better place enough times that they believe it. 
      December 26, 2017 9:23 AM MST
    1

  • 44603
    In many cases, the amount needed is unknown as they may be research charities. St. Jude's continues to do childhood cancer research AND they provide travel, housing and food etc to the patients and families. I checked them out at the site Malizz mentioned before I donated to them.
      December 26, 2017 7:18 AM MST
    1

  • 1812
    Are they considered a charity? I know they are on the fortune 500 list. 
      December 26, 2017 7:22 AM MST
    1

  • Why would a cancer charity want to find a cure for cancer if it would mean no more money for research? A cure would put people out of work. People have families to feed.
      December 26, 2017 7:38 AM MST
    3

  • 44603
    Good logic. I once told a dentist that the new technology might put him out of business except for emergencies. He agreed.
      December 26, 2017 9:00 AM MST
    2

  • Dentists have little to worry about while cocacola is still around. Africans have the best teeth in the world.
      December 26, 2017 9:11 AM MST
    1

  • 1812
    Any good organization will have goals, as to how much of an impact they expect to have with a certain amount of dollars but solving any problem takes more than money,  and even if it were just money, we probably wouldn't have enough. Know what I'm saying? Yo.
      December 26, 2017 7:25 AM MST
    2

  • 6098
    I would guess they have no idea.  What most disturbs me is that most don't tell me what and what percentage they spend on this or that, and what percentage they pay themselves. 
      December 26, 2017 7:31 AM MST
    2

  • 44603
    Go to charity regulator.
      December 26, 2017 9:01 AM MST
    1

  • 14795
    In England the larger charities pay there top managers Sums far in excess of one million proud a year.....All charities do it......
    Greenpeace offices in Berckshire ,not so far from Winsor Castle have the most luxurious buildings and warehouses ever.....They have to spend the donations before the end of each tax year ,their storage facilities are strune  with so many expensive goodies.....

    The Salvation Army headquarters in the city of London are the most Palatial officers you've ever seen.....They work in the most luxurious offices ever....all paid for by donations given to them ....
      December 26, 2017 8:09 AM MST
    2

  • 7280
    Needs are not so easily quantified.
      December 26, 2017 11:52 AM MST
    2

  • 22891
    not sure why, never heard of that
      December 26, 2017 1:27 PM MST
    2

  • 7939
    As others have pointed out, there are many causes with no particular end in sight. A lot of those causes do tell you what impact you're having. One ad that ran here this season told people "$X in donations buys seven meals." 

    Giving that amount doesn't prevent fraud, though. 

    Naturally, the more a charity is operated like a business, the greater impact it can have, and it's common for those who get into nonprofit jobs to earn 1/2 to 2/3 of what they did in the for-profit sector. They get into it because they love it and want to have an impact, not for a lavish salary. And, there are boards which dictate major decisions, so there are checks and balances in place. But, you do have to have things like marketers, coordinators, fundraisers, logistics experts, and so on employed if you're going to have a big reach. The question really comes in regarding how much of donations goes to the programming/ services offered versus overhead. There's a site called "Charity Watch" which identifies how much of spending goes to the program versus overhead and assigns a letter grade for the charity. For example, if 90-100% of funds raised go to programming, the charity gets an "A+." If it's 80-89%, the charity gets an "A." At 75-79%, the charity gets an "A-." At 72-74%, it gets a "B+" They consider anyone with an "A" to be highly-efficient. Anything in the C-range is is still acceptable/ average, which are places with 50% or more going to programming. 

    Wounded Warrior is one that came under fire for excessive spending. They were "B-rated" at the time, with 74% going to programming costs. In the aftermath of the scandal, they lost 77 million in revenue.... That's just shy of $57 million veterans didn't get because people stopped donating. The biggest cut went to a trust fund for soldiers who had live-in caregivers who passed, and needed help to stay in their homes. No idea how many people that impacted. It's sad, really, considering they were spending more than most charities do on programming. Percentage-wise, they were doing a good job.

    Was the spending excessive dollar-wise? Perhaps. They did a lot of giveaways and feel-good things for donors to get them excited about the programs and giving money. They were bringing in close to 400 million annually as a result. They were doing so much good for so many people, and now their reach is stunted. Fewer vets are getting help. 

    As a donor, I understand there is overhead. I understand they have to spend money to make money. If 30 cents out of the dollar I give them goes to overhead, I'm cool with that. By spending that, they're amplifying their reach and generating more funds for a cause I believe in. That, in my opinion, is a worthy cause as well.
      December 26, 2017 4:15 PM MST
    2

  • 5835
    The March Of Dimes was originally dedicated to finding a cure for polio. Dr. Salk's discovery did that, so TMOD spent $65,000 looking for another cause, instead of declaring victory and getting actual jobs. They finally chose birth defects.
      December 28, 2017 4:12 AM MST
    0