tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886595570005494885.post8865616702504462100..comments2008-12-12T09:05:50.748-05:00Nurseb911http://www.blogger.com/profile/04974722323117696369noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886595570005494885.post-14382612491403888642008-12-12T09:05:00.000-05:002008-12-12T09:05:00.000-05:00From reader Susan:<BR/><BR/>Here's the Government of Canada charities site: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/dnrs/lstngs/menu-eng.html and more info about giving here: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/dnrs/menu-eng.html <BR/><BR/>I have used it often to get valuable information (for eg., the charity that charges administration fees to pass funds on to other charities!).Nurseb911http://www.nurseb911.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886595570005494885.post-15730402117075510832008-12-11T16:28:00.000-05:002008-12-11T16:28:00.000-05:00I agree with your analysis, I think most people (myself included) automatically assume that all of their money is being used 100% for the charity, but your right, some charities are more efficient than others.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps given the nature of charities they are just a sensitive/emotional subject for some. For example in my opinion many dollars could be saved at funerals but emotions tend to stand in the way of this.bmfinchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12281199231983256184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886595570005494885.post-61801160600723842572008-12-11T13:58:00.000-05:002008-12-11T13:58:00.000-05:00And the difficulty is always trying to compare charities that are similar in nature despite their intended cause. <BR/>The point I'm trying to make is that there are a number of charities that could easily "trim the fat" in order to be more productive and pass along contributions to those who need it. <BR/>There are a number of large established charities who continuously use expensive/flashy advertising campaigns that could easily generate the same amount of contributions from more grassroots methods such as direct mailing or various initiatives.<BR/>I'm just trying to make the point that a great cause doesn't necessarily translate into a good charity and those giving should at least to some degree look at how their funds are managed.Nurseb911http://www.nurseb911.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4886595570005494885.post-21911492617051485082008-12-11T13:50:00.000-05:002008-12-11T13:50:00.000-05:00While I agree with you that administrative costs need to be low, one needs to compare apples to apples. For instance running a free health care clinic is probably going to have much more overhead than running a food bank. Additionaly, it also depends if a charity is relatively new and growing its contribution/endowment vs. older established charitable organizations. <BR/><BR/>ScottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com