Are most non-profits largely a scam?

[Anonymous]

Oh!! Are we talking about the new paint “fee” in Maryland and how the money is going to a “non-profit”?

Yes, scam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh!! Are we talking about the new paint “fee” in Maryland and how the money is going to a “non-profit”?

Yes, scam.

Another $1m CEO. Wages are only 7% of program revenue, though. That's better than most.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/271354262

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some can be a front for money-laundering.

Never donate to a non-profit unless you are sure they have a great reputation in their field.

I have donated for years to Doctors Without Borders. It's one of the organizations with the most impact and least overhead and it's business is literally to save the lives of humans in war zones and other critical areas.

Not really. That's really not how money laundering works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

The Red Cross here in the US has much to improve upon. I've experienced them during natural disasters twice and in both cases I was appalled at how little they did. They always seemed to manage to have their people in their logo-branded vests in full force wherever the media cameras were, however.

The most responsive and generous activity was from local people helping local people. I remember a local business guy driving around quietly handing out bags of hot meals to everyone in the neighborhood. There were state National Guard folks helping clean up. There were Salvation Army teams who came around with empty boxes we could put our stuff in. There were groups from churches walking around with rakes and shovels and helping in any way they could.

The Red Cross never showed up. In both cases, in two different geographic locations. Never once did they come around.

And lets not forget that the Red Cross had access to military bases to get blood donations from healthy young troops. Then turned around and sold it to hospitals, and even worse, sold it back to the military when they needed it.

As long as I live, i will never give a dime to the Red Cross. YMMV, though. This was my personal experience.

The CEO is compensated at $1.3m. Wages account for 35% of the Red Cross's expenses.

The Red Cross CEO basically runs a multinational corporation with thousands of employees all over the world. He or she probably travels all the time. In order to find someone with the right experience and willingness to take on such a big job, they need to pay well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see several people around me starting non-profits, they get paid by it, their kids get resume bumps by it and social life prospers with it. They do some good work but most of the donations go towards administrative expenses and salaries so net effect is low. We give as much in donations as possible but sometimes it feels like we are only supporting lifestyles of people who can't find other jobs. Is it true or just skepticism?

Every single soccer club in the dmv is a ‘non-profit’ hahahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some can be a front for money-laundering.

Never donate to a non-profit unless you are sure they have a great reputation in their field.

I have donated for years to Doctors Without Borders. It's one of the organizations with the most impact and least overhead and it's business is literally to save the lives of humans in war zones and other critical areas.

Not really. That's really not how money laundering works.

Nonprofits can be vulnerable to money laundering, particularly through cash donations. Criminals exploit the trust associated with charitable organizations to disguise illicit funds as legitimate contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Use Charity watch website.

Charity watch is useless. There are charities with alleged and proven ties to terrorism which had high marks on Charitywatch even as news stories were coming out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see several people around me starting non-profits, they get paid by it, their kids get resume bumps by it and social life prospers with it. They do some good work but most of the donations go towards administrative expenses and salaries so net effect is low. We give as much in donations as possible but sometimes it feels like we are only supporting lifestyles of people who can't find other jobs. Is it true or just skepticism?

Somewhat. I worked for a non profit. Would the clients have appreciated if the non profit vaporized and someone just cut them a check ? Probably. But the whole teach a human to fish thing. I think that experiment (just cutting a check) has been tried some places and it's ok too. I mean basically cut out the non profits, give everyone checks and you have socialism. Not the worst thing I guess. The whole experience left me meh. Isn't government a massive non profit? Anyhoo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see several people around me starting non-profits, they get paid by it, their kids get resume bumps by it and social life prospers with it. They do some good work but most of the donations go towards administrative expenses and salaries so net effect is low. We give as much in donations as possible but sometimes it feels like we are only supporting lifestyles of people who can't find other jobs. Is it true or just skepticism?

Somewhat. I worked for a non profit. Would the clients have appreciated if the non profit vaporized and someone just cut them a check ? Probably. But the whole teach a human to fish thing. I think that experiment (just cutting a check) has been tried some places and it's ok too. I mean basically cut out the non profits, give everyone checks and you have socialism. Not the worst thing I guess. The whole experience left me meh. Isn't government a massive non profit? Anyhoo

Are you teaching them how to fish or are you teaching them how to game the nonprofit?

[Anonymous]

I'm super skeptical about any non profit at this point. And the work it takes to research them is saved by just ignoring them.

[Anonymous]

Wasn’t this topic posted a couple years ago? And with the same title?

In short, yes. Long answer, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some are scams. taking donations to pay themselves without paying taxes, coming up with scam ideas etc.

Some are legit and add tremendous value to society. Primarily the big ones like Red Cross.

The vast majority of them are not “scams” in the legal sense but are an outrageously inefficient use of resources. It would be far better for all the money of, say, poverty orgs in your town to pool cash and let the Red Cross or similar handle it. But no, every bored housewife or college applicant thinks they can do it better.

I immigrated to the us from a more socialist country and a few years after moving here had an aha moment that Americans are fundamentally suspect of govt and would rather give their money to private charity. Where I’m from it’s the opposite, citizens are fundamentally suspect of private charity and trust that the govt is best placed to provide the social safety net. I trust that the govt is not only best placed to pool and spend resources efficiently, but I also trust the govt to decide best priorities for charity. In the us, everyone and their uncle thinks that their pet project, or their view of solving a social ill, is better than everyone else’s. Where I’m from, charitable giving is just not that big of a thing, minus the big ones (Red Cross, medicine sans frontiers etc).

The Red Cross here in the US has much to improve upon. I've experienced them during natural disasters twice and in both cases I was appalled at how little they did. They always seemed to manage to have their people in their logo-branded vests in full force wherever the media cameras were, however.

The most responsive and generous activity was from local people helping local people. I remember a local business guy driving around quietly handing out bags of hot meals to everyone in the neighborhood. There were state National Guard folks helping clean up. There were Salvation Army teams who came around with empty boxes we could put our stuff in. There were groups from churches walking around with rakes and shovels and helping in any way they could.

The Red Cross never showed up. In both cases, in two different geographic locations. Never once did they come around.

And lets not forget that the Red Cross had access to military bases to get blood donations from healthy young troops. Then turned around and sold it to hospitals, and even worse, sold it back to the military when they needed it.

As long as I live, i will never give a dime to the Red Cross. YMMV, though. This was my personal experience.

The CEO is compensated at $1.3m. Wages account for 35% of the Red Cross's expenses.

The Red Cross CEO basically runs a multinational corporation with thousands of employees all over the world. He or she probably travels all the time. In order to find someone with the right experience and willingness to take on such a big job, they need to pay well.

People seem to think there are independently wealthy people out there with the right skill set to manage a $300M+ non-profit with very specialized industry knowledge who are willing to work 50-60 hours and travel 30-40% of their personal time. Like a non-profit of this size can be compared to some 50-person $10M NP. I'm not saying they are all justified - and yes, many NPs are poorly run - some are even scams IMO. But many do a lot of great work, so its a shame that people just assume the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn’t this topic posted a couple years ago? And with the same title?

In short, yes. Long answer, maybe.

Yes, it's one of the many let's stir the pot, jump on the ugly comment train posts that recycle every year including the "left lane is only for passing", "bikers don't belong on the road", "what is really upper middle class" type posts that bring out all the haters.

[Anonymous]

Agree that it varies hugely. Some do amazing work. GiveWell (givewell.org) is a nonprofit that evaluates OTHER nonprofits to find the most effective ones. There are many fine nonprofits that they do not endorse, but the ones that they do endorse are sure to provide real value.

[Anonymous]

I feel like the people who think nonprofits are a scam are the same people who want to get the government out of helping the needy, the poor, the sick, the environment, etc…

I guess you just want a soulless society where we dont help our fellow citizens.