Charity Gifts
August 12, 2009 5:12 AM Subscribe
How do I give to a charity without a professional fund raiser taking a big bite out of my donation?
Make the donation directly to the charity (contact them directly).
posted by gadha at 5:35 AM on August 12, 2009
posted by gadha at 5:35 AM on August 12, 2009
Go their website and look for a donate button?
posted by Happy Dave at 5:43 AM on August 12, 2009
posted by Happy Dave at 5:43 AM on August 12, 2009
Use Charity Navigator to see how nonprofits spend their money. This is a fantastic, free resource that has helped me make decisions.
posted by PunkSoTawny at 5:48 AM on August 12, 2009
posted by PunkSoTawny at 5:48 AM on August 12, 2009
Make sure you write down that it's for a restricted purpose on the check. Or donate non-resaleable goods.
posted by anniecat at 6:14 AM on August 12, 2009
posted by anniecat at 6:14 AM on August 12, 2009
I am a "professional fundraiser". That is, I work in the development department for an international humanitarian non-profit. In this context "development" means fundraising. We are paid members of the staff, just like the communications staff, the programs folks, and the people who work in HR and finance. We don't get a "cut" of what is raised... we are salaried. However, my organization works to keep administrative overhead low. About 13% of every dollar goes toward administration which includes everything from rent, to supplies, and yes, salaries for fundraisers. And nearly every major, well regarded charity that I know of has paid fundraisers.
There certainly are "middle man" type operations that might take a cut of what is raised, and there a charities where the administrative overhead is much higher. Like PunkSoTawny suggests, Charity Navigator is a great way to find out how much is being spent toward fundraising and administrative costs. Giving directly to the charity of your choice will ensure they get the most out of every dollar.
Fundraisers are necessary for the financial health of an organization. When I was working for the ACLU, we had a t-shirt that said quoted Thomas Jefferson "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", followed by a second line "The price of vigilance is eternal fundraising".
posted by kimdog at 6:19 AM on August 12, 2009 [4 favorites]
There certainly are "middle man" type operations that might take a cut of what is raised, and there a charities where the administrative overhead is much higher. Like PunkSoTawny suggests, Charity Navigator is a great way to find out how much is being spent toward fundraising and administrative costs. Giving directly to the charity of your choice will ensure they get the most out of every dollar.
Fundraisers are necessary for the financial health of an organization. When I was working for the ACLU, we had a t-shirt that said quoted Thomas Jefferson "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", followed by a second line "The price of vigilance is eternal fundraising".
posted by kimdog at 6:19 AM on August 12, 2009 [4 favorites]
This sort of thing comes up in the Green all the time, and every time I see it it makes me a little crazy. If you give locally, to a charity that you are familiar with, you'll be fine. If you take your hundred, or thousand, bucks and give it to someplace that you later find out spent it ill, well, don't give to them again, and tell everyone about it. Really, unless you're George Soros, it's not any different than buying a pair of expensive shoes that fall apart. There are, however, practical steps you can take to ensure that it's going to the charity.
First, give directly to specific charities and not to things like Walk-a-thons or Galas, especially ones with national profiles. These large event-type fundraisers, even local ones like your school's 5K run, are often run by fundraising firms that have negotiated a specific dollar amount with the charity, and they get the rest. (In defense of this, the charity has also been saved staff time; they have purchased expertise and guaranteed an outcome, which is extremely important to the bottom line.) Second, give locally, and that does not mean to the local version of the Susan Komen Fund. Want to give to cancer research? Find out who does it in your town and write a check to them. Give to your alma mater and let them worry about how to spend it. Write a check to the animal shelter down the street, rather than the ASPCA. Trust me, they will spend it where it's needed, and local charities can be pretty much guaranteed to spend 80 or 90% of your dollars on services. Do you really like the idea of supporting the Red Cross? Call the local office and ask to give directly to that office, or ask how you can send money for specific disaster relief.
You can try to specify that you want your funds spent "on programs" or "on general operations" but again, no charity is tracking small donations dollar for dollar, nor are they required to. Really big donors can ask for separate accounting. Individual donors giving small amounts cannot.
Looking to "see how nonprofits spend their money" is frankly offensive (you wouldn't choose a bank by "looking to see how they spend their money")-- better to see if nonprofits are getting results. How many clients served, positive press, client testimonials, longevity, lean staff, are all better ways than looking at spreadsheets, Charity Navigator-type metrics and 990 forms, especially for people who aren't familiar with nfp accounting. The information that would be really useful-- comparison salaries, a real idea of fundraising costs (there are all sorts of ways to hide this info), is just not available to cursory examination. Most local charities will be happy to talk to you on the phone also, ask to speak to the head of development. But I have to tell you, unless you're talking a good sized donation, don't make them jump through a lot of hoops. I have spent hourlong phone calls with people asking stuff like this who then send us $50. In some ways, your $50 was just spent on that development officer's time. Not a dime went to programs, so you wasted your money.
I'm the development officer at an arts organization. We have one 6-figure donor, you'd figure he'd be really concerned about where his money's going, but we actually have a saying from him on our wall: "It's all fungible."
For the most part, you REALLY CAN trust charities to spend you money well.
posted by nax at 6:55 AM on August 12, 2009 [5 favorites]
First, give directly to specific charities and not to things like Walk-a-thons or Galas, especially ones with national profiles. These large event-type fundraisers, even local ones like your school's 5K run, are often run by fundraising firms that have negotiated a specific dollar amount with the charity, and they get the rest. (In defense of this, the charity has also been saved staff time; they have purchased expertise and guaranteed an outcome, which is extremely important to the bottom line.) Second, give locally, and that does not mean to the local version of the Susan Komen Fund. Want to give to cancer research? Find out who does it in your town and write a check to them. Give to your alma mater and let them worry about how to spend it. Write a check to the animal shelter down the street, rather than the ASPCA. Trust me, they will spend it where it's needed, and local charities can be pretty much guaranteed to spend 80 or 90% of your dollars on services. Do you really like the idea of supporting the Red Cross? Call the local office and ask to give directly to that office, or ask how you can send money for specific disaster relief.
You can try to specify that you want your funds spent "on programs" or "on general operations" but again, no charity is tracking small donations dollar for dollar, nor are they required to. Really big donors can ask for separate accounting. Individual donors giving small amounts cannot.
Looking to "see how nonprofits spend their money" is frankly offensive (you wouldn't choose a bank by "looking to see how they spend their money")-- better to see if nonprofits are getting results. How many clients served, positive press, client testimonials, longevity, lean staff, are all better ways than looking at spreadsheets, Charity Navigator-type metrics and 990 forms, especially for people who aren't familiar with nfp accounting. The information that would be really useful-- comparison salaries, a real idea of fundraising costs (there are all sorts of ways to hide this info), is just not available to cursory examination. Most local charities will be happy to talk to you on the phone also, ask to speak to the head of development. But I have to tell you, unless you're talking a good sized donation, don't make them jump through a lot of hoops. I have spent hourlong phone calls with people asking stuff like this who then send us $50. In some ways, your $50 was just spent on that development officer's time. Not a dime went to programs, so you wasted your money.
I'm the development officer at an arts organization. We have one 6-figure donor, you'd figure he'd be really concerned about where his money's going, but we actually have a saying from him on our wall: "It's all fungible."
For the most part, you REALLY CAN trust charities to spend you money well.
posted by nax at 6:55 AM on August 12, 2009 [5 favorites]
Not sure if the OP is talking about fundraisers who work in the organisation, or people on the street harassing you to sign up for a year or more of monthly donations. I despise the latter and would rather not give to charities that employ staff to do that job, except many of the big, vital charities do it. Professional fundraisers who work within the charity are essential and I have no problem with them.
I like nax's idea to give local.
posted by wingless_angel at 7:09 AM on August 12, 2009
I like nax's idea to give local.
posted by wingless_angel at 7:09 AM on August 12, 2009
I think you might be confusing development office staff, who are fundraising professionals, with contract fundraisers, who manage fund drives for organizations which don't have development offices, and some of whom take inappropriately large percentages.
The Federal Trade Commission muddies the issue with its page warning against abuses by contract fundraisers, whom it refers to as "professional fundraisers." Some contract fundraisers do abuse the goodwill of communities and the supporters of worthy organizations; most are legitimate service providers. But, yeah, you get the annoying people who call you at home about Little League or the people who have kids selling candy on the street, and as a former development professional myself, that drives me up the wall.
So I would recommend donating to an organization that is either large enough to have a development officer (even one part-time person), or so small as not to hire a contract fundraiser. Charity Navigator and Guidestar are also good sources to find out the financial and management details of non-profit organizations.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:29 AM on August 12, 2009
The Federal Trade Commission muddies the issue with its page warning against abuses by contract fundraisers, whom it refers to as "professional fundraisers." Some contract fundraisers do abuse the goodwill of communities and the supporters of worthy organizations; most are legitimate service providers. But, yeah, you get the annoying people who call you at home about Little League or the people who have kids selling candy on the street, and as a former development professional myself, that drives me up the wall.
So I would recommend donating to an organization that is either large enough to have a development officer (even one part-time person), or so small as not to hire a contract fundraiser. Charity Navigator and Guidestar are also good sources to find out the financial and management details of non-profit organizations.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:29 AM on August 12, 2009
I should also say that the National Society of Fund Raising Executives, in its code of ethics, expressly forbade members from being paid "on percentage" in order to avoid the abuses that some contract fundraisers fall into (at least, this was true at the time I worked in the field.)
So if the development officer for a given organization is a member of NSFRE, it's almost certain that he or she is being paid a flat salary, not a commission.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:32 AM on August 12, 2009
So if the development officer for a given organization is a member of NSFRE, it's almost certain that he or she is being paid a flat salary, not a commission.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:32 AM on August 12, 2009
I would also like to suggest a cruise past a few articles regarding the thoughts behind "unrestricted giving," since it has been recommended here. It is popular these days to say "Oh, I only want my money used on programs," or "I only want my money used for services." It makes us feel warm and fuzzy to think that our dollars are going directly to a blanket for a homeless person or a case of clean water for a hurricane refugee.
But someone's money has to pay for a charity's operations. By declaring it won't be yours, all you do is add administrative time and effort to the inevitable. It might seem like "money with strings attached is better than no money at all," but the feelings about restricted gifts in the nonprofit world are very complicated. The (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation won't accept restricted gifts in any form, for example.
It isn't very fair to both lament as a society that non-profits don't seem to be running sustainable, healthy organizations... and then also restrict as an individual donor how our donation must be spent. You have to either trust the charity to make the best choices on the use of your funds, or not. Sites like the aforementioned Charity Navigator are great for educating oneself to gain that trust. But if you don't trust the recipient to use your funds wisely—without your rules attached—maybe you shouldn't be giving to that org in the first place.
If my favorite charity needs my $50 to pay the salary of the person who can bring in the $50,000 donor, rock on. If they need a new copy of QuickBooks or a new ream of paper for printing or to buy coffee and donuts for volunteers, rock on. They are in the business of helping others— and even if it's not-for-profit, it is still in fact a business, with business expenses. I trust their due diligence. I trust their board of directors to employ staff who know better than me where my fifty bucks needs to go.
That some nonprofits abuse the goodwill of others is certainly a problem. I'm just not convinced that attempting to solve that problem at the micro-level by encouraging individuals to punish good charities with earmarking is the best answer.
posted by pineapple at 10:57 AM on August 12, 2009 [5 favorites]
But someone's money has to pay for a charity's operations. By declaring it won't be yours, all you do is add administrative time and effort to the inevitable. It might seem like "money with strings attached is better than no money at all," but the feelings about restricted gifts in the nonprofit world are very complicated. The (Bill & Melinda) Gates Foundation won't accept restricted gifts in any form, for example.
It isn't very fair to both lament as a society that non-profits don't seem to be running sustainable, healthy organizations... and then also restrict as an individual donor how our donation must be spent. You have to either trust the charity to make the best choices on the use of your funds, or not. Sites like the aforementioned Charity Navigator are great for educating oneself to gain that trust. But if you don't trust the recipient to use your funds wisely—without your rules attached—maybe you shouldn't be giving to that org in the first place.
If my favorite charity needs my $50 to pay the salary of the person who can bring in the $50,000 donor, rock on. If they need a new copy of QuickBooks or a new ream of paper for printing or to buy coffee and donuts for volunteers, rock on. They are in the business of helping others— and even if it's not-for-profit, it is still in fact a business, with business expenses. I trust their due diligence. I trust their board of directors to employ staff who know better than me where my fifty bucks needs to go.
That some nonprofits abuse the goodwill of others is certainly a problem. I'm just not convinced that attempting to solve that problem at the micro-level by encouraging individuals to punish good charities with earmarking is the best answer.
posted by pineapple at 10:57 AM on August 12, 2009 [5 favorites]
What you might be bothered by are canvassers - street corner beggars, panhandling on behalf of charities. I don't blame you, and I don't give to most organizations that run canvasses.
Why? Because I work for one, and I know the dubious financial structure that supports them. A very small percentage of what you donate goes to the charity when you do so through a canvasser. However! And this is a big "however," they can be useful. For example, OUR canvass doesn't just go out and show you pictures of kids dying of malaria. We are an environmental organization, and we use our canvass to educate on specific environmental and public health issues as they arise in our region. Is there a hearing coming up on a proposed power plant? We're out there talking to the community about it, alerting them to it, and sharing information about how they can get involved - in ways other than just writing a check. Proposed law that people need to be aware of? We're providing information about it. Recognized environmental health issue disparately impacting a specific neighborhood? We're there, teaching people what they can do to mitigate the damage and solve the problem.
That kind of canvass has real value, and while it doesn't provide instantaneous financial advantage to the organization (long-term is another thing entirely, since initial givers are groomed to give again without the cost associated with getting out to knock on their front door), it is a strong tool which our organization uses wisely and effectively. But it also makes me loathe other organizations which have inefficient and ineffective canvasses. I wont donate to them.
posted by greekphilosophy at 11:30 AM on August 12, 2009
Why? Because I work for one, and I know the dubious financial structure that supports them. A very small percentage of what you donate goes to the charity when you do so through a canvasser. However! And this is a big "however," they can be useful. For example, OUR canvass doesn't just go out and show you pictures of kids dying of malaria. We are an environmental organization, and we use our canvass to educate on specific environmental and public health issues as they arise in our region. Is there a hearing coming up on a proposed power plant? We're out there talking to the community about it, alerting them to it, and sharing information about how they can get involved - in ways other than just writing a check. Proposed law that people need to be aware of? We're providing information about it. Recognized environmental health issue disparately impacting a specific neighborhood? We're there, teaching people what they can do to mitigate the damage and solve the problem.
That kind of canvass has real value, and while it doesn't provide instantaneous financial advantage to the organization (long-term is another thing entirely, since initial givers are groomed to give again without the cost associated with getting out to knock on their front door), it is a strong tool which our organization uses wisely and effectively. But it also makes me loathe other organizations which have inefficient and ineffective canvasses. I wont donate to them.
posted by greekphilosophy at 11:30 AM on August 12, 2009
I'd also like to echo pineapple. Unrestricted funds often represent our most important funding source, as they permit us to respond quickly and efficiently to issues as they arise. Our contract funding, and grants are vital to our success - but if we relied on them solely, we would not be able to do some of our most important work, as it would fall outside the scope of those income sources. That's something to think about, depending on how effective you want your giving to be.
posted by greekphilosophy at 11:37 AM on August 12, 2009
posted by greekphilosophy at 11:37 AM on August 12, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by wfrgms at 5:26 AM on August 12, 2009