Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/26/2010 12:31:28 PM PST by Mikey_1962
1. American Tract Society
Administrative expenses: 68.0%
Topping the list of America’s worst charities is an organization that spent more than $1.6 million dollars on its administrative expenses in 2007, over twice what it spent the previous year.
2. Boys Choir of Harlem
Administrative expenses: 66.3%
Long-respected for its role in improving the lives of disadvantaged and impoverished young people in Harlem, New York, the Boys Choir of Harlem went all the way to the White House, performing for sitting presidents since Lyndon Johnson.
3. National Council of Negro Women (NCNW)
Administrative expenses: 64%
Serving as an umbrella organization for 39 national and local advocacy groups for women of African descent both in the U.S. and abroad, the National Council of Negro Women coordinates its activities with partners in 34 states.
4. Union Rescue Mission, Little Rock
Administrative expenses: 62.1%
Arkansas’s Union Rescue Mission is the first charity on the list whose administrative expenses reached over 60 percent of total expenses for the last reported year. The Mission’s goals are of the highest importance, targeting hunger, victims of abuse, and people struggling with addiction in Arkansas and her neighboring states, which it pursues through the efforts of a few key Baptist reverends.
5. Cherokee National Historical Society
Administrative expenses: 58.2%
Dedicated to preserving the history and traditions of the Cherokee people, the Cherokee National Historical Society, based in Oklahoma, is the fifth-most inefficient charity in the United States
(Excerpt) Read more at mainstreet.com ...
Administrative expenses: 43.7%
That's just crazy!
Government “charity” is probably a lot worse.
It is not a charity
And this paragraph:Whether it be rent on prime office space, generous pay and benefits for the board of directors, or the high fixed costs of running a summer camp, overhead like this reduces the impact of a charity no matter how that money is being spent
strangely includes the costs of running a summer camp with administrative rent and salaries. If the purpose of the charity is to run a summer camp, then they have to pay the required "fixed costs," such as property tax, maintenance expenses, and insurance premiums.
The top charity is Gubmint, with 72% administrative costs.
So much for “charity”.
Those working at the “charity” use it to line their onw pockets. The Red Cross does the same thing.
It appears one should avoid donating to charities that specialize in proselytising or that single out minorities for their aid recipients.
“Please Touch Museum” [had] “revenue of over $24 million in its last reported fiscal year (2008) [and] funneled just $2 million of that to its community outreach programs.”
At one of the Audobon chapters, the director’s salary is mentioned. At the other, it’s the cost of visitors’ centers. The centers are where they do their educational programs about birds.
Whether or not you think that’s the best way to promote bird life, or whatever Audobon Societies are for, owning centers for birdly education can hardly be considered a misuse of donations.
Any liberal charity is run mainly for siphoning off money for nefarious purposes eg United Way
After reading the whole list, I believe that most of these “charitable organizations” are mistakenly marked at charities. I had dealt with that problem before.
Was a member of an organization that someone had mistakenly marked it as a “Charitable Organization” (because it sounds nice??) instead of an educational Organization.
We kept getting auditied by IRS wanting to know All this information about “Who did we give money to, and etc”... it took me HOURS to explain the difference, and most of the members (Liberals) just couldn’t get it.
Due to this ignorance or stupidity, I left the org. and far as I know they still getting audit letters from IRS.
Giving to charity is one of the joys of my life.
I fund charities exactly like I fund politicians. I give only to those who I can vet thoroughly and whose philosophies parallel my own.
Thus I don’t give to any umbrella political organizations (RNC, etc.) and I don’t give to umbrella charity organizations either. No United Way for me. I want control over how my money is spent. FWIW, all of my charitable giving is to local organizations or national organizations with a strong local presence like the Salvation Army.
All a waste of money.
And I would have thought they would be the usual Amish.
I once saw a list of the most efficient insurance companies.
To my surprise “The Social Security Administration” had the best record. Partly because of scale and also they were one of the first to go heavily into computers.
Government is generally very very inefficient but it doesn’t have to be.
American Tract Society has a response which was written uo in an article: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-tractsociety_15met.ART.State.Edition1.299eaa5.html
The one time expenses were to make the charity a leaner meaner one for the future. They publish obscure old tracts from 19th century authors for God’s sake.
Good points.
Do your givin’ while your livin’.
So your knowin’ where its goin’.
You need to research charities before giving them money.
You need to research investment advisors before giving money to them.
You need to research your political candidates before giving them money.
If you do these simple things you will not get burnt giving money to a shyster.
In short, screw your bro.
....the Jesse Jackson model!
I've never known a white Baptist Pastor who consented to be called "Reverend" - Pastor, Brother, Preacher but not Reverend.
You got my thoughts exactly.
vaudine
Is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on the bad charity list? Morris Dees and his few top employees take out high salaries, what they call education expense is all the fund raising literature they send out and little goes to anything else.
I have never heard of a white “Reverend” either. Maybe it’s a Black thing.
Wait a minute; without the aid to THAT particular group, Democrats would be out of business, and tons of black "activists" would be un-needed!
Then again, we'd save Billions of taxpayer wealth-redistribution dollars for sure!
A number of denominations use “Reverend” as a courtesy prefix for clergy: “The Reverend Mr. Lastname” or “Reverend Father Lastname” are the equivalent of elected officials’ being “The Honorable Representative Lastname.” The titles are used in the addressing of letters, and that’s about it.
You call your congresscritter “Congressman” or “Representative” or “Mister,” in every other usage, and most people call their clergy “Father” or “Deacon” or “Mister” or “Pastor.” Baptists seem to me to be more likely than other groups to address a pastor as “Reverend,” in speech, as in “Reverend Graham,” but I’ve never heard any use “reverends” in this way as a plural noun. They would say “pastors” to identify a group of church leaders.
The Silver Star Families of America, an organization that assists the wounded, ill and dying of the Armed Forces from
all wars, runs less that 5% admin.
And it is actually in their by laws.
Check out charity financial pages before you donate to see how transparant they are.
With a salary of $303,936 a year, all I can say is that Mo Dees is living well. It must be good to be oppressed.
So?
I agree, I agree!!!
Reverend is an adjective, and your reference to politicians
is fine. You wouldn’t address your Senator by saying,
“Well Honorable, I disagree with you.”
You can’t trust government stats with things like that because of the way government accounting goes.
I doubt if the SSA numbers are comparable to private industry.
La.
Exactly. Nor would you say, “Several of the honorables were indicted in Wake County last week.”
I'm 65, Baptist my entire life and have known many Baptist Pastors and have never met a Baptist Pastor who wanted to be addressed by the title "Reverend".
I've never met Sharpton or Jackson and don't even know if they claim to be Baptist.
News people refer to them as Reverend.
My current Pastor has an earned doctorate, (As opposed to an honorary one) and prefers to be called brother Bobby.
Just going from the general media. References to Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham always say “Reverend Graham,” as if that’s what you’d say if you met either man in person.
Would real people (non-journalists) say Mr. Graham?
Our Puerto Rican deacon, “Reverend Mr. Rafael Fuentes,” according to the bulletin, goes by “Brother Rafael.”
Please see my number 36 and 37 reply
Hmm ...
I'm generalizing, I know but I believe that fellow Baptists would address him as brother Graham. If they knew him well, perhaps brother Franklin or brother Frank, whatever he goes by.
I’m Anglican so my knowledge of Baptist practices of addressing their clergy is limited. However we do count among our closest friends a Baptist pastor and his family. When visiting his church we have have heard him called Pastor by some and Brother by others. We have never heard him addressed as Reverend.
Because he doesn't want to be addressed as "Reverend", yet if you see his name in the paper when he preaches a funeral, most likely he will be referred to as Reverend. That's because generally speaking, news people are about as ignorant concerning religion as they are concerning guns.
You’d THINK Mr. Blocquet could check with the charities before publishing his list to see if there were extenuating circumstances. Also, smaller charities’ expenses will almost always be proportionately higher, given the basic costs of doing business vs. donations.
What’s acceptable to ya, 40%, 25%? Rackets, all of them! Give to the man on the street, to your local church.
Thanks, that could be useful information! Not that I’m likely to meet Franklin Graham, but I do meet Baptist ministers at Republican Party events sometimes. Generally I call them “Sir,” but as I get older, younger men seem to be a bit flummoxed by that ... and I wouldn’t want to address a respectable clergyman as “Son.”
Not making the case myself, but:
“Garland-based American Tract Society says ‘worst’ charity rating came from its higher costs in 2007”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.