martin b wrote:
I think three or four of the Ceos of United Way were investigated and forced to quit.

THX

SAND DIAL wrote:
Where do I find the truth and how do I know its authoritative?

There's this:

A widely circulated email titled "Think Before You Donate" aims to convince readers that “Goodwill CEO and Owner Mark Curran profits $2.3 million a year", but fact-checking groups have debunked the content of the email: the CEO of Goodwill Industries International is not Mark Curran, nor does he make $2.3 million a year. [25] The current President and CEO of Goodwill is Jim Gibbons, who in 2011 received a total reported compensation of $725,000.

From the Goodwill wikipedia entry. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Industries

Also snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

SAND DIAL wrote:
Where do I find the truth and how do I know its authoritative?

snopes.com provides information: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

From snopes:
"The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential
donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below.

"The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) "

The article then goes on to discuss the various claims.

martin b wrote:
I think most NPOs take 30% off the top for administration.   I think Salvation army takes the least and gives the most.  I know their CEO is the least paid.  I read an article once about it somewhere.

I don't know about "most" but the very best charities certainly don't.  And Salvation Army's CEO is *definitely* not the least paid and they don't take the least and give the most.

Either you're misremembering the article or the article was wrong.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
A useful site.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Thanks. How would Goodwill be listed at that site?

Peter Claver wrote:
It's a scam..



The posting you linked to, that is.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to actually see if this was true before you posted it.

Why would you want to repeat someone else's lies?

Just a little effort is all that is needed to stop these lies and half truths in their tracks.

In rereading the above, I am guessing you didnt understand that my OP was a question.

MN Photography wrote:

There's this:

A widely circulated email titled "Think Before You Donate" aims to convince readers that “Goodwill CEO and Owner Mark Curran profits $2.3 million a year", but fact-checking groups have debunked the content of the email: the CEO of Goodwill Industries International is not Mark Curran, nor does he make $2.3 million a year. [25] The current President and CEO of Goodwill is Jim Gibbons, who in 2011 received a total reported compensation of $725,000.

From the Goodwill wikipedia entry. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Industries

Also snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

Well, if he only makes 3/4 of a million a year.

Snopes, no thanks.

SAND DIAL wrote:
In rereading the above, I am guessing you didnt understand that my OP was a question.

I did notice.. and.. maybe 30 seconds of research would have answered your question without further spreading long-known falsehoods as possible truths.

Then if you wanted to do a service to the community you could have posted "This posting about charities is a scam.. none of it is true.. don't believe it when you see it."

Easy peasy.

SAND DIAL wrote:
Snopes, no thanks.

So.. no thanks to a factual, direct answer to your question that has links and research to back it up?

Interesting.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Scam,  big charities, same level as so called non profits...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hrab … 76905.html

Peter Claver wrote:

I don't know about "most" but the very best charities certainly don't.  And Salvation Army's CEO is *definitely* not the least paid and they don't take the least and give the most.

Either you're misremembering the article or the article was wrong.

It might be wrong. 

https://www.truthorfiction.com/salvation-army-salary/

martin b wrote:

It might be wrong. 

https://www.truthorfiction.com/salvation-army-salary/

As of 2012 the CEO makes over $130,000

Their spending on their charitable programs as a percentage of total expenses (their so-called efficiency) is around 82%.  In other words.. 8 out of every 10 dollars they spend is spent on their charitable programs. This is pretty good but by no means the best.  There are many large charities with efficiencies in the 90s.

http://give.org/charity-reviews/nationa … ia-va-1221

Peter Claver wrote:

As of 2012 the CEO makes over $130,000

Their spending on their charitable programs as a percentage of total expenses (their so-called efficiency) is around 82%.  In other words.. 8 out of every 10 dollars they spend is spent on their charitable programs. This is pretty good but by no means the best.  There are many large charities with efficiencies in the 90s.

http://give.org/charity-reviews/nationa … ia-va-1221

Thanks,

Peter Claver wrote:
I don't know about "most" but the very best charities certainly don't.  And Salvation Army's CEO is *definitely* not the least paid and they don't take the least and give the most.

Either you're misremembering the article or the article was wrong.

The Salvation Army's head (Commissioner) is paid out of donations made on the "Citadel" side of the house - not the "Social" side of the house. The Salvation Army does convert a very high percentage of donations to its charitable functions (the Social side) to recipients. All Salvation Army Officers payroll is paid by donations made in the religious side of the house (the Citadel).

Whether you lump them together or not has a significant effect on how efficient you see the Salvation Army as a charity.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

The Salvation Army's head (Commissioner) is paid out of donations made on the "Citadel" side of the house - not the "Social" side of the house. The Salvation Army does convert a very high percentage of donations to its charitable functions (the Social side) to recipients. All Salvation Army Officers payroll is paid by donations made in the religious side of the house (the Citadel).

Whether you lump them together or not has a significant effect on how efficient you see the Salvation Army as a charity.

They don't seem to make this distinction in their public-facing financial statements.  For their most recent year:

http://salvationarmyannualreport.org/as … vities.pdf

Total program expenses: 2,846,268
Total expenses: 3,471,869
Efficiency: 82%

http://salvationarmyannualreport.org/financials


Again.. this isn't to say they're not doing a good job, financially, for their donors and the people depending on their programs.. 82% is pretty damned good.  I was just refuting the notion that they are the best out there.  They're not.

Peter Claver wrote:

They don't seem to make this distinction in their public-facing financial statements.  For their most recent year:

http://salvationarmyannualreport.org/as … vities.pdf

Total program expenses: 2,846,268
Total expenses: 3,471,869
Efficiency: 82%

http://salvationarmyannualreport.org/financials


Again.. this isn't to say they're not doing a good job, financially, for their donors and the people depending on their programs.. 82% is pretty damned good.  I was just refuting the notion that they are the best out there.  They're not.

Then who is if you know who isn't?

D a v i d s o n wrote:

Then who is if you know who isn't?

many charities have higher efficiencies.

The United way spends 91% of their expenses on their programs

The Red Cross is over 90%

US fund for UNICEF is over 90%

Doctors Without Borders in the USA is over 88%

Peter Claver wrote:

They don't seem to make this distinction in their public-facing financial statements.  For their most recent year:

http://salvationarmyannualreport.org/as … vities.pdf

Total program expenses: 2,846,268
Total expenses: 3,471,869
Efficiency: 82%

http://salvationarmyannualreport.org/financials


Again.. this isn't to say they're not doing a good job, financially, for their donors and the people depending on their programs.. 82% is pretty damned good.  I was just refuting the notion that they are the best out there.  They're not.

The Salvation Army is a worldwide organization originally founded in England. US financials are not a complete picture, and are required to fit a certain format by the US government.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

The Salvation Army is a worldwide organization originally founded in England. US financials are not a complete picture, and are required to fit a certain format by the US government.

The UK operation reports things in basically the same manner.

The efficiency of their UK operation is actually lower than that of the USA:

Total program expenses (they call it "charitable activities"): 202.8 million pounds
Total expensese (expenditure): 261.4 million pounds
Efficiency: 77.5%

http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/files/a … n=zjjW2cVG