[weegee]

The SA operates on behalf of "the poor" and does some good for them. They are a non-profit organization; I am aware of some resale shops that portray themselves as charities but are really for-profit businesses.

I do agree that many charities consume a lot of contribution dollars as internal operating "expenses" (salaries) and to further fundraising efforts. At the worst of that spectrum you will find charities that spend over 50% of the money received just trying to get more money.

[dasboot]

Paying executive staff outragious salaries is something quite different than using available funds to chase additional funding. No?

Kinda remind me of the faith healers with the Caddies, tour buses, and diamond pinky rings: "Would Jesus drive a Yugo?"

[Dante3]

Does anyone know of some good charities? AMVETS? Some neighborhs are thinking of donating some valuable antiques.

[mlocher]

I do agree that many charities consume a lot of contribution dollars as internal operating "expenses" (salaries) and to further fundraising efforts. At the worst of that spectrum you will find charities that spend over 50% of the money received just trying to get more money.

the united way, is pretty fat. i have heard numbers from 25% to 40% of the contributions go to fundraising and salaries. united way, of course, distributes its monies to the actual charitable organizations and is not much more than a fundraising organization. at the other end of the spectrum, there are a lot of "faith based" charities where 95 to 97 cents of every dollar given goes to help those in need.

[Proud_texan]

Just tagging on here but Forbes does a great round up each year of the least, and most, efficient charities including salaries, fund raising overhead and how much actually goes out for the "real purpose".

Check it out here:

http://www.forbes.com/2003/11/19/charityland.html

Worth a look.