I regularly find myself faced with a predicament at checkout counters of places like grocery markets and pet stores: “Would you like to donate a dollar to this charity?”
Sometimes I do it because it feels right. Other times the look in the attendant’s eyes makes me feel guilty and pressured, and I oblige, as if I wasn’t asked, but told. Other times, I refuse because I’ve already done it, and I make sure to tell them that, as opposed to simply saying no. But when this conversation came up with a friend the other day, they advised me to ask, next time, “How much of the donation money actually goes to the charity?”
A quick sweep of the web will reveal why this question is so important.
For instance, back in 2010, when a massive earthquake destroyed a poverty-stricken area of Haiti, the Red Cross launched a project to help rebuild and transform the homes of those affected. This led to immense global support and donations adding up to five hundred million dollars. The Red Cross was very vocal about their contributions, announcing that they provided homes to over 130,000 people. But the problem is that the number of homes built there only totalled six. If all of the money was accounted for via these homes, then they’d be worth about 80 million dollars each. When asked about this, the Red Cross couldn’t explain where all the money went, saying:
Like many humanitarian organizations responding in Haiti, the American Red Cross met complications in relation to government coordination delays, disputes over land ownership, delays at Haitian customs, challenges finding qualified staff who were in short supply and high demand, and the cholera outbreak, among other challenges.
Illness- and disease-based charities have their faults as well. Treating them has, undoubtedly, proven to have a corporate side because it is such a profitable industry, though only in terms of treatment, not prevention. Various cancer charities, for instance, have been proven to be astonishingly fraudulent. Brooklyn-based National Children’s Leukemia Foundation was shut down last year after years of raising millions of dollars via professionally-established fundraisers. The charity attracted people to their cause by saying their money would be used to conduct cancer research and locate bone marrow donors, but less than 1% of their donations actually went toward helping leukemia patients.
— The 50 worst charities in America devote less than 4% of donations raised to direct cash aid. Some charities gave even less. Over a decade, one diabetes charity raised nearly $14 million and gave about $10,000 to patients. Six spent no cash at all on their cause.— Even as they plead for financial support, operators at many of the 50 worst charities have lied to donors about where their money goes, taken multiple salaries, secretly paid themselves consulting fees or arranged fund-raising contracts with friends. One cancer charity paid a company owned by the president’s son nearly $18 million over eight years to solicit funds. A medical charity paid its biggest research grant to its president’s own for-profit company.
- Greater Chicago Food Depository
- Oregon Food Bank
- The Conservation Fund
- Give Kids the World
- Save the Children
Charities should, at the very least, be spending 66.6% of all donations on programs that directly benefit their mission. The following charities spend 20 to 30 cents on the donated dollar for overhead and administrative expenses:
- The Nature Conservancy
- World Wildlife Federation
- Oxfam America
- Natural Resources Defense Council
And these charities spend at least 30 cents or more on overhead, administrative costs, fundraising, etc.:
In this new film called Prosperity, you can learn the ways in which companies are changing the game in order to change our world. CE's founder Joe Martino is in this film talking about CE's business practices.