User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.4621 seconds
47 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Monday, February 25, 2013Globe: In nonprofit game, many athletes post losing recordsA decent read, if only scratching the surface of the issue. I’ve always been curious just how much money raised goes to charities directly, versus going to fund activities which in turn help the charity, versus going to fund “administrative costs”. In some cases athlete charitable foundations are accomplishing a lot, sometimes after very non-productive starts. In other cases, calling them charities is being… er, charitable.
villageidiom
Posted: February 25, 2013 at 06:36 PM | 62 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: charity, dodgers, nba, nfl, olympics, red sox, yankees |
Login to submit news.
BookmarksYou must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics
(834 - 2:41am, Apr 26) Last: Ray (CTL) Newsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018) (395 - 1:59am, Apr 26) Last: Omineca Greg Newsblog: Taking Back the Ballparks - Marlins voting thread (16 - 1:59am, Apr 26) Last: stevegamer Newsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition) (2749 - 1:57am, Apr 26) Last: tshipman Newsblog: Pujols' Age Revisted (51 - 1:34am, Apr 26) Last: OCF Newsblog: Kyle Schwarber hits 2 homers in Cubs' win (28 - 12:50am, Apr 26) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1627 - 11:38pm, Apr 25) Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Newsblog: Raissman: Mike Francesa returning to WFAN in the 3 pm - 7 pm time slot, sources tell News (67 - 11:09pm, Apr 25) Last: Stormy JE Newsblog: There are lies, damn lies, and OMNICHATTER! for April 25, 2018. (109 - 10:52pm, Apr 25) Last: cardsfanboy Newsblog: VIDEO: Rockies Announcers Sound Like Complete Idiots Talking About Javier Baez (42 - 8:08pm, Apr 25) Last: bunyon Gonfalon Cubs: Riding the Rails of Mediocrity (27 - 7:45pm, Apr 25) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Ronald Acuna being called up by Braves | MLB.com (52 - 7:33pm, Apr 25) Last: Hank G. Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1942 Ballot (4 - 5:59pm, Apr 25) Last: bjhanke Newsblog: The unwritten rules of using a position player to pitch ... when you’re winning big (81 - 3:48pm, Apr 25) Last: David Nieporent (now, with children) Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-25-2018 (51 - 2:42pm, Apr 25) Last: Rennie's Tenet |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2014 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.4621 seconds |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Bourbon Samurai, what price fettucine? Posted: February 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4376055)No, but as Facebook friends with Jim Furtado, I can assure you he is living a life of luxury by selling your pseudonymous thoughts about baseball to marketing data miners.
Must be related to the new BBTF advertising pitching Cable TV & smartphones - a step up from the Asian Brides & criminal record checks of seasons past.
In Arkansas there's basically this group of families that take turns hosting these events. Kind of an "I went to your thing so you go to mine" where everybody gets to show off their house or the size venue that can get. Every charity has a golf tournament. Its just a social scene that happens to raise money some of the time for worthy causes. To expect more of the athletes is silly. Should the system work differently? Of course. But this is the system we have.
Btw, one guy that does it right is Cliff Lee. He's devoted a ton of time and money to Miracle League down here (building ballparks for mentally handicapped children).
*Not amused at the writers, just situationally amused. Turning cancer research into a gala event has always struck me as distasteful.
Susan G. Komen is the one that automatically springs to mind for me.
My broader experience is that much of the money raised is wasted, and that most mission statements should read, 'we are in the business of perpetuating ourselves'.
This, plus I assume that personal charitable foundations are often (if not always) a way to spread the wealth to friends and family without literally gifting them money.
Not to mention the "the internet has blessed me with a $XXXX job!" ads. If these things are legit, I'm Ben Affleck.
I don't fully understand the complaint here. Is it that you don't think an organization can effectively raise money with a gala? Or that the gala itself is distasteful? I'm sure that there are many nonprofits out there spending way too much money on things that aren't supporting their mission; I have no doubt this is true. But I can also assure you that many organizations raise a significant amount of their operating budget from one-time events, including galas. I'm on the board of an organization that covers in the neighborhood of 50% of its annual expenses through a gala/awards dinner.
EDIT: To simplify, many people like dressing fancy, socializing, and eating fancy meals in fancy places. It can be an excellent way to raise money and expose people to an important cause or effort.
Just don't ask us to admire it that much I suppose.
That's not to defend Beckett's foundation... I've no idea if it has accomplished anything beyond what the article states. Just saying these foundations can accomplish many things besides raising money for charitable donation, and those are not the kind of things that manifest in a bean-counting exercise such as this.
Still, if they say they're raising money to donate to a cause, one would hope they would be able to donate a lot more than 65% of the money raised.
The problem with not for profits hiring relatives and being a way to fund a certain life style also exists. (Jesse Jackson)
Get a subscription to guidestar to look at IRS Form 990 and see how much the chief executives makes and listed conflicts of interest before you give them any money (see - United Way, Aramony - and I still thin the Taylor Hooton Foundation pays Don Hooton excess compensation, which should cause concern).
I get that you sometimes have to spend $100k on an event to generate $120k in donations, that you wouldn't be able to achieve that extra $20k in donations otherwise. I don't begrudge charities doing that. It irks me somewhat that people would be willing to spend $120k to get $100k in value back than to spend $20k and get nothing back. But that's the way it is.
I'd like to see a charity hold an anti-ball. Have a gala, but make it into a competition to see who can contribute the most by spending the least on themselves. "I didn't buy that $5k ball gown, instead wearing just a t-shirt and sweatpants. Instead of renting a limo, I took the bus. Rather than spend the day at the salon I pulled my hair back into a ponytail. And rather than have you spend $1000 preparing my meal, before I left home I made myself a sandwich, which I brought with me in a paper bag. Here's the donation you would have had from me, plus the $10k I didn't spend on myself. Let's party!"
I see where you're coming from, I've just moved beyond caring about that as long as the bottom line is positive (although golf tournament fundraisers still annoy me, I have to admit). People are motivated by different things. The thing with the gala circuit (at least in certain areas) is that you're not getting those donors any other way. Many people donate online or send a check every year in response to direct mail, others have personal relationships with organizations or serve on boards, others like to go to events.
Edit: Err, didn't mean that "move beyond" bit to sound snobby. I just meant I got over it when I saw firsthand the value.
I think all nonprofits should face scrutiny, constantly, and should be able to easily demonstrate their objective impact and relative worth. I disagree, though, that executive compensation is a good way to judge that. Large national or international nonprofits can have budgets in the 30-40 million range (or more) and hundreds or even thousands of employees. They need talented leaders (who are at least partially motivated by money) just like a for-profit business does.
What, you have a problem with pink KFC buckets? :-)
When the Dodgers Dream Foundation was paying 25% of their assets raised via tax advantages contributions to their director, I think you can safely say that there is a problem (and the California state AG's office agreed).
A-Rod's charity is a phony baloney waste of time and money. Gee ... what a shock.
as far as celebrities, some have done really great, others are crap/crooked. some celebs try to do several charities and one or more of them ends up sucking, but it's overly harsh to their reputation. for example, don cheadle and meryl streep have both started many charities, some of which are good, but they get much more attention for the one that failed.
in general, though, i'd use a healthy dose of skepticism with most of these famous people charities. they are either honest but half-assed and done for tax/publicity purposes, or they are just a funnel to the eminent person at the top. they can make a large $ donation very publicly but percentage wise it's obviously a scam. make sure their intent is obvious and make sure they're tracked by watchdogs with a decent rating before you support them. they should have records of what they've actually donated to and stuff.
of course, complicating this are the really huge charities that are esentially bundlers for a myriad of lesser charities, like clinton, gates, etc.
red cross has 93% (economy of scale) and there are a few others that good
your typical medical charity should be at around 85%
60-80% indicates not crooked but ineffective
anything below 60% is probably crooked (or it's defunct but they still get donations from unaware people, such as save the music)
avoid pretty much all veterans charities.
I am reminded of when Garth Brooks decided he wanted to go play in spring training, so he cobbled together some excuse for why it was really just an attempt to raise money for his charity.
Seconded.
But I like my PBS tote bag.
What charities do ya'll give to, if any?
Last year I gave to:
Local PBS station
Local NPR station
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
Friends of St. Luke's (hospital)
Kiva - not sure if that even counts since its a microloan, but I don't get the money back, so I guess its a donation, although I didn't claim it on my taxes.
And yes, I did get some swag and cocktails out of it. And I like to brag about it because it makes me feel good.
I volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters of NYC and I know that at their big annual fundraising dinner (I'm hesitant to call it a "gala"), they raised $2 million and made a conscious effort not to spend a lot on the food. We also have a less expensive benefit targeting young people; the goal there is to attract new volunteers to the organization in addition to raising money. It's a lot of fun, and while I personally donate to the organization in addition to going to the benefit, I'm not sure how prevalent that is. In total, BBBS of NYC raised $4.5 million, more than half its operating budget, from "Special Events" (which also includes a fun run and a bunch of smaller events).
For me, mostly animal-related organizations.
I have reason to believe (a former newspaper co-worker of mine is now a web guy for NPR) that all sorts of people at NPR & PBS make more money than I do. I'm thinking they should start sending me money (especially if the round of layoffs expected here next month because of this sequestration crap includes me, as is certainly possible).
I donate to a few local organizations (Big Brothers, New York Cares, Animal Care and Control) and a few national ones (American Red Cross, ASPCA). I also give to my old college newspaper's financial aid program, and when friends or relatives are raising money for personal causes.
It is. Doesn't mean I want to contribute to their pay checks, though.
Besides, the fact that I haven't yet gone ballistic & embarked on a killing rampage upon accidentally coming across Garrison "Boredom Incarnate" Keillor on an NPR station is my contribution to their continued existence, I think. (Is he still on? My car stereo's audio went out after a botched jump start 5 months ago, & I haven't heard 5 minutes of radio since then.)
I had a professor that did a lot of consulting to non-profits to get their financial ship in order and one thing he said he constantly saw was organizations completely underpaying their staff because of things like Charity Navigator and the perception that if a non-profit is spending money on staff, they're wasting your money. In reality, by underpaying staff, they're not getting the best bang for the buck because the staff is probably less qualified and are more likely to make financial errors and not have the skills to write proper grants.
In any case, I'm more than happy to pay for Ira Glass and Terry Gross' salary.
I second this recommendation. Guidestar is a great site for nonprofit info.
-- MWE
1) Medical charities -- my bottom line rule is that a medical charity must either perform research or provide treatment; any charity that "raises awareness" is a scam. Not in the sense of literally being fraudulent -- the charity may do what it claims to do with the money -- but in the sense of being a complete waste of time and money.
2) Libertarian causes - IJ (my favorite), Cato, Reason, others.
3) Social welfare causes, which I usually do through my temple or through other jewish organizations.
I've always wondered whether I spread too thin and should give more money to fewer organizations, but every time I consider doing that I can't decide what to drop.
Note that for cash donations you should receive an acknowledgment of your donation from that charity that states the date and amount of the donation. Most will also include their EIN number.
-- MWE
Completely agree with this. Best case scenario would be for wealthy athletes (and other wealthy people inclined to get involved in charity work) to attach themselves to existing, well-run organizations involved in causes that they care about, rather than to try to start one of their own.
F folks I -- foundations and 501(c)3's operate under somewhat different rules. Foundations are required to give away a certain percentage of the return on their endowment. 501(c)3's are "educational".
Given the success of a foundation (and how much it spends per year) is primarily a function of the size of its endowments, I wonder if it's not "natural" for foundations to start out slow, with bad salary/charity ratios while the endowment builds. Once the endowment gets going, it starts generating a lot more revenue and then their charitable spending should increase substantially. But I don't know.
Also, if you really want to dig, 501(c)3's are allowed to have a separate profit-making (and tax-paying) arm. Many of the big PBS and public radio stations -- i.e. the ones that produce content -- are set up in this way. The CEO is often the same and getting a small salary as CEO of the PBS station and a nice, fat salary as the CEO of the profit-making arm. Nothing wrong with that necessarily, just don't necessarily give too much credit to that CEO working for less than he could get in private industry -- there's a good chance he's not.
As to the A-Rod thing -- is it actually still operating? The website lists no events later than Jan 2007, lists no upcoming events and stopped working after 2 minutes. :-) Somebody is keeping the copyrights updated but that appears to be the only activity. If they are still paying people to run it, obviously that's dumb. But it looks to me like a non-profit that has essentially ceased operations and so stopped filing tax returns.
Also there is no "donate" button or any other donation info on the ARod foundation page, so they aren't soliciting.
So they aren't holding events and they aren't soliciting money and (if they have lost tax-exempt status) ARod isn't getting any sort of writeoff but, yes, they do still claim to be a non-profit on the page -- who really cares?
When I was younger, I used to do a lot more volunteering, but now I mostly help with money instead.
While a large amount of my distaste is related to the money spent on these things, there's also a part of me that irritated at the necessity of such events. I'm in the general income bracket these events tend to aim for, and I'm always shocked at the idea that the people around me have so little awareness that a party has to be held for them to donate to charity. And then when all is said and done everybody is very proud.
I concentrate my donations to three areas.
1) I donate and volunteer with Miracle League (Cliff Lee's thing I mentioned above)
2) I donate to P.A.R.K., Kieth Jackson's thing here in Little Rock that takes at risk, underachieving youth and works with them to get their grades up and get them through high school at least.
3) I scare the crap out of everyone around me by giving hundred dollar bills to hobos, chosen by who smells the most. In my experience fake hobo's generally don't take the time to skip baths for weeks in order to add to their verisimilitude.
Save the Centaurs!
In downtown Little Rock, around 15 years ago, when I was night editor at the Democrat-Gazette, I pretty much had my own personal crack addict. He'd wait for me to come out of the paper however long after midnight, then hit me up for money. I don't know that he was a crack addict, but evidence certainly suggested it (including begging me for a ride to a rather shady-looking residence a few blocks away that he exited after accomplishing whatever he went there for; I doubt he was completing a fantasy baseball trade).
I think its generally safe to assume that the apparent homeless in downtown Little Rock are both real and addicted to something. The law school is on 9th right by McArther Park and night classes were a little scary. Of course, we all got to speculate on the at least twice annually occurrence of a body washing up in the pond in the park. The police like to take credit for ending Little Rock's gang problem, I tend to think the homeless people just scared them away.
I think one of the points made in the article addresses one problem with letting the athlete off the hook too easy--some of them hire some unqualified friend to run the charity, rather than hiring a qualified person to run it.
Since I covered the Pulaski County Courthouse during my reporting days, I was going to say that we probably know quite a few of the same people in the legal profession ... but then I realized that for me those days are about 22 years gone. (The last thing of any consequence I covered was Attorney General Steve Clark's trial for theft by deception.) The guys I knew are probably judges, disbarred &/or senile by now.
*sigh*
We actually probably do know some of the same people. Little Rock is too small an area in terms of lawyers for everybody to not know everybody else. I see judges and long-time attorney's at social events all the time.
More likely though you and my dad would know a lot of people in common, if not outright knowing each other. 22 years ago he would have been writing occasional pieces in the Arkansas Times.
Times must be tough for spammers, too. I got spam the other day enticing me that I could make $300 a week working at home. Talk about an unambitious pitch.
Doctors Without Borders.
Harlem Children's Zone. Geoffrey Canada is an amazing man.
Thanks Retro. I'm on it!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main