Recession drags rising number of Albertans into financial ruin

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by polak

Why would you be against those things? You realize that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and Run for the Cure raise huge money?

But where does the money go? I don't know about the Ice Bucket one, but I remember an investigation into some of the breast cancer charities and they are basically fund-raising for "awareness" not a cure.

[CaptainCrunch]

I firmly believe in charitable donations.

I believe that the poor should donate their spare organs to the wealthy and powerful. We can even provide them with a tax receipt based on the value of the organ. This way we the 1% can live longer lives and give more of our blessings to society

I believe the poor should donate at least one child to science for experimentation. It doesn't have to be cruel experiments. But I have to be honest, no matter how much I spend on shampoo it stings my eyes a little bit, and that's intolerable. Your generous donation of one child, to which you will receive a tax receipt will ensure that I am not only more handsome, but my eyes won't sting which takes my thoughts away from making money of which I give a small portion back to the state for social programs.

I believe that we need to create some kind of charity that uses treadmills, that way we can encourage the poor to donate their time by running on the treadmill for money so that we can generate cheaper and cleaner electricity to power our 100" 3d curved wall mounted TV's. Which will keep us the 1% more relaxed and able to work more efficiently when we trade stocks and bonds on the international private insider trading network that allows us to become rich. Also the environment wins.

I am the 1% do as I say

[polak]

You need to watch Rick and Morty.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

But where does the money go? I don't know about the Ice Bucket one, but I remember an investigation into some of the breast cancer charities and they are basically fund-raising for "awareness" not a cure.

Yeah, I don't know that raising awareness about breast cancer is an especially efficient way to spend charitable dollars. Unsexy diseases like colon cancer and pancreatic cancer are badly underfunded in comparison.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

Why would you be against those things? You realize that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and Run for the Cure raise huge money?

For rides and Walks in general around 50% of the total money spent by the organization is spent on hosting the events. By comparison 9% of united way is spent on overhead to raise money.

Ice Bucket I was concerned with donation cannibalization.

[polak]

50% being spent to attract such a large donor base doesn't seem like a waste?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

50% being spent to attract such a large donor base doesn't seem like a waste?

Really????? That's seems like a ridiculous overhead rate. If I said Hey Polak give me $20 and I'll donate $10 to the Tom Baker Cancer Center would you do it?

What if I said I'm doing the Ride to Conquer Caner can I get $20 from you.

It's the same request.

What are your thoughts on donar Canibalization? Do you believe that over 50% of this money would not have been given somewhere if it weren't for these events?

[polak]

Originally Posted by GGG

Really????? That's seems like a ridiculous overhead rate. If I said Hey Polak give me $20 and I'll donate $10 to the Tom Baker Cancer Center would you do it?

What if I said I'm doing the Ride to Conquer Caner can I get $20 from you.

It's the same request.

What are your thoughts on donar Canibalization? Do you believe that over 50% of this money would not have been given somewhere if it weren't for these events?

If you said "Hey donate $20 to me and I'll give $10 to the charity and then spend the other $10 to organize a nationally recognized even that will attract thousands of more donors" then I'd gladly say yes.

Do you think it's a coincidence that these big, well organized charities are also the most well supported? The old adage applies here too, though slightly modified: You gotta spend money to [attract] money.

Donor Cannibalization is an issue but that's just how it goes. There's a finite amount of money that will be given to charities. People will either donate to the ones who raise the most awareness (see, more than a catchphrase) or one that they have a connection to in some way.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

If you said "Hey donate $20 to me and I'll give $10 to the charity and then spend the other $10 to organize a nationally recognized even that will attract thousands of more donors" then I'd gladly say yes.

Do you think it's a coincidence that these big, well organized charities are also the most well supported? The old adage applies here too, though slightly modified: You gotta spend money to [attract] money.

Donor Cannibalization is an issue but that's just how it goes. There's a finite amount of money that will be given to charities. People will either donate to the ones who raise the most awareness (see, more than a catchphrase) or one that they have a connection to in some way.

Don't those two ideas conflict. If there is a max donation pool then every dollar spent raising money is a dollar lost. If there is a relationship between events and total charitable donations then some spending on fundraising makes sense.

The united way raises more money then any of the rides and does so with a 9% overhead rate. So I disagree that the big event charities are the most well supported.

[CaptainCrunch]

More along the lines of

I'll give you $20.00 for your charity

Great $10.00 goes to the event
$5.00 goes to pay the CEO, CFO, COO and other executive salaries
$2.00 goes to pay their travel expenses for the year
$1.00 goes towards printing pamphlets announcing the next neighbourhood drive
$1.00 goes towards paying for office equipment and cell phone bills
$1.00 goes towards the actual charity.

[polak]

And those charities convince thousands, if not millions of people to donate.

Or you can donate and have your 20 bucks go all to the charity but that charity only raises $1000 cause everyone that works for it is a part time volunteer with no experience in organizing events or running a major organization.

In the end they both have their respective place and donating to either isn't a waste.

[rubecube]

Polak, there are a lot of worthy charitable causes that are run much more efficiently and with less overhead than groups such as the Susan G. Komen foundation and their ilk.

[CliffFletcher]

Breast cancer gets most attention - but is that fair?

...The cancer that Reade is battling - lung cancer - kills more people than any other cancer in the country and is second only to heart disease among all causes of death.

Breast cancer comes in at 11th on that list, behind colorectal. In terms of research and fundraising dollars, though, breast cancer climbs to the top.

In 2011, National Cancer Institute funding for breast cancer was twice the amount for lung cancer. Calculated according to deaths, that comes to $15,638 per breast cancer death that year compared with $1,891 per lung cancer death, and $2,641 per pancreatic cancer death.

Last year's Race for Breath fundraiser for lung cancer in Virginia Beach didn't even raise a fourth of the local Komen Race for the Cure tally of $423,000 for breast cancer. And Komen's 7,000 participants this year had a leg up on the 500 expected at Saturday's Race for Breath.

Pancreatic cancer does not affect as many as lung or breast cancer, but it's much deadlier, with one of the lowest survival rates of all the cancers.

Breast cancer, by contrast, has one of the highest survival rates, meaning more people in good health to raise awareness with their personal stories...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by polak

And those charities convince thousands, if not millions of people to donate.

Or you can donate and have your 20 bucks go all to the charity but that charity only raises $1000 cause everyone that works for it is a part time volunteer with no experience in organizing events or running a major organization.

In the end they both have their respective place and donating to either isn't a waste.

Or you can donate to a high performing charity where less than 10% of money goes to overhead. You seem to make a false dichotomy between big high overhead charity vs small low overhead charity. There are in fact high fundraising low overhead charities.

Also the continued support of high overhead fundraising organization allows them to continue to exist in a high overhead model. Only the most efficient fund raisers should be supported.

I do agree that some overhead is neccessary to raise money, just not half.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or you can donate to a high performing charity where less than 10% of money goes to overhead. You seem to make a false dichotomy between big high overhead charity vs small low overhead charity. There are in fact high fundraising low overhead charities.

Also the continued support of high overhead fundraising organization allows them to continue to exist in a high overhead model. Only the most efficient fund raisers should be supported.

I do agree that some overhead is neccessary to raise money, just not half.

Actually, under most accounting principles concerning charities thats one of the defining metrics.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

Actually, under most accounting principles concerning charities thats one of the defining metrics.

Is that for a pure fund raising body or a charity that actually does stuff? There is a difference between the United way who fund raises and inn from the cold who offers a service.

Is 50% considered good, bad, the maximum allowed by law???

[GGG]

Financial Review:
Alberta Cancer Foundation is one of Canada's Major 100 charities with F2015 donations of $22.2m. Total overhead costs are 49% exceeding Ci's reasonable range. The average for total overhead costs for Canadian charities is 26%. ACF has funding reserves of $154.6m, including $38m in donor-endowed funds. Excluding donor-endowed funds, funding reserves can cover annual program costs 6.6 times, up from 3.7 times in F2013.

https://charityintelligence.ca/chari...cer-foundation

Alberta Cancer Foundation runs the ride to conquer cancer in alberta

Compared to a fundraising organization like the United way at 11% or the Canadian average at 26%

Though it's better then the home lotteries which are like 80% overhead/prizes

[Jason14h]

But lottery prizes to raise money is still a benefit ! Donaters are getting the return, not employees of the lottery . That's like saying a 50/50 draw has 50 percent overhead !

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

Is that for a pure fund raising body or a charity that actually does stuff? There is a difference between the United way who fund raises and inn from the cold who offers a service.

Is 50% considered good, bad, the maximum allowed by law???

I'm not aware that there is a maximum allowed 'by law.' There probably is but charities arent my expertise.

As for the breakdown, my understanding is that 51% towards research/benefit vs. overhead is the minimum desired, but its not like if you dont meet this metric you have your charitable status revoked or anything. In fact, I dont think most charities get anywhere close to that split, its probably closer to 25% at best.

For instance, at one point the Canadian Cancer Soceity was running at something like 9 cents on the dollar towards actual research the rest to overhead. Dont quote that number because it was a while ago, but the point is that the CCS basically said that they were raising more money through the campaign than they had been previously through sheer volume and maybe thats true, but a metric like that is going to sour certain donors.

Originally Posted by GGG

https://charityintelligence.ca/chari...cer-foundation

Alberta Cancer Foundation runs the ride to conquer cancer in alberta

Compared to a fundraising organization like the United way at 11% or the Canadian average at 26%

Though it's better then the home lotteries which are like 80% overhead/prizes

Charitable Lotteries are a whole other ball game.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Polak, there are a lot of worthy charitable causes that are run much more efficiently and with less overhead than groups such as the Susan G. Komen foundation and their ilk.

The whole situation is so unsavory with her sister as the CEO having made close to $700K per year with zero track record before the foundation. I'm also not keen on their propensity for litigating the crap out of charitable organizations who had "for the cure" in their names over trademark infringement.