Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- From: JR <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:49:52 -0700
rdean3REMOVE@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
OK, but it still doesn't explain how the RC, at least according to the
website, spends .18 cents to raise a dollar, but somehow also only
spends 3.something percent to raise a dollar.
I don't think it says anywhere on the website that it spends 3 point something cents to raise a dollar. It says that out of every dollar it spends, 3.5 cents is spent on fundraising. Two different things.
OTOH, and don't take this
as a shot, if any of this is based upon what the RC "figures" and that
is accepted as fact, then I can see no difference from the
supposedly-wrong "church" organizations who simply report what they
want.
Might have read that way, but I never intended to imply that church organizations are bad or wrong, only that the assumption they're always and only good and efficient just because they're small and "faith-based" is a recipe for *potential* abuse. The point isn't that RC's figures are accurate (I'm just assuming they are, lacking any evidence to the contrary), but that the faith-based orgs don't have to report the docs that allow calculation of the common stats that allow easy comparison.
And that brings us to another point: why does reporting in such a
fashion as to be acceptable to this or that watchdog org make an
organization "good" or better or more helpful.
Because the watchdog groups don't know everything (or even if everything the charities report to the govt is accurate) doesn't mean they don't serve a useful purpose to the average small-scale contributor. They collect the data that the charities report, they digest, synthesize and report it in a user-friendly form and present it all in a way that allows the potential donor to make comparisons.
Accounting can cover all
sorts of things,
It's the government's job, in the case of tax-exempt charities, to verify the truthfulness of what's reported, just as they should verify what ordinary taxpayers and corporations report. Given the watchdogs' brief, though (even if it's a "self-appointed" one), I think it makes sense that they devote whatever resources they have to acting simply as clearing houses of publicly but not easily available information rather than taking on law-enforcement or investigative reporting functions.
and at least for me, I don't care what some small, self-appointed, and VERY closely held org says if I can see evidence of good works (or the lack thereof, as the case may be).
I agree that the financial stats aren't the whole picture, maybe not even the most important part of the picture. Their value is that they rise above the anecdotal and that they allow objective analysis, even if of perhaps imperfect data. For folks without on-the-ground contact, they're useful.
BTW, is Consumer Reports to be faulted for being "self-appointed"? The Heritage Foundation? And anyway, I thought small and private was *good*. (That's why I'd make a bad Republican.... I can never get this stuff straight.) <g>
.
- References:
- Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- From: Wolfgang
- Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- From: BJ Conner
- Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- From: rdean3REMOVE
- Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- From: JR
- Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- Prev by Date: Re: More Bush humor
- Next by Date: Re: Wow!!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- Next by thread: Re: Here's your Red Cross....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading