Here's an article in the Washington Post on the report of the American Institute of Philanthropy to a congressional committee about charities collecting funds to "support the troops". charities

Here's a quote from the article: There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead, fundraising or giving. But the institute's report suggests that 20 of the 29 military charities studied were managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct-mail fundraising fees and, in some cases, providing their leaders with six-figure salaries.

And this article gives the Institutes ratings for several of these charities: ratings

Here's a link to the Institute's webpage. webpage If you go to the index and click on Veterans and Military, here are the top-rated charities serving the military and veterans:

Armed Services YMCA of the USA 703-313-9600 A–
Fisher House Foundation 888-294-8560 A+
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund 800-340-4376 A+
National Military Family Association 800-260-0218 A

I find it disgusting that "charities" raising funds purportedly to serve our veterans and active military spend so much for "overhead" (including salaries and fundraising) and so little for their alleged purpose. Many of the poorly rated groups spend anywhere from 75% to 99% of the funds they raise for overhead.

By Bobbie~moderatr on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 11:41 am:

Ginny, it is my understanding that most if not all "charities" have overhead cost that they don't advertise when requesting donations. The phrase "All proceeds go to charity," though often used, is misleading. This means that all the money left over after expenses goes to charity. Many factors contribute to the percentage of income that goes directly to the charity. Expenses facing charities include program expenses (money for charity's recipients, in the form of grants, food, educational materials, etc.), management (including any paid employees, as well as day-to-day administration expenses), fund raising, advertising, vehicles and all the other things that help the "charity" complete the task they have ahead of them.

The CBBB standards call for at least half of public contributions to be spent on programs described in appeals for funds (Christmas donations needed, for example). Both the NCIB and the AIP call for a minimum of 60 percent of a charity's income to be used for true charitable purposes. This means no matter who you donate to you are looking at covering overhead with your donation.

There is no way that a "charity" that advertises, "All proceeds go to charity," asking for money donations isn't splitting that donation up. The percentage of the split will depend on how big the organization is, the kind of money they pulled down and whether they are a part of a national charity or not.

For example: "The Red Cross, under the Liberty Fund, collected $564 million in donations after 9/11. Months after the event, the Red Cross had distributed only $154 million. The Red Cross' explanation for keeping the majority of the money was that it would be used to help 'fight the war on terror'. To the victims, this meant that the money was going towards bombing broken backed third world countries like Afghanistan and setting up surveillance cameras and expanding the police state in US cities, and not towards helping them rebuild their lives."

In 2003, President and CEO of the Red Cross Marsha Evans made a salary and extra benefits of $651,957.

Jack McGuire, the current President and Ceo was paid a salary of $400,010, received additional benefits of $19,277 and received checks for additional expenses of $3,038 in 2005. Total revenue, including Direct public support, Indirect public support, Government support was $ 3,888,172,726 for that year.

I know those are not current salary quotes but they serve enough of a purpose to show that even a head "charity", the Red Cross, is not using the donations it receives the way most assume.

Oh and I also read, in reguards to Katrina, many churches and such did organized clothing/food drives for Katrina victims. Most of these items never made it.
"Collections of items require valuable and scarce resources such as time, money, and personnel to sort, clean, and distribute them, which come at the expense of the emergency activities relief workers are attempting to perform. The Red Cross has neither the resources, nor the logistical set-up, to properly handle these types of donations, and therefore cannot accept them. In addition, because the organization has no way of knowing what spontaneous individual donations or unsolicited collections of items will consist of, and therefore cannot ensure there will be enough of a particular item to distribute it equitably, or if the donated products will even be appropriate for the relief effort.
Shipping donated goods is also costly and particularly difficult in the aftermath of a disaster, as roads are often damaged or impassable, and easily clogged with shipments of non-priority items. The Red Cross makes every attempt to procure items locally to save money by minimizing transportation and storage costs."
In another quote from the Red Cross, “We don’t want to discourage people who want to help,” said Lepof. “But, making a financial gift to support the relief operations really is the best way for people to help after a disaster like this.”


I am not saying that the organizations that you refer to in your post are right for what they are doing, I am just saying that unless you have a charity out of your home, to which you don't charge for the use of your house and your utilities. That you only receive items (food and toy items) and not funds (funds generally require involvement of some kinds of fees, accountant for example). That everyone works for you on a volunteer bases. That you do not advertise yourself in any mass media way. That you use your own vehicles and pay for your own gas. There is no way not to have an overhead. It is a business and business' have to use money to stay in business, thus the "All proceeds go to charity" in most, if not all cases is a false statement. However, that shouldn't stop people from giving because even if only a percentage of the funds is given to the "need" it is still a percentage that they wouldn't have if we stop giving..

By Ginny~moderator on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 02:47 pm:

Oh, I agree, Bobbie. Charities have overhead/operating costs. I worked for a non-profit organization for many years, so I do know. I do think, however, that when a charity's purpose is to raise funds to give money to others, they need to keep their overhead within reason, and 75% to, for pete's sake, 99% is not reasonable. Program expenses (money for charity's recipients, in the form of grants, food, educational materials, etc.), are not overhead or operating costs. They are exactly the programs for which monies were donated. Management, oversight, fundraising, and other operating expenses such as rent/phone/etc. are what I mean by overhead.

I don't think the Red Cross is the best example (and I will say that the Red Cross is NOT one of my favorite charities). In addition to raising and distributing monies, the RC does a lot of tangible things that require staff and expenditures, like emergency housing, the whole blood bank thing, etc. While I don't particularly like the idea, for a nationwide organization like the RC, I'm not surprised that the CEO is paid that much.