Fundraising - Skimming - Unethical?
 

I am doing fundraisers every three months for a non profit group. I have put together a nice group of people to help me with this. I had shirts printed to make us look more official and banners as well for when we attend large gatherings.

One of the people helping me to do the fundraising (happens to be a friend also) had been telling me to take a few dollars off the top from the cash donations to offset the out of pocket expense. I told him that since I volunteered to do the fundraising and to print up the shirts etc that there should be no compensation. I also asked him where it would stop. Do you then take money for gas or meals since some of these fundraisers are several hours from home?

It was settled that we would not take anything since this was something I wanted to do and no one was forcing him either. What are your thoughts? How unethical do you believe this to be?

That guy selling the girl scout cookies in Ohio made me think of this again by the way.

I think if you do volunteer for something there can be a lot of expenses associated with it. I guess that's why many charity workers are independantly wealthy. They can afford the out of pocket expenses.

To me it comes down to whether you need the charity more than the charity you're working for.

I don't think I'd skim even if I needed the money for whatever reason. It just doesn't seem quite right although I can understand the reasons and wouldn't begrudge someone else for doing it.

Unless it's made clear that funds donated will also be used to cover operating expenses, no, you shouldn't take money off the top.

The United Way, of course, has set a significantly different precedent.

Wolf's hit it, unfortunately most fund raisers use more of the donations for expenses than for the charity. I don't think it's right.
Any out of pocket expenses are tax deductible which helps a little.

Some fund raisers argue that the charities themselves use more for administration than good deeds. The head of the Red Cross gets over a million, even the head of our local PBS TV station, WHYY in Philly, gets almost half a million, but no amount of wrongs make a right.

Now if some young lady offers her...uh...services for the cause, it's your duty to accept and can hardly pass it along. :blush:

I do a lot work for many non-profits. I have been the treasurer for most of them at some point. It is my opinion that the volunteers putting the time and effort in should not also be liable for out-of-pocket expenses if they do not want to be/cannot afford to be. Otherwise, none but the wealthy would be able to give their time.

However, I believe that it is little short of theft to skim it from the cash donations. If you paid $x for t-shirt printing and you wish to be reimbursed, you make a formal request for $x to the organization you are raising the money for. If they refuse because it is against policy, or because they don't belive it was a worthwhile expenditure or for whatever reason, then you know for next time. And you suck it up -you do not help yourself. (You may find someone who believe in the cause willing to share the cost with you)

In my opinion, non-profits which do not budget for operating expenses are flawed because they exclude talented and willing members of the population who cannot afford to pay their own fundraising expenses. To me, the time and skills they donate are worth way more than the cost to print the flyers they designed and distriibuted. Paying salaries is a whole different issue.

When I give to a charity, I expect some of my contribution to pay for reasonable operating expenses. I will not give to organizations who pay fat-cat salaries to their executives. Perhaps charities do make more money for the worthy cause operating that way, but I prefer a more direct model.

Seems to me that a small portion of everything raised should go to offsetting the costs of running an organisation. Not-for-profit organisations shouldn't have to actually pay to exist, their costs should b covered as long as they keep themselves as lean as they can reasonably be. But, it isn't up to each individual fundraiser to skim off from donations. Fundraisers should be able to claim reasonable subsistance from the body they are raising for.

This is exactly right, and furthermore they should do it even if you intend to donate the cost back. That sounds pedantic and inefficient, and to a certain extent it is. But a) it gives you and the organization a good record of how much you donated and b) it helps the organization track their expenses. (The next time this happens who will be running it? Maybe somebody different? Will they know that the group got tshirts? Will they know where they were printed and how much they cost? etc. A good paper trail helps enhance this kind of institutional memory.)

A better arrangement IMO would be for the organization to actually pay for the shirts . . .

Also FWIW, to a certain extent mileage driven to do volunteer work for nonprofits may be deductible for US taxpayers who itemize deductions. (Disclaimer: I am not a tax professional.)

I think you're talking about a different model than monster is. I don't know how uncommon it is in GB but in the States a lot of charities are purely voluntary with no paid staff. I think it is reasonable to have expenses paid as long as it is done out in the open and people know how much of their money is spent on operating expenses.

Oh that's so true. Imagine embarking on a tax return for a non-profit club, where you only took over the books in September. Prior to that, it appears coaches' hotel expenses were paid for by person x, who then paid that much less for their coaching fees when they remembered in the next tax year, but none of this shows in the books! Argh!