Sunday, April 25, 2010
$100 says the EOCF has never held a bake sale, or contemplated it
Look, I really can't get enough of these stories that make the Oilers look bad, and kudos to the reporter for his doozy of a quote from Edmonton Oilers Community Foundation's Natalie Minckler that finishes the piece. But the really educational part of the piece for me was this:
I think this illustrates the drawback of this method of evaluating charities. Smushing fundraising and administration costs together like they're the same thing isn't a great idea, and likewise, not all fundraising costs are the same. The 50/50 draw is a wildly successful method for getting middle class contributions to charity. When the accountant early in the piece says “As community investments go, there are much better places to put your charitable dollars", well, yeah, but, that's a bit of a silly way of looking at it, no? Most importantly, it's pretty cussing transparent to every 'donor' that 50% of the money is NOT going to charity. If a charitable organization I supported was offered the chance to run the 50/50 at Edmonton Eskimos games, and said, "No, sorry, because 55% of the intake goes towards costs", I'd be furious.
Many of the typical fundraising activities of sports foundations like Team Up come with big overhead.
Every dollar that comes in from game night 50/50 draws — lotteries that direct half the ticket sale proceeds to the charity and the other half to a winning ticket holder — only bring in 40 to 45 cents on the dollar, says [MLSE's Ken] Nonomura.
“It has the lowest net and highest expenses against it. … From the 50 cents we’re getting, we have to pay for the lottery licenses, the ticket printing and … someone to manage the program. It’s a high cost.”
I think this illustrates the drawback of this method of evaluating charities. Smushing fundraising and administration costs together like they're the same thing isn't a great idea, and likewise, not all fundraising costs are the same. The 50/50 draw is a wildly successful method for getting middle class contributions to charity. When the accountant early in the piece says “As community investments go, there are much better places to put your charitable dollars", well, yeah, but, that's a bit of a silly way of looking at it, no? Most importantly, it's pretty cussing transparent to every 'donor' that 50% of the money is NOT going to charity. If a charitable organization I supported was offered the chance to run the 50/50 at Edmonton Eskimos games, and said, "No, sorry, because 55% of the intake goes towards costs", I'd be furious.
# posted by Matt @ 11:47 pm 
Comments:
Fair point, but can that account for the 80% going to admin costs? I mean, that's a staggering number for a charity any way you slice it.
I think it's a little misleading to call building a $2.5 million home and acquiring about $5 million in other prizes admin costs isn't it? I'd be willing to bet that Lotto 6/49 has some up front cost associated too no?
I thought it was well established at this point that charities are a scam.
Why would it be any different for organizations that exist to basically pimp the local sports team?
If you want to help your community, drive an old person to a doctor's appointment or coach a minor hockey team.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Fair point, but can that account for the 80% going to admin costs? I mean, that's a staggering number for a charity any way you slice it.
I think it's a little misleading to call building a $2.5 million home and acquiring about $5 million in other prizes admin costs isn't it? I'd be willing to bet that Lotto 6/49 has some up front cost associated too no?
I thought it was well established at this point that charities are a scam.
Why would it be any different for organizations that exist to basically pimp the local sports team?
If you want to help your community, drive an old person to a doctor's appointment or coach a minor hockey team.
Post a Comment
<< Home
