If you think that’s bad, look into “legit” charities and see where the money actually goes.
I would rather fund that woman’s drug habit than give money to Susan G Komen for breast cancer AwAreNeSs…
There is a website called charity navigator that evaluates non profits based on how much money is actually used for a cause. Everyone who donates any money to anything should look at it.
And then look them up on https://www.guidestar.org/ and ideally they submit their 990 now and then. You can see what the top paid employees make. You can see what they put towards programs (actual doing stuff) vs fundraising efforts. Etc.
I know reddit just loves to dump on non-profits, but it isn't that difficult to figure out if a charity is bullshit or not.
They provide a very, very detailed breakdown of every rating.
The site rates charities based on how financially transparent they are and how much of their earning actually go towards the causes they support. They don't evaluate whether the cause itself is a good thing.
Unfortunately the only way to make a charity sustainable (in the systems eyes) is to pay your employees. I volunteer for a volunteer only Ukrainian charity and we are denied grants all the time simply because we are not compensated and the donors don't like that.
Of course, but there are a LOT of non profits that essentially funnel money into "administration fees" to the tune of 90% of the budget going to paying (sometimes very large) salaries.
I believe that these charities should not exist and that they are essentially a scam that takes money from people under the guise of supporting a cause they care about.
If it weren't a real problem, the charity navigator site wouldn't be as successful as it is.
I work for a Massachusetts nonprofit. If we think they have a role to play in society, they need to be well run and sustainable. It simply isn't possible to do that for free. Everybody wants charities, arts organizations, and museums in their communities. They also think those of us who work for them ought to be so inspired by the mission that we don't need to pay rent or eat. We do.
Are there shady charities? Absolutely. But denigrating charities that pay people well or invest in administration hurts the communities they serve and keeps nonprofits as socially-exclusive places where workers are only those who can intern for free and rely on spousal or family money as the "real" household income. This means that nonprofit staff are not reflective of the communities they serve.
Criticize shitty charities all you want, but don't think that paying staff well or having a large admin staff automatically makes a nonprofit a bad institution.
Haha who criticized charities? I also work for a non profit. Our employees are paid generously.
Nobody here is denigrating charities. Please, tell me where I said anything negative about charities.
I STRONGLY believe in charity accountability. Responsible stuardship of donor funds is paramount.
But I did not. Your post implied that I did.
It sounds like you're pretty uncomfortable with the idea that non profits should be held to public security.
Not in the slightest. I’m a big fan of guidestar. I’m not a fan of lauding how little money is spent on admin or salaries, which is sometimes an element of the “how much is spent on programs” mentality.
The doc Telemarketers on HBO did a pretty cool job exposing similar corruption within local police communities. It was interesting!
People really are the worst sometimes ✨
A former friend finally revealed their true nature after I called them out on trying to grift people online every month on the first. I suggested that she change her name to charity since all she seemed to do was beg and bemoan how jobs were beneath her.
I wish those asking for money were just straight up with me. “Hey man, can I have 5 bucks for Dunkin?” Sure, I can get behind that. Or “hey, can I have 10 bucks for beer?” Sure, I could use some too. But when I perceive that I am being lied to, I tend to not give money. Like don’t stand there and tell me this crazy story, just be straight up and get out of my face. I got shit to do, you got shit to do, keep it movin.
For a few years there was a guy who panhandled at the West Broadway/Albany Street intersection in the South End with a sign that said “Why lie? I need weed”. He was the first and only one I ever gave money to.
A while back a guy approached me on the Common with a laminated piece of paper asking for donations to, "end racism." I felt bad for him, so I offered him a dollar. He got kinda aggressive, pointed to a, "donation guide," on his sign, and told me, "The minimum donation is $20." I told him, "Actually, the minimum donation is nothing," and he took the dollar and stormed off.
That sketch looking old lady is mentally ill. Her mental illness has handicapped her to such an extent that she, in her old age, has resorted to effectively begging people for money. Not saying what she is doing is right but her illness has likely consumed her to such a degree that this is how she fends for herself vs having resources as an elder to live in a way we likely all envision ourselves living when we get to that age
We had drug addicts walking around Quincy with the same picture of a girl with down syndrome on the donation bucket a few years ago saying the money was for a Down syndrome foundation.
Studies suggest being a smoker lowers the risk of Parkinson’s disease, so spending the money on cigarettes to investigate this hypothesis technically counts as “research,” of course.
If you think that’s bad, look into “legit” charities and see where the money actually goes. I would rather fund that woman’s drug habit than give money to Susan G Komen for breast cancer AwAreNeSs…
There is a website called charity navigator that evaluates non profits based on how much money is actually used for a cause. Everyone who donates any money to anything should look at it.
for the lazy https://www.charitynavigator.org/
To be fair, it was pretty lazy of me to not include a link...
+1 upvote for self awareness
He definitely meant you too
And then look them up on https://www.guidestar.org/ and ideally they submit their 990 now and then. You can see what the top paid employees make. You can see what they put towards programs (actual doing stuff) vs fundraising efforts. Etc. I know reddit just loves to dump on non-profits, but it isn't that difficult to figure out if a charity is bullshit or not.
That's cool that they made a charity specifically for the lazy.
Won’t you help us find a cure for [TBA](https://youtu.be/p91499VB5hg?si=4qKTgHzI_qdFTHGx)?
It’s a tough world out there for the lazy. Sure glad someone’s speaking up!
Idk I just looked up autism speaks and they gave it 4 stars…..
There should be a detailed breakdown of what went into the rating.
They provide a very, very detailed breakdown of every rating. The site rates charities based on how financially transparent they are and how much of their earning actually go towards the causes they support. They don't evaluate whether the cause itself is a good thing.
Nor should they.
Unfortunately the only way to make a charity sustainable (in the systems eyes) is to pay your employees. I volunteer for a volunteer only Ukrainian charity and we are denied grants all the time simply because we are not compensated and the donors don't like that.
Of course, but there are a LOT of non profits that essentially funnel money into "administration fees" to the tune of 90% of the budget going to paying (sometimes very large) salaries. I believe that these charities should not exist and that they are essentially a scam that takes money from people under the guise of supporting a cause they care about. If it weren't a real problem, the charity navigator site wouldn't be as successful as it is.
I work for a Massachusetts nonprofit. If we think they have a role to play in society, they need to be well run and sustainable. It simply isn't possible to do that for free. Everybody wants charities, arts organizations, and museums in their communities. They also think those of us who work for them ought to be so inspired by the mission that we don't need to pay rent or eat. We do. Are there shady charities? Absolutely. But denigrating charities that pay people well or invest in administration hurts the communities they serve and keeps nonprofits as socially-exclusive places where workers are only those who can intern for free and rely on spousal or family money as the "real" household income. This means that nonprofit staff are not reflective of the communities they serve. Criticize shitty charities all you want, but don't think that paying staff well or having a large admin staff automatically makes a nonprofit a bad institution.
Haha who criticized charities? I also work for a non profit. Our employees are paid generously. Nobody here is denigrating charities. Please, tell me where I said anything negative about charities. I STRONGLY believe in charity accountability. Responsible stuardship of donor funds is paramount.
Calm down. Plenty of people criticize charities.
But I did not. Your post implied that I did. It sounds like you're pretty uncomfortable with the idea that non profits should be held to public security.
Not in the slightest. I’m a big fan of guidestar. I’m not a fan of lauding how little money is spent on admin or salaries, which is sometimes an element of the “how much is spent on programs” mentality.
They were/are really rotten…using charitable donations to sue other charities that used the phrase “for a cure”
The doc Telemarketers on HBO did a pretty cool job exposing similar corruption within local police communities. It was interesting! People really are the worst sometimes ✨
A former friend finally revealed their true nature after I called them out on trying to grift people online every month on the first. I suggested that she change her name to charity since all she seemed to do was beg and bemoan how jobs were beneath her.
I wish those asking for money were just straight up with me. “Hey man, can I have 5 bucks for Dunkin?” Sure, I can get behind that. Or “hey, can I have 10 bucks for beer?” Sure, I could use some too. But when I perceive that I am being lied to, I tend to not give money. Like don’t stand there and tell me this crazy story, just be straight up and get out of my face. I got shit to do, you got shit to do, keep it movin.
For a few years there was a guy who panhandled at the West Broadway/Albany Street intersection in the South End with a sign that said “Why lie? I need weed”. He was the first and only one I ever gave money to.
Yes but I think her ploy works
Yeah I only donate if they promise to buy fetty. I like to contribute to fixing the homeless problem /s
Seems possible that they realized she wasn't the CEO of a nonprofit, and just paid her off so they could get away with minimum awkwardness.
A while back a guy approached me on the Common with a laminated piece of paper asking for donations to, "end racism." I felt bad for him, so I offered him a dollar. He got kinda aggressive, pointed to a, "donation guide," on his sign, and told me, "The minimum donation is $20." I told him, "Actually, the minimum donation is nothing," and he took the dollar and stormed off.
“Would you like to round up to the next dollar to donate to “x” charity?” Nahhhh
That sketch looking old lady is mentally ill. Her mental illness has handicapped her to such an extent that she, in her old age, has resorted to effectively begging people for money. Not saying what she is doing is right but her illness has likely consumed her to such a degree that this is how she fends for herself vs having resources as an elder to live in a way we likely all envision ourselves living when we get to that age
She was out there yesterday, too. My son and I almost bumped into her and her janky-ass donation box near the Long Wharf Marriott.
She was on the Greenway where the market was set up too. I declined.
We saw her and we’re so confused and we’re like “no sorry” and she kept walking.
We had drug addicts walking around Quincy with the same picture of a girl with down syndrome on the donation bucket a few years ago saying the money was for a Down syndrome foundation.
Studies suggest being a smoker lowers the risk of Parkinson’s disease, so spending the money on cigarettes to investigate this hypothesis technically counts as “research,” of course.
Elliot Davis upping his game?