Toronto hits #1 in United Way donations for 2009

[Darth Wong]

Hmmm, one of the most heavily taxed cities in North America also gives the most to charity. What happened to the conservatard belief that charitable donations go up to replace lost social programs when they are cut to lower taxes?

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article ... d#comments

Toronto the generous: United Way record shattered
Thanks to city's 'unparalleled generosity,' charity blasts past goal, shatters North American mark
Leslie Ferenc Staff Reporter
Published On Fri Jan 22 2010

They said it couldn't be done – at least not in a shaky economy – but United Way Toronto supporters proved naysayers wrong. And then the city kicked it up a notch by breaking North American records, raising $109 million in 2009.

The historic achievement was trumpeted by United Way Worldwide president and CEO Brian Gallagher in a letter congratulating the Toronto branch for raising the most money in all of North America last year.

"Our city is No. 1," said a jubilant president and CEO Frances Lankin. "United Way is not us, but what we do together."

Lankin could hardly contain her joy at Thursday evening's celebration, where she officially announced the campaign had surpassed the $107.5 million goal by $1.5 million.

It hasn't been an easy ride. The economy and its impact on local businesses and workers was a reality that couldn't be ignored, she said. It's why the United Way mobilized its campaign cabinet in March, not waiting until the summer months to set volunteers out knocking on doors of companies to spread the word about the needs of the poor, young people, seniors and newcomers in the city. A decision was also made to freeze the 2009 target at the 2008 mark.

"We knew it would be difficult," Lankin said in an interview earlier Thursday. "We put strategies in place to reach more people and talk about our work, the work our agencies were doing and about the great human need. People responded."

Lankin admitted there were nail-biting moments. Early in December, she raised concerns about a potential shortfall. It had happened in 2008, when the campaign ended $2 million under target.

"We'd been getting mixed results," she said of the weeks before the end of the campaign, noting that many companies had downsized and many employees lost jobs. There were fears some wouldn't give or would donate less.

"In some places, workers pulled rabbits out of their hats," Lankin said. "As December unfolded, magic continued to happen." Some companies extended workplace campaigns to ensure the overall goal would be met.

"The community responded with compassion and unparalleled generosity, helping United Way reach its highest achievement ever," Lankin told 1,600 volunteers, donors, agency workers and community and business leaders who attended the thank-you party at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Thursday.

Tough financial times didn't stop donors in York Region from digging deep, either. They broke the fundraising ceiling, raising $7,667,050 for United Way in 2009, an increase of 2.9 per cent from 2008.

I would argue that the conservatard line on charity vs government social programs is the most fantastic lie since trickle-down economics. In reality, the kind of people who are willing to vote for government social programs are the same kind of people who would give generously to charity. And the kind of people who would angrily dump any politician who taxes them for social programs are the same kind of people who would laugh at charity drives and use the money to build an extension onto their McMansions.

[Vendetta]

Hmmm, one of the most heavily taxed cities in North America also gives the most to charity. What happened to the conservatard belief that charitable donations go up to replace lost social programs when they are cut to lower taxes?

It was always an ideological statement, almost invariably from people who don't give any money to charity themselves, but think that they probably would if they earned more. (They probably wouldn't, they'd just say they would if they earned more).

[Mr Bean]

Congratulations! Toronto gave it's money to one of the greatest overhead heavy charities in existence! How does it feel to lose 19 cents on the dollar of every donated dollar? Compared to the industry average which is 6 cents?

[Darth Wong]

News flash: larger organizations tend to have larger overhead as well. However, small community-based charities are too narrowly focused.

[Stargate Nerd]

Hmmm, one of the most heavily taxed cities in North America also gives the most to charity. What happened to the conservatard belief that charitable donations go up to replace lost social programs when they are cut to lower taxes?

I would argue that the conservatard line on charity vs government social programs is the most fantastic lie since trickle-down economics. In reality, the kind of people who are willing to vote for government social programs are the same kind of people who would give generously to charity. And the kind of people who would angrily dump any politician who taxes them for social programs are the same kind of people who would laugh at charity drives and use the money to build an extension onto their McMansions.

While I don't believe that conservative claim either, I do wonder if Churches benefit from a lack of social programs by running their own charities and ensnaring people. On the other hand Churches probably want people with money instead.

[Akhlut]

Hmmm, one of the most heavily taxed cities in North America also gives the most to charity. What happened to the conservatard belief that charitable donations go up to replace lost social programs when they are cut to lower taxes?

I would argue that the conservatard line on charity vs government social programs is the most fantastic lie since trickle-down economics. In reality, the kind of people who are willing to vote for government social programs are the same kind of people who would give generously to charity. And the kind of people who would angrily dump any politician who taxes them for social programs are the same kind of people who would laugh at charity drives and use the money to build an extension onto their McMansions.

While I don't believe that conservative claim either, I do wonder if Churches benefit from a lack of social programs by running their own charities and ensnaring people. On the other hand Churches probably want people with money instead.

Plus, a lot of church charities rely heavily on evangelization, rather then on actual help.

[Mr Bean]

News flash: larger organizations tend to have larger overhead as well. However, small community-based charities are too narrowly focused.

News Flash, the American Red Cross which is even bigger than the United Way manages to do it on 7% overhead last year compared to that 19%.

The United Way is famously bad for having tons of overhead because much like the Drug companies some years they spend a significant amount of the donation money not on aid but on advertising themselves. Their are better focused narrow charities but again the United Way is famously bad. You might the odd state United Way matches the average but they are again a famous for this in the non-profit world.

[Darth Wong]

News flash: larger organizations tend to have larger overhead as well. However, small community-based charities are too narrowly focused.

News Flash, the American Red Cross which is even bigger than the United Way manages to do it on 7% overhead last year compared to that 19%.

Yeah, because they service the public directly. The United Way is a fund-raising organization which actually gives money to other charities with varied goals (it was originally started as a way for a large number of charities to pool their fund-raising efforts so as to reach a larger audience). The idea is to provide money to charities which have trouble raising funds directly. When people give to regional charities directly, money does not go from the haves to the have-nots; it goes from haves to the haves' own neighbourhoods. Obviously, it is more efficient to give money directly to a charity than to give money to a fund-raising organization for global charities, which then allocates money and moves it around as per their assessed need. However, people don't know which charities need money, so they just pick favourites and that does not put the money where it will necessarily do the most good.

The United Way is famously bad for having tons of overhead because much like the Drug companies some years they spend a significant amount of the donation money not on aid but on advertising themselves. Their are better focused narrow charities but again the United Way is famously bad. You might the odd state United Way matches the average but they are again a famous for this in the non-profit world.

That's a fucking brain-damaged criticism. Of course they spend money on advertising themselves; the whole goddamned point of the United Way is to help raise funds for charities which are having trouble raising funds directly. Jesus fucking Christ, do you honestly think that is an intelligent critique of the United Way? Or is this just your bullshit excuse for never giving them any of your precious fucking money?

[bobalot]

Mr Bean, How is your criticism relevant to the point originally raised? That the people of a city that is described by many conservatives as "heavily taxed" gave the most to charity?

Quibbling over the overhead of the charity doesn't actually change this fact.

[Spoonist]

According to this you can see that the top givers by capita is canada and sweden. Both have very high taxes compared to the americans. Who clocks in at a quarter of the swedes or a seventh of the canadians.

Also if you look through the list another trend, as was the same with the tsunami, is clear - it is not the highly religious counries that contribute the most, its the reverse.

[wolveraptor]

People often throw that "Who Really Cares" book by Arthur C. Brooks my way whenever I get into discussions about the charitability of conservatives. I haven't come across any in-depth analysis of the statistics presented in that book (except this relatively informal site), which indicate that conservatives are more likely to give to both secular and religious organizations, despite having, on average, a lower income than liberals. It's kind've weird that that trend is strictly American. What changes across the border?

[Darth Wong]

Studies on liberals vs conservatives generally have an obvious point of criticism: the question of how one determines whether people are liberal or conservative when doing these studies. That website does point out that Brooks' book claims liberals make more money than conservatives across the board, which quite frankly seems pretty damned suspicious.

In any case, looking at taxation levels is far simpler than trying to define who is liberal or conservative from broad social data.

[Teebs]

Studies on liberals vs conservatives generally have an obvious point of criticism: the question of how one determines whether people are liberal or conservative when doing these studies. That website does point out that Brooks' book claims liberals make more money than conservatives across the board, which quite frankly seems pretty damned suspicious.

In any case, looking at taxation levels is far simpler than trying to define who is liberal or conservative from broad social data.

If i remember correctly, there are some quite big low income groups which vote heavily for the Republicans. Among white working class types, unionisation seems to make them all Democrats but otherwise they trend towards Republicans. Poor ethnic minorities (or in fact ethnic minorities in general) vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats, although not in a uniform way across minorities. Educated people are far more likely to vote Democrat, which probably accounts for a lot of the higher income people that vote that way.

The interesting thing is the way this seems to go against a lot of European voting statistics where as a gross generalisation poor people vote left, rich people vote right and educated people vote liberal (generally not in the American sense of the word).

[ArmorPierce]

News flash: larger organizations tend to have larger overhead as well. However, small community-based charities are too narrowly focused.

hrmm. If you assume that they receive a proportionately higher donations, the overhead percentage of a larger organization should be less than that of a smaller organization.

[Darth Wong]

News flash: larger organizations tend to have larger overhead as well. However, small community-based charities are too narrowly focused.

hrmm. If you assume that they receive a proportionately higher donations, the overhead percentage of a larger organization should be less than that of a smaller organization.

Depends on what you mean by "larger". In the case of the United Way, "larger" means that it has a very diverse group of sub-organizations under its wing, doing many different kinds of things. It's not just about the number of people. You could build an incredibly efficient charity if all it does is ditch-digging.

[Spoonist]

The bigger charities does not wait for the money to come in before starting their rescue op. Instead they build a buffer of resources that they probably are going to need, then when the disaster strikes they can start the op within 24h. Then when people catch on and start donating they put those money into rebuilding their supplies for the next disaster.
That kind of planning takes overhead, storage and stand-by personnel. All of which cost money.

Just to point out the obvious, the smaller ones instead rely on first getting donations, then purchasing stuff and getting people, then start shipping that to the disaster zone.
That normally takes weeks.