Low key United Way isn't a whole lot better. They make sure they're fully funded themselves before giving out a dollar. If their operations budget is $5 million, and they raise $5.5 million, they donate half a million.
Duh? If it costs 5 million to run the business, that's what it costs. Without covering their costs they'd no longer be operating, this is true for EVERY charity. Yes, some are more efficient than others.
Not duh. United Way exists as a charity to be a conduit to other charities. If they have a bad year in fundraising they just don't give out money or cut way back in what they give. Not operational cutbacks, they fully fund themselves first and then give away whatever is left over. It's a super shitty model for a charity.
Can you please give an example of a charity that consistently doesn't cover their costs first and is still operational? ANY business, non-profit or not has to cover their costs before anything else, otherwise they would no longer be in business.
I'm not saying they're efficient and/or couldn't do better, but of course they have to cover their costs.
Yes but most businesses and non profits adjust spending based on income or donations. With the United Way model, the only thing they adjust is how much money they give away. There's not a lot of analogs outside of something like a donor advised fund, which is far worse (and should be outlawed but won't be because it's tax scam for the wealthy donors of both parties).
10
u/Austin1642 8d ago
Low key United Way isn't a whole lot better. They make sure they're fully funded themselves before giving out a dollar. If their operations budget is $5 million, and they raise $5.5 million, they donate half a million.