See, I Told You So

The other day, The Boston Globe published a  piece about the amount of donated money that finds its way to the intended recipients.  [Mass. AG: Do homework before donating to charities, 11/29/13]  

"Just 34 cents of every dollar collected by professional solicitors in Massachusetts in 2012 ended up with the charities they were representing, according to a new report by Attorney General Martha Coakley."

In response to my past annual screeds on this topic, many of you have called me cynical.  But, as it turns out, my cynicism fell way short of Reality.  The greed of people who run non-profits is just as insatiable as that of the most self-aggrandizing capitalists.  Many leaders of non-profits are paid over $300k per year.  

I don't think this is right at all.  The missions of these organizations have changed from  doing something good to fund-raising.  And don't get me started about the grandiose salaries of college presidents (funded by overworked and underpaid parents trying to insure that Jr gets a sheepskin.)

Only 34 cents out of every dollar donated is going to the real mission of the organization.  This is a scandal that ought to be fixed.

'Tis The Season for Feeling Charitable

Like you, I hate to see pictures of starving children and homeless adults.  I believe that in a prosperous country such as ours, a principal role of the government should be to assuage the hardships on the less fortunate among us.  They say that among peoples of the world Americans are the most generous, both publicly and privately.  Many wealthy Americans are generous in their charitable giving.

Obama keeps telling us that everyone needs to pay their fair share.  Frankly, I don't blame wealthy conservatives for not wanting to pay higher taxes.  The government wastes most of the money it collects.  The cost of corruption, featherbedding, pork-barrel spending, cronyism,  malfeasance, lavish perks, abuse of privilege, and general incompetence adds up to skillions of dollars. No president or elected representative seems willing or able to address that simple truth.

The Boston Globe had an article recently  lamenting the problems charities are having with donations.  They blame the shortfalls on the widespread problems of the economy  -- especially joblessness and underemployment.
I must confess that as a fixed-income pensioner I am getting more tightfisted when it comes to charitable giving.  In the past when I was enjoying a moderate earnings as a worker I would donate to several different charities.  During the eighties, the local United Way organization was aggressive in getting corporations to influence their employees to sign up for "recommended levels" of giving.  The corporate UW committee members enjoyed lavish luncheons and generous time allowances to work on strategies to convince employees to pony-up generous donations, painlessly deducted from weekly paychecks.  The goal of 100% participation was articulated at upper management levels and  hamhandedly enforced by  management lackeys. While this approach was monetarily successful, it created a toxic atmosphere for some employees who resented being told how much to give, and who should decide which charity should get the donations. Needless to say, I was among those who rejected this fascist high-pressure approach to charitable giving.

Instead I would choose a half dozen worthy charities and divide my modest contributions among them.  Over the years , however, I became alienated by the aggressive marketing efforts of these charities.   I should confess, this alienation corresponds to an increasing personal attitude of skepticism and cynicism about the percentage of collected monies that found their way to the actual recipients.

Annoying bellringers -- give them nothing!

A few years ago I sent a nice check to the Salvation Army - an organization that I believe does great service in the general community.  Within a few months of my contribution I began to receive a series of requests for even more generosity.  With dismay,  I realized that my donation was actually being used to cover the costs of soliciting more donations!  To this day, despite my entreaty to be removed from the list,  I get 5 or 6 mailings per year from Salvation Army, all of which go into the recycle bin, unopened.  By the way, I refuse to give cash to anyone clanging a bell on a street corner.  That's just so annoying, not to mention that they set-up right at the door to the supermarket to try to make you feel guilty if you pass them by.

I will not be intimidated.  I always resented being strong-armed by well meaning neighbors or coworkers to give to the charity of their choice.  I don't mean solicitations for girl scout cookies, I'm talking about subsidizing walks for dreaded diseases, collections for their personal cause.  Hey I don't go around begging friends to contribute to The Institute for Research on Bloggers with Writers Block, do I?

The only charity I contribute to these days is the Boston Globe Santa, which spends 100% of all cash donations on the intended recipients.  The Globe donates its advertising and program management expenses to cover administrative costs.  To me, this is a real charity, worthy of my generosity.  Perhaps this year I shall bump my usual $20 contribution, to a hefty $25.

Suck on that, United Way.