Hi, am just wondering if there is anything legally stopping from companies publishing their budgets at all times. Eg. To be totally transparent at all times? I'm thinking of starting a charity that displays funds received and use of said funds. Ideally, this would be on a website.
Edit: perhaps budgets is the wrong word, maybe balance sheet is more accurate?
Hate to say this…but you will be surprised how much of every dollar donated ends up for the cause…Obviously, I am generalising here (and not every charity is like this)…
I heard from some where that by the time these charities pay wages (despite the volunteering work), marketing, overhead expenses, etc…only around 30c - 40c in every dollar gets to be used for the cause. And don't forget, these organisations don't get taxed…
End of the day, I believe that most of these charities have become cumbersome in their own ways to sustain a large full-time employee base, rather than to sustain the cause they stand for.
I may be a t1ght-ass OzBargainer, but I am all for donating to a good cause…But over the past few years, I have contributed zilch to any charity becos I believe that I am being ripped off with my charitable money.
I remember an old guy (50+ yrs old) in a shopping centre come up to me to ask me for a donation and I asked him "how much of what I donate goes to the cause, becos if you confirm 100% of it, I'll happily donate a pineapple $50." He laughed me off and said, "Someone has to pay for my wages and the expenses to set up this store in the shopping centre." I just kept walking…
While it is true the touts for charities in shopping centers take a large cut, I have heard as much as 100% of the 1st year's donations, this is not true across the board.
The Salvos, for example, list 84% of donations going to programmes (citation: http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who-We-Are/About-Us/FAQ/#…)
This newspaper article shows the Red Cross and RFDS spend even less:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/charities-fundraising-cost…
I would suggest if your reason to avoid charitable giving is admin fees, there are many worthwhile charities on that list.
And as to your comment about wages, I don't understand it at all. If the RFDS employs doctors and pilots to do their work, how is that not "supporting the cause?". That is their cause.
Interesting article. Unfortunately it is mostly referring to fund raising, and it is unclear whether this includes all admin costs or not. I think that donating to say a poor Philippino family for their children to get a good education so that they can help their family (ripple effect) is something that I would be interested in doing, but knowing how to do this effectively is a mystery.
Take a look at Kiva.org.
There are some criticisms of their approach (loans with interest, not gifts), but I think on balance they achieve exactly what you are after.
and it is unclear whether this includes all admin costs or not
Again, I am not sure what the objection to paying admin costs are. If there is a case worker in Uganda helping people dig wells, is that an admin cost? I suggest it is the actual charity work.
And that case worker needs a level of support and administration. Unless you give cash to a person sitting on the footpath with a cardboard sign, you are going to require some level of administration.
Most charities post their financials, so you can see what their office admin costs are. I gave a link to the Salvo's FAQ above.
Consider also givewell.org and charitynavigator.org, two Amercian based sites that rate charities based on efficiency, effectiveness and overheads.
What you guys forget is that charities are businesses. If they don't advertise and provide incentives to their fundraisers, the funds wont be available for them to do their good work.
What you should be concerned with is the prioritization of certain charities (eg. Cancer charities that are funding research labs to make medicines to sell, rather than cures) which are huge cash sink holes with almost no return…. when there are more worthwhile charities that deal with real people who are actually in need of services etc that we can actually provide and improve their quality of life directly. We all know someone affected by cancer, but that doesn't mean its the best use of our resources.
Probably non-disclosure clauses in various contracts they enter with other parties
And while not legal, the fact competitors could use the information to their advantage would also discourage information being published.
Why are you talking about budgets (i.e. estimates/future information)? Or is that exactly what you're going for - since companies already generally disclose historical information if they meet certain criteria