# Charitable donations effectiveness



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Received from an email:


> *Donating - Interesting, ever wonder where that donation money goes?*
> 
> Keep these facts in mind when "donating". As you open your pockets for yet another natural disaster, keep the following facts in mind; we have listed them from the highest (worse paid offender) to the lowest (least paid offender).
> 
> ...


However here is what Urban Legends says about it:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_charities_salaries.htm
so it appears to be inaccurate.

Beware anyone who says they will give you a receipt for more than you donate! And always check emails before posting/propagating them! My apologies.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Oh, dear. Keith - do you have a source for this?


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Yes. The United Way marketers are in our workplace at this time of year, setting goals and challenging us to beat those goals every year. Good to see the money is going to a good cause.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

This is what drives me more toward things like Kiva. It seems like a very efficient charity in terms of how much good it can do per dollar of donation.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I am pretty sure the salaries of UNICEF employees, including the executive director, are paid for by UN dues from member countries, not from individual donations. It's also possible that the leaders of these other charities listed have their salaries paid through endowments.

I really don't think the salary of a charity's leader has any bearing on the charity's effectiveness or the proportion of your donation that goes to overhead versus direct aid. I remember seeing an independent rating of various charities that was developed through a much more rigorous process and criteria; I'll see if I can find it and post a link here.

Edited to add link:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4617

This is for the US -- but note that when you donate money to UNICEF you're actually giving money to one of UNICEF's national committees. UNICEF in this case comes out with a 4-star rating in terms of donation effectiveness, with only 2.5% of the budget going for administration and 91.8% going directly to programs.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Thanks for that, Brad; UNICEF is one of my regular charity recipients and when I last checked on the effectiveness of my donations, it was very high.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

It is indeed high, although it's also worth noting that the 91.8% of your donation that goes to "programs" also includes their fundraising efforts in addition to direct assistance in developing countries, but to be honest I don't mind supporting their fundraising -- after all, they can't simply sit on their hands and hope that people will donate money to them. In the charity business you have to spend money to make money, and I'm okay with that.

Charity Navigator gives UNICEF its top rating for donation effectiveness, so you can probably feel comfortable donating to them. When I was a journalist I spent a lot of time covering international negotations at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, and while I certainly saw evidence of a bloated UN bureaucracy, I also saw plenty of evidence of effectiveness, commitment, and sacrifice on the part of UN employees and programs.


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

OP appear to be quoting from this blog posting[1], which in turn is commenting on a study on CEO compensation for charitable organizations.[2]

[1] http://lockdoc1.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/charities-that-thank-you-for-your-donation/

[2] http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=studies.ceo


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

slacker said:


> OP appear to be quoting from this blog posting[1], which in turn is commenting on a study on CEO compensation for charitable organizations.[2]
> 
> [1] http://lockdoc1.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/charities-that-thank-you-for-your-donation/
> 
> [2] http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=studies.ceo


The blog post isn't citing salaries from the Charity Navigator report, however, as those are much lower. For example, for international aid organizations, the highest reported CEO salary is for the Foreign Policy Association, at $683K. UNICEF's CEO in the US makes about $430K. Not sure where they got the $1,200,000 per year figure, unless that's the CEO of UNICEF HQ, whose salary is paid from member country dues, not personal donations.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

_Royal Royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes_

two things that set off the b/s detector for me:

no such car (The company is, or was called Rolls-Royce)
"exclusive use"? as opposed to the driver picking up random hitchhikers?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> This is what drives me more toward things like Kiva. It seems like a very efficient charity in terms of how much good it can do per dollar of donation.


@andrewf: I've been looking into Kiva.org as well. But it bothers me that some of kiva's partners (aka Microfinance Institutions) are profit seeking entities that charge upwards of 80% interest rates. I'll do more research.

EDIT: I also just found out that Paypal will charge their usual foreign currency exchange from CAD to USD. I think it's 2.5% currently.


----------



## Mockingbird (Apr 29, 2009)

You can always look up the charity's financial information from the CRA site.
Charities Listing

Here's one for UNICEF Canada
Financial 2009
Compensation


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Mockingbird said:


> You can always look up the charity's financial information from the CRA site.
> Charities Listing
> 
> Here's one for UNICEF Canada
> ...


Based on this, it looks like the CEO of UNICEF Canada makes less than $200K per year. They show one person making between 160,000 - $199,999 and nobody higher than that.

If I'm reading the return correctly, it looks like they spent $54.8 million on charitable programs, and $3.2 million on management/administration. They did spend $10.4 million on fundraising.


----------



## furgy (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't like most organised charities , and I do not donate , screw em.

That said , I would do anything to help a friend , neighbor , or relative , (even a little iffy on the relatives)

Being a business owner , I often hire people who I know need work , whether I need help or not , and I pay well , that's my form of giving.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

The poorest Canadians are rich beyond the wildest dreams of millions of people in developing countries, so while I do contribute to local and Canada-wide charities I usually give more to organizations that work in the developing world. And it's really hard to do direct giving in the third world when you live in the first. I've done it, and it took an incredible amount of my time and energy. I just don't have time to do that on a regular basis, so it's easier for me to support organizations that work in those countries. I know that some of my donation goes to administration and overhead, but having worked for nonprofits most of my life, I understand that this is unavoidable. But by doing a little research you can identify the charities that are efficient with their overhead and devote a greater share of their budget to direct aid.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

brad said:


> I really don't think the salary of a charity's leader has any bearing on the charity's effectiveness or the proportion of your donation that goes to overhead versus direct aid.


This is where questions have to be asked. I know of several where the leader's salary and the entire paid staff, are coming directly out of donations. Others are out of endowments, investments or any combination there of.

I've also seen where the donation I send is 87% effective but if I respond to the fundraising company, the fine print indicates that using this channel is giving the fundraising company 40% of my donation.


Like so many other things - it's buyer beware!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

brad said:


> ..., but to be honest I don't mind supporting their fundraising -- after all, they can't simply sit on their hands and hope that people will donate money to them. In the charity business you have to spend money to make money, and I'm okay with that.


They have to get their message out where promotion may not be their forte. The key question is at what cost? Most people I know aren't too happy if the fine print is saying "we keep 75% and the charity gets 25%".


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I have become very leery of giving to charities in developing countries after reading several articles over the last few years saying that large amounts of money donated to charitable groups in those countries end up in the Swiss bank accounts of their government officials. I continue to contribute to Doctors Without Borders because I believe that they spend their donations directly on their programmes, but I'm very hesitant to give to many others, even including the Red Cross. I sent a donation to the Red Cross at the time of the huge tsunami in Asia a few years ago, and I read in the newspaper recently that most of that money is still sitting in the Red Cross's bank accounts.

At the time of the Haiti earthquake, I sent my donation to Doctors Without Borders, and I feel reasonably good about that choice. But the newspapers here ran a story during that crisis saying that the Haitian president was demanding that donations be send directly to the government of Haiti rather than individual charities, and I thought, "Oh yes, certainly ... people are supposed to send charitable dollars directly to a government with one of the worst reputations for corruption anywhere in the world - not likely!" And, in spite of the almost unprecented donations sent to various charitable organizations in Haiti at that time, there seems to have been very little progress made in housing the homeless.

I tend to make more of my donations closer to home these days, often to friends who are going through difficult times. For example, I recently wrote a cheque for $2000 to an 80-year-old friend whose very old car had given up the ghost. Another friend had given her an old car of hers, but my friend's long-time trusted mechanic told her that, although it was worth fixing, it needed $2000 worth of work on it. She was upset because she didn't have $2000 and had no way of getting it, so I wrote her a cheque for that amount. I realize that many people would consider that her need wasn't as great as many people in developing countries, but at least I knew where my money went, and I truly don't know who felt better about it - my friend or me. There are many ways of helping other people; we don't all have to do it the same way, and I'm comfortable with my way.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Many corporate charities have their operations funded entirely by their sponsoring company, so that 100% of donations are used for the stated cause.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> This is where questions have to be asked. I know of several where the leader's salary and the entire paid staff, are coming directly out of donations. Others are out of endowments, investments or any combination there of.
> 
> I've also seen where the donation I send is 87% effective but if I respond to the fundraising company, the fine print indicates that using this channel is giving the fundraising company 40% of my donation.
> 
> ...





andrewf said:


> Many corporate charities have their operations funded entirely by their sponsoring company, so that 100% of donations are used for the stated cause.


I think there are so many ways of accounting for overhead that the only valid comparison is the salaries they draw. After all, an endowment is meant to give money to charity not to administration. Same with corporate sponsorships. It is indeed murky because the charities don't like reporting contributions spent on marketing and administration. We all know that those are real costs but cannot get straight answers.

I have also looked at kiva.org and the MicroFinance institutions do claim a big chunk because it costs a lot to administer small loans. And there were some bad situations where they were soliciting money for a given cause but that cause was already funded.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Karen said:


> I have become very leery of giving to charities in developing countries after reading several articles over the last few years saying that large amounts of money donated to charitable groups in those countries end up in the Swiss bank accounts of their government officials.
> 
> ... I sent a donation to the Red Cross at the time of the huge tsunami in Asia a few years ago, and I read in the newspaper recently that most of that money is still sitting in the Red Cross's bank accounts.


Strange ... the few I've researched and donate to for developing countries have the Canadian gov't giving matching money because the gov't to gov't channel end up in the Swiss bank accounts while the same money funneled through the charities end up with a significantly hight amount going to help those intended or spin-offs (ex. the charity rents trucks/drivers locally so that those receiving the aid benefit and locals also benefit from the rentals).


IMHO, if the money was earmarked for tsunami victims and can't be used, the Red Cross should at minimum be identifying that and providing the option to apply it elsewhere. I'm not sure refunds are workable as you'd have to update your taxes etc. etc. 

Either way, I find the excessive admin fees or misrepresentations far worse.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

kcowan said:


> After all, an endowment is meant to give money to charity not to administration.


Not always the case. Some philanthropists will provide an endowment to an organization to help take care of its operating costs so it can focus its energy on raising money for direct aid instead of raising money just to stay in operation.

You can't run a charity without administrative costs, and you can't run an effective and sustainable charity without giving your employees liveable wages and the budgets and resources to get things done. So I am perfectly content with the knowledge that a portion of my donations goes to fund overhead in order to keep the organization afloat and to allow it to continue to do its work.

I'm not even sure you can rate a charity's effectiveness by the amount of money it spends on direct aid compared with the amount it spends on salaries and administration. If some of those salaries are for people who are in the field, directly helping those in need, the organization might be highly effective.


----------



## CorinaC (Oct 29, 2010)

I work at World Vision Canada and it is great that this forum is being used to address charity accountability and transparency. However, the facts related to the president of World Vision Canada are incorrect. All of the assertions made about him are completely false.

Our president earns a salary of $184,000, plus a moderate vehicle allowance - which is substantially less than executives who run comparable organizations.

Our president does not live in a $700,000 - $800,000 home and none of his housing costs are paid for by World Vision Canada.

If you would like to learn about how World Vision determines this and other salaries, I encourage you to read our policy by visiting the following link:

http://www.worldvision.ca/About-Us/financial-information/Pages/our-approach-to-executive-compensation.aspx

You can also access our annual reports and audited financial statements here:

http://www.worldvision.ca/About-Us/financial-information/Pages/annual-reports-and-financial-statements.aspx


----------



## George (Apr 3, 2009)

Karen said:


> I sent a donation to the Red Cross at the time of the huge tsunami in Asia a few years ago, and I read in the newspaper recently that most of that money is still sitting in the Red Cross's bank accounts.


This isn't necessarily because the Red Cross isn't effectively using the money - in many cases it doesn't make sense to simply throw money at the problem, and having more money doesn't instantly create solutions to disasters. Charities that do disaster relief can actually have significant difficulties when funds are earmarked for specific things. This blog post does an outstanding job of explaining why restricted donations are a bad idea:

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/01/15/dont-give-money-to-haiti/


----------



## davext (Apr 11, 2010)

CorinaC said:


> I work at World Vision Canada and it is great that this forum is being used to address charity accountability and transparency. However, the facts related to the president of World Vision Canada are incorrect. All of the assertions made about him are completely false.
> 
> Our president earns a salary of $184,000, plus a moderate vehicle allowance - which is substantially less than executives who run comparable organizations.
> 
> ...


IMHO, $184,000 is excessive. Is it impossible to find someone who is competent and will work for less since it's a charitable organization?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

@davext: Should we have some sort of governing body deciding on the wage of different jobs and positions? Perhaps taking into account of abilities and needs of the individuals involved?


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

My honest opinion is to pay people what the market thinks its worth. If you had a person running a $100 million company, he'd be getting paid much more than $184,000. Many of these individuals are 20+ year-experienced non-profit organizers, and their name alone helps attract donors, who give far more than the $184,000.

Supply and demand is determining their fair wage rate, and to be honest, $184,000 isn't excessive given their hours (often 6-7 days a week, 10-14 hour days), with lots of travel around the world.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Unlike the pay of bankers and others, charities is one place where I can directly decide how much I am willing to pay for the overheads. I don't see why a charity has to pay someone $184k to attract them.

Now if they get paid on how much extra money they can attract in a performance bonus every year, then I would be sympathetic. But not as straight salary without performance risk.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Unlike the pay of bankers and others, charities is one place where I can directly decide how much I am willing to pay for the overheads. I don't see why a charity has to pay someone $184k to attract them.


Managing a large charity is no different day-to-day than managing a large corporation. In both cases you're talking about managing a large (and frequently multinational) organization with hundreds or even thousands of employees, with budgets in the millions or billions of dollars. You need someone with the same skills and qualities as the CEO of a corporation, and few people who have spent decades developing those skills are likely to be eager to take a large pay cut in order to manage a charity. Look at the current and past CEOs of the large charities in North American and elsewhere, and you'll see that many of them used to be corporate CEOs.

If large salaries bother you, you could give money to smaller charities or hunt down the relatively few charities that are managed by people who are independently wealthy and refuse to draw a salary.


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

Not to diminish international need, but you would be surprised how many charitable organizations exist at the very local level. I enjoy providing donations where i can see how my money is applied - always impressed with how much they can do with so little. You donation makes a huge difference. Often salaries are non-existent or are for student positions - which I like supporting too. Often the groups run primarily on passion and a few extra dollars can be the difference for some of their projects.

I say contribute to the smallest and most local charitable organization you can. If you are not already involved (volunteer etc.) you may end up being one.

When I worked in such an organization I recal some donors who would call up to see what activities/initiatives we had in the works and they would offer to fund a big part of one. They enjoyed seeing the direct impact of their donation.

That is what i enjoy doing now.

Also my employer has a program to have a % from each pay cheque directed to list of hundred+ organizations so it is effortless to help this way. Get a tax reciept too.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

DavidJD said:


> I enjoy providing donations where i can see how my money is applied - always impressed with how much they can do with so little. You donation makes a huge difference.


Totally agree, and in fact I've served on the boards of several small volunteer charities and nonprofits myself, so I've seen firsthand how well this can work. All it requires on the board's part is dedication, perserverence, time, and a bit of ingenuity; you can get tremendous bang for your buck.

My approach to giving is similar to investing: I diversify. I give money every month through direct debit to several local charities, one national (Canada-wide) charity, and three large international charities.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

a perfomance bonus ? kcowan are you saying a charity CEO should be compensated on the basis of how successfully he attracts funding dollars ?

fund-raising is only a sidebar to his mandate. His mandate is to deliver services. He should be judged solely on how well the services are performed, how many humans have benefited, iwhat suffering has been alleviated, is the client base expanding, what is the relationship between growth of services & budget increases. Or the reverse.

if, in his spare time, the CEO plus spouse manage to dine out, hobnob with the rich & famous at balls, entertain the gift-giving elite at cultural events, and if the charities' coffers are helped to swell from these activities, then tant mieux pour lui. But i for one believe his or her salary should not be pegged, dollar for dollar, to these activities.

when earthquake struck haiti, it wasn't the rich & famous who took the lead in donating. It was millions of ordinary canadians running forward with their $100 checques.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Humble

I agree with you that the performance bonus should reflect the overall effectiveness and not just the fund-raising aspect. Effective use of the money rings true to me.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

brad said:


> You can't run a charity without administrative costs, and you can't run an effective and sustainable charity without giving your employees liveable wages and the budgets and resources to get things done. So I am perfectly content with the knowledge that a portion of my donations goes to fund overhead in order to keep the organization afloat and to allow it to continue to do its work.
> 
> I'm not even sure you can rate a charity's effectiveness by the amount of money it spends on direct aid compared with the amount it spends on salaries and administration. If some of those salaries are for people who are in the field, directly helping those in need, the organization might be highly effective.


While it is rare to run a charity without "liveable" wages, there are a few where the bulk of the work is either volunteer or the employees are likely not the major wage earner.

In any case, you raise a good point about being content that some of the donation may be needed to enable the charity infrastructure.

I also like your point about salaries that some see as overhead may be paying for people in the field, directly providing services.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

GeniusBoy27 said:


> My honest opinion is to pay people what the market thinks its worth. [ ... ]
> 
> Supply and demand is determining their fair wage rate, and to be honest, $184,000 isn't excessive given their hours (often 6-7 days a week, 10-14 hour days), with lots of travel around the world.


While I can agree that based on the hours you are suggesting, $184K is not excessive, however when I read the annual reports for public companies, I'm not sure "what the market thinks" won't be excessive.

In most cases, the public company has had a compensation committee plus the board approve the wages/benefits. Yet somehow the outgoing CEO of Nortel at the time has a market value of $6million in salary - while on leave. His replacement who is taking over had a market value of $400K.

Or my personal favourite, the CEO the board removed after 9 months on the job had a severance of $20million+.


Far too much greed is being rubber stamped under the guise of "but it's fair market value".


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

kcowan said:


> Unlike the pay of bankers and others, charities is one place where I can directly decide how much I am willing to pay for the overheads. [ ... ]


Say what??

Are you really deciding the overhead you are paying? I'm not familiar with requirements to document say, allowances etc. So while you may think you have an accurate picture of the overheads, it may or may not be accurate.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Say what??
> 
> Are you really deciding the overhead you are paying? I'm not familiar with requirements to document say, allowances etc. So while you may think you have an accurate picture of the overheads, it may or may not be accurate.


True. But I can withhold donations from any charity that plays fast and loose with their numbers IF I discover it.


----------



## wheel (Jun 22, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> While I can agree that based on the hours you are suggesting, $184K is not excessive, however when I read the annual reports for public companies, I'm not sure "what the market thinks" won't be excessive.
> 
> In most cases, the public company has had a compensation committee plus the board approve the wages/benefits. Yet somehow the outgoing CEO of Nortel at the time has a market value of $6million in salary - while on leave. His replacement who is taking over had a market value of $400K.
> 
> ...


It's not greed, it *is* fair market value. What CEO's of private companies get paid is none of anyone's business, If it's a public company, then the stockholders can fix the problem. If anyone really cared or if it adversely affected the company, then the stock value would go down and it would become fair market value to pay them less. 

Artificially limiting people's pay is a sure fire way to end up with mediocrity. That's why you don't have companies doing that.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

wheel said:


> It's not greed, it *is* fair market value. What CEO's of private companies get paid is none of anyone's business, ...
> 
> If it's a public company, then the stockholders can fix the problem. If anyone really cared or if it adversely affected the company, then the stock value would go down and it would become fair market value to pay them less.
> 
> Artificially limiting people's pay is a sure fire way to end up with mediocrity. That's why you don't have companies doing that.


"private companies"? My sources are newspapers, annual reports and other public ones. I'm not sure how I'd find out about a private company - unless I'm a part owner or a relative.

In any case, both examples are public companies (*grin* or were!) where the CEO managed during declines of 80% or better for revenue, sales, stock prices etc. etc. So to me - they were adversely affected.

In Nortel's case, please explain how in your view, the "fair market value" plays into paying two CEOs at the same time. Note that the one in charge when the decline happened is the one getting paid $6million+ and the one trying to turn the decline around is the one being paid $400K+.

I'm also interested in "fair market value" for the second case, where the CEO who worked for company nine months had a severance package of $21million. If you put youself in a shareholder's position at that time - exactly how are you going to find out about the severance package in time to do anything? 
A lot of shareholders were upset but if they didn't pay the $21million, a breach of contract lawsuit would follow.

As far as shareholders being able to fix the problem, it's rare. An activist shareholder who has deep pockets that buys enough shares to dictate to management has a chance at change. For better or worse, in most public companies, a few major shareholders and/institutions are all that matter.


"Artificially limiting people's pay ..."??!!?? 

Where did I say I wanted to place artificial limits? I'm concerned about the small groups of boards that sign-off on some dubious salaries/severance and if questioned, "it was reviewed by the board" and "is what the market thinks".


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> ... I'm concerned about the small groups of boards that sign-off on some dubious salaries/severance and if questioned, "it was reviewed by the board" and "is what the market thinks".


Usually the compensation committee of the board engages a consulting company that puts together a recommendation. The committee seldom varies from the consulting company proposal.

The severance package is to compensate the prospective CEO from leaving the relative safety of his prior job.

The problem is that these consulting companies have no experience with charities so they tend to use the boilerplate for profit-making companies.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

kcowan said:


> The problem is that these consulting companies have no experience with charities so they tend to use the boilerplate for profit-making companies.


There is an entire ecosystem of thousands of consulting firms that specialize in working with nonprofits and charities. But even so, when dealing with the larger charities I still think it is entirely appropriate to hire CEOs with corporate experience and at competitive salaries. The annual budget of UNICEF is $3.2 billion. How is managing a complex international organization with a budget that size different from managing a $3.2 billion multinational corporation?


----------



## DavidJD (Sep 27, 2009)

"an entire ecosystem"

Awesome


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

kcowan said:


> Usually the compensation committee of the board engages a consulting company that puts together a recommendation. The committee seldom varies from the consulting company proposal.
> 
> The severance package is to compensate the prospective CEO from leaving the relative safety of his prior job.
> 
> The problem is that these consulting companies have no experience with charities so they tend to use the boilerplate for profit-making companies.


Hmmm ... I'm not sure how the charities go about setting their salaries. 

My point is that as I see a lot of what IMHO is salary abuses in public companies annual reports, I'm not keen on accepting a salary in the charity based on "what the market thinks".

And I do realise what severance is (and why it tends to be high for executives), however - going back to my example, I don't understand why *anyone* would approve a payout of $21million for such a short time. Maybe I can find my old annual report as I seem to recall the annual salary was about $800K. 

In any case, perhaps a better example is the CEO whose package include a $6million payment for "changes in job responsibility". 

Too bad I can't get that one by my boss and retire ...


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

We like to give to the local humane society.

Why?

Less animals that must be euthanized.


----------



## Kristian Foster (May 4, 2011)

*Reonating - Interesting, ever wonder where that donation money goes?*

This information is false and inaccurate, and has been circulating since September 2010. It is also extremely hurtful to the children, families and communities we serve. 3rd party mythbuster type sites have already debunked these myths, please see http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp and http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_charities_salaries.htm


----------

