The 20 Worst Charities In America

Main Street ^ | 6-1-2010 | Greg Bocquet

[blam]

The 20 Worst Charities In America

6-1 2020
By Greg Bocquet

A favorite saying in business is that you have to spend money to make money. Charitable organizations, on the other hand, have to spend money to give money, and it turns out that some are woefully inefficient at channeling donations to the people they're supposed to help.

The non-profit Charity Navigator Web site tracks such expenses via charities’ disclosure statements to the IRS to provide donors with an assessment of how well charities run themselves. Looking only at the supply side for the more than 5,500 charities that it tracks, the organization does not evaluate the impact on the recipients of funds, since that impact is often a subjective appraisal of “effectiveness.”

But it is safe to say that all donors give money not to pay for office supplies and inflated salaries for executives, but rather to the programs that charities undertake to further their goals. It is with this philosophy that we highlight the 20 charities in the U.S. with the highest administrative costs, to show which groups take the most of each donated dollar for themselves, in some cases leaving less than half for the intended recipients of aid.

Whether it be rent on prime office space, generous pay and benefits for the board of directors, or the high fixed costs of running a summer camp, overhead like this reduces the impact of a charity no matter how that money is being spent. Donor beware…

20. Tucson Audubon Society

Administrative expenses: 42.8%

Well-known for its many programs focused on the protection of biodiversity and the environment, the Audubon society, based in Washington, D.C., has chapters across the country, run independently of the main office. Its affiliate in Tuscon, Arizona, which fosters interest in and conservation of the bird

[snip]

[wideminded]

13. Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics - Administrative expenses: 45.4%

Peter G. Peterson is a billionaire. I wonder why he needs administrative expenses. Maybe some of these charities raise so little money that 45% for administrative expenses is actually not much money.

[a fool in paradise]

The Fords, Rockefellers, Carnegies, Gates, etc learned long ago to establish a charitable fund and then put yourself on the board of directors.

[a fool in paradise]

I’ve heard that they deduct such contributions to that charity from the “general aportionment” of generic UW contributions.

I don’t know if that is the case. I gave the same way you did, to a selected charity.

[TASMANIANRED]

HUSUS and Peta should be on the list.

Unless you want to count executing pets as providing a direct benefit.