PDA

View Full Version : Would you like to donate a dollar to Charity?



pefjr
02-28-2013, 06:56 PM
Alex Rodriguez’s charity gave only 1 percent of donations to charitable causes



Jay-Z and Alex Rodriguez at their charity poker tournament in 2006. (Getty Images)



Alex Rodriguez (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5275)' woes continue. A new Boston Globe review (http://bostonglobe.com/business/2013/02/24/nonprofit-game-many-athletes-post-losing-records/a0Eqoz6RUYORFhT0T0j0EO/story.html) of IRS filings by more than 50 athletes found that the charity established by Rodriguez, as well as those by other notable players, gave far less than the expected percentage of their income to actual charitable causes.
Nonprofits are generally expected to donate 65 to 75 percent of their revenues to charitable causes, with the remainder going to pay whatever expenses and, if necessary, salaries of nonprofit employees. But according to the Globe, nearly half of the 50 athletes' foundations reviewed fell below that line.
Rodriguez was not the only athlete whose foundation failed to meet acceptable giving rules, but his was certainly one of the most notorious misses. In 2006, Rodriguez teamed with Jay-Z for a charity poker tournament that helped the A-Rod Family Foundation raise $403,862. (Final reported records often differ from the "big check" as posted above because of facility use and similar expenses.) However, the IRS reported that barely 1 percent of that total reached charities: $5,000 to Jay-Z's Shawn Carter Scholarship Fund and $90 — yes, ninety dollars — to a Little League baseball team in Miami. The organization then stopped submitting financial reports to the IRS, and was subsequently stripped of its tax-exempt status.

Other notable athletes whose charities fell short, according to The Globe, included Dodgers pitcher Josh Beckett, whose foundation gave only 37 percent of revenues, and Ravens receiver Anquan Boldin (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/6390), whose foundation only passed on 17 percent of the amount it raised. And Roger Clemens' foundation reported donations of memorabilia and other items totaling 10 percent higher than the amount for which the jerseys, balls and so forth actually sold.
On the other hand, The Globe pointed out (http://bostonglobe.com/business/2013/02/24/nonprofit-game-many-athletes-post-losing-records/a0Eqoz6RUYORFhT0T0j0EO/story.html) several instances of strong celebrity involvement in charity. 49ers quarterback Alex Smith passed along 91 percent of his received donations. Michael Phelps' foundation passed along 75 percent after some initial lean years, and Carmelo Anthony (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3706)'s passed along 87 percent.
The key to high rates of charitable donation, The Globe suggested, is a leaner charity, avoiding high-cost events like golf tournaments and private concerts in favor of smaller, cheaper charitable operations. The more money that is spent on lavish galas and officer salaries, of course, the less that's available for donation.

Meli
03-01-2013, 01:42 AM
There was a bloke on here looking for donations to restore a big wooden boat.
Claimed he was going to use it to take sick kids on trips around some lake.
Wonder what happened to him his charity and the boat.
There is a sucker born every minute.

John Smith
03-01-2013, 06:41 AM
This is what hurts legitimate charities. Some "charities" are just businesses. Girl Scout cookies give very little to the troops selling them.

As a serious thought, I'd point out that even a legitimate charity has overhead. I guess the question becomes what is a reasonable amount of your donated dollar to go into that overhead.

A charity needs the means to collect and distribute money/goods. This involves transportation, travel, and wages. It may be, for example, necessary for a charity helping storm victims to fly food into the area. The cost of the plane will come out of donations. And/or the trucks.

It is impossible for a charitable organization to exist if 100% of the donations are expected to go to the victims it is helping. Over time, I would think that 75% of the donated money reaching the victims would be reasonable as an average. Might be more money being raised would make the cost a lower percentage, as it costs the same to rent a truck whether your cargo fills it or not.

Paul Pless
03-01-2013, 07:01 AM
Some "charities" are just businesses. Girl Scout cookies give very little to the troops selling them.According to the Girl Scouts. . .
With every purchase, approximately 70% of the proceeds stays in the local Girl Scout council and with troops to provide a portion of the resources needed to support Girl Scouting in that area, including the portion that goes directly to the group selling the cookies. The balance goes to the baker to pay for the cookies.
Girl Scout councils do not provide any portion of their cookie revenue to Girl Scouts of the USA, and no other revenue from cookie sales goes to Girl Scouts of the USA.

McMike
03-01-2013, 07:07 AM
I don't tend to donate to celebrities or boutique causes. The best donation you can make is time and physical objects like canned food. If you're too lazy to do that then there are national causes and organizations that give at least 50% of your donation to its intended cause.

To the OP; telling to the a55hole-ness of these two guys. I bet a few of us here have worshiped them at one time or another . . . America needs to find some real heroes to worship and to stop feeding these hoods.

Put your balls on the table, stay local and do good, just giving money to the problem is really the least you can do, really.

bogdog
03-01-2013, 08:03 AM
I use Charity Navigator http://www.charitynavigator.org/ to help me keep up with who's doing what and how well they're doing it with the dollars they receive. Our local foodbank does an incredible job with their dollars, every dollar generates eight dollars worth of food.

Gary E
03-01-2013, 08:18 AM
Check this site... very revealing on where the money goes
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=28731041

Horace
03-01-2013, 08:20 AM
I don't tend to donate to celebrities or boutique causes. The best donation you can make is time and physical objects like canned food. If you're too lazy to do that then there are national causes and organizations that give at least 50% of your donation to its intended cause.
I wonder what the "efficiency" of the various federal government charities is?

Rich Jones
03-01-2013, 08:21 AM
This is why I only donate to my church's national charity organization. 100% goes to the work of the charity. All overhead costs are covered by various endowment funds. And the charity doesn't just benefit our own. Lots go to outside causes, natural disaster relief, etc.

John Smith
03-01-2013, 10:01 AM
According to the Girl Scouts. . .

Having been on the troop end of this, I find what they say suspect. Although, in fairness, my experience was a very long time ago. The troop, which was doing the actual selling and distributing, got a quarter a box. I have no recollection of ever knowing where the rest of the money went.

The little girls, brownies at the time, were doing a lot of work for very little benefit.

John Smith
03-01-2013, 10:09 AM
Check this site... very revealing on where the money goes
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=28731041

As damning as this is, it's out of context. Perhaps those with high salaried administrations are the more effective in helping the needy. I have no doubt it takes overhead and good planning to be able to quickly respond behind emergency situations. We've seen good responses, and we've seen Katrina. I don't mean to say these are all charitable responses, only to suggest a quick response is better than a slow response.

The ability to respond quickly requires maintaining a capability, which includes a network, warehouses, people on call, etc.

The salaries seem high, but they are "fixed" to the extent that if enough money is raised they become a smaller percentage.

To oversimplify this, if you have an overhead of $500,000, but you raise $5,000,000, you have a lot more money to use to help people than if your overhead is $50,000 and you raise $500,000. Also, the lower overhead may mean you cannot get the help to those who need it as quickly.

ccmanuals
03-01-2013, 10:14 AM
I wonder what the "efficiency" of the various federal government charities is?

didn't know they had any. Which ones are you referring to?

Horace
03-01-2013, 10:19 AM
didn't know they had any. Which ones are you referring to?

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml

Meli
03-01-2013, 04:33 PM
I find this one interesting?
the japanese mob acted faster than the gov bringing relief to Kobe

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/us-yakuza-idUSTRE72O6TF20110325

ccmanuals
03-01-2013, 06:21 PM
http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml

I'm not sure I would call those charities.

From the website you posted:


When looking for financial assistance, remember that there are differences between grants and loans. You are required to pay back a loan, often with interest. You are not required to pay back a grant, but there are very few grants available to individuals. Most grants are awarded to universities, researchers, cities, states, counties, and non-profit organizations. You can search for these type of grants on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/).

pefjr
03-10-2013, 07:52 PM
hmmm.... where does the money go?????http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/andy-roddick-sues-charity-more-100k-promises-money-135817680--ten.html