100 % Goes To Charity Analysis

The public’s perception and lack of knowledge as to how a nonprofit organization is structured, the legality of what they can and cannot do, as well as a general baseline understanding of how operations are carried out can have damaging effects on the organization’s ability to fulfill its mission. In the article 100% Goes to Charity?, by Lee Draper we look at the consequences of public expectation versus reality when it comes to operational costs and program budgets, as well as whether or not there’s a valid reason for donors to be concerned with the integrity of their donations. To begin, the claim that 100% of donations go to charity isn’t necessarily unrealistic, especially as it pertains to disaster relief operation funds; however, the …show more content…
Donors are typically very clear about where they want their funds designated, but if the donation comes in after the disaster operation is over, we have no choice but to call them and hold onto the donation until we can ask their permission to designate it elsewhere or return it to them. This is vital to maintaining the integrity of the donation, which is something we strive for on a daily basis. Even on the back end of the system, part of my job is to make sure that even the back-end data reflects the true wishes of the the donor, and that all fund raisers are remaining ethical in meeting their goals. It is for these reasons that I don’t necessarily believe that it’s the claim, or the failure to meet the standard, rather the public perception of how a nonprofit should operate based on a skewed view of charity, that is the culprit for public erosion of trust (as it pertains to the questions that this article …show more content…
Indirect costs are “the fixed costs of running the organization that benefit all its programs” (Draper). More commonly, overhead is associated with indirect costs. I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that nonprofit organizations desperately need a new term that communicates the relevance and importance of activities associated with indirect costs, as well as a deeper transparency with making sure the public understands what that means in terms of fulfilling the mission. This, however, needs to exist outside of any “100%” mantra, as a general rule of good governance and ethics. I feel that the author missed the mark about when the “100%” claim is used, because I cannot think of any nonprofits that use this as a standard solicitation figure. Perhaps, some figures (91 cents of every dollar) might still be ambiguous, but I don’t think modern charities are as purposefully misleading as this article makes them out to