.
I recently stumbled across a discarded Oregonian newspaper. Had I not got it for free, I would have never bothered to read it. For those outside my adopted home state, or don't know much, the Oregonian is a Portland area publication and is probably the most liberal newspaper still in print.
In looking through it, a full page advertisement appeared on page A8. The ad thanked the readers for contributing to the newspaper's sponsoring of their 78Th. "Season for Charity" campaign. It was a huge success and collected over 297K in donations. With that, the Oregonian reported that they distributed 80K to the Oregon Food Bank, and $9500 to each of 16 other social service agencies. And I applaud their effort.
But in looking a bit deeper into the ad, I noticed an irregularity. If you were to do the math, you would find an Eighty-one Thousand Dollar shortfall in the money passed on to the charities from the actual amount collected. That's nearly 10%.
So where did that go? I know there are some costs associated with collecting money for charity. Things like advertising, wages, banking, and accountant fees. But who received that pay? Perhaps the advertisement costs were paid to the Oregonian itself, and perhaps the wages of the Oregonian employees were reimbursed from the collection, and perhaps the banking and other professional fees were actually that of the Oregonian.
My point is that nearly every charitable event advertised as "Non-Profit" is actually profitable to those running the event. Why is that? If they expect us to donate our time, money, and resources to the cause, why don't those running the show do the same?
In fairness to the Oregonian, 10% isn't so bad when compared to some others. The American Red Cross and the Cancer Society, report that only slightly more that half of the donations actually make it to the persons it was intended for. And other agencies take an even far greater portion to cover their administration costs. One police charity that I know consumes over 90% of what is taken in!
Far too many organizations that claim to be non-profit are actually very profitable to those at the top. Local pet adoption centers, television evangelists, free newspapers, public television and radio stations, donate your car to charity centers, Salvation Army, some churches, homeless shelters, and medical clinics are just to name a few. And more are popping up every day! It's no wonder why.
Sometimes I'd rather just give mine to the bum begging in the street, or to the single mom I see searching the bottom of her purse for that last coin at the grocery store cashier. At least then I'd know that everything I give goes to it's intended purpose.
.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your post about The Oregonian and Season of Sharing is both incorrect and reckless. Every dollar raised by Season of Sharing goes to needy families and the agencies that serve them. All overhead and administrative costs are absorbed by the paper. In other words, the overhead isn't 10 percent, it is zero percent. Each year, Season of Sharing features 20-25 cases nominated by local agencies. They are featured in a Wishbook that appears the Sunday before Thanksgiving. Readers donate to fulfill the wishes of the featured families. That is the difference in dollars between what was donated to agencies and the total raised. All the money raised above that needed to cover the cost of the wishes is distributed to the Food Bank and the agencies whose cases were selected. This is clearly stated in the paper every year. I look forward to your corrected post.
ReplyDeletePeter Bhatia
Editor, The Oregonian
wow, grandpa d ~ your posts really are monitored by "real" people.
ReplyDeletehope to see you around more often, peter, (i can call you peter, can't i since we share common interests here at the Thought Dock) we have often wondered who all these followers grandpa d claims to have. Actually you should feel free to drop on by the rest of his steady followers' blogs. insightful to say the least.
toodles!
Mr. Bhatia - This post was based solely on the information that appeared in print on Page A8 of July 9, 2010 edition, and as stated, the numbers do not add up. Therefore, my post was neither incorrect, nor reckless. And since I seldon read your newspaper, I've never seen a complete disclosure printed. However, I'd be happy to post that report on this blog if you would provide it. Thank you for contributing your explanation to this forum. I'm sure my readers will find it as comforting as I do.
ReplyDeletewell that one was fun!
ReplyDelete