What percentage of donations go to the Humane Society?

Unfortunately, according to Humane Watch, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spent less than 1 percent of their budget on operations involving local humane societies and animal shelters.

http://protecttheharvest.com/who-is-hsus...-money-go/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/douglas-ant...43902.html

Sarah McLachlan songs don't come cheap.

You need to update your information. Your articles are from 2012.

Per Charity Navigator they now receive a score of 85.40 out of a hundred, or 3 stars out of 4.

Spending 77.6% of their expenses on their mission.

Now they still might not pay all that much to local shelters, but I'm not positive that's their actual mission.

Quote:Mission
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the nation's largest and most effective animal protection organization. Established in 1954, The HSUS seeks a humane and sustainable world for all animals - a world that will also benefit people. We work to reduce suffering and to create meaningful social change for animals by advocating for sensible public policies, investigating cruelty and working to enforce existing laws, educating the public about animal issues, joining with corporations on behalf of animal-friendly policies, and conducting hands-on programs that make ours a more humane world. We are the lead disaster relief agency for animals, and we provide direct care for thousands of animals at our sanctuaries and rescue facilities, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and mobile veterinary clinics.

Bottom line, regardless of the national body, please don't stop donating to your local humane society. And don't believe the one link posted above. Most of these local outfits are no kill shelters as far as I'm aware, but if you're not sure you can just ask them.

77.6% is a sh*tty number. Also, the CEO makes $400K. Thats a bit outrageous for a charity organization.

(01-08-2018 11:05 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  77.6% is a sh*tty number. Also, the CEO makes $400K. Thats a bit outrageous for a charity organization.

Their administrative expenses are 3% while 20% is spent on fundraising. Therefore, 77.6 is not really a ****** number. And is that salary really outrageous for a charity of this size? Do you have other examples to compare to?

Again, I'm not asking anyone to donate to the national organization, but rather donate to the local ones.

(01-08-2018 08:03 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Sarah McLachlan songs don't come cheap.

Its not even noon yet and this is the funniest thing I will read all day.

(01-08-2018 11:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 11:05 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  77.6% is a sh*tty number. Also, the CEO makes $400K. Thats a bit outrageous for a charity organization.

Their administrative expenses are 3% while 20% is spent on fundraising. Therefore, 77.6 is not really a ****** number. And is that salary really outrageous for a charity of this size? Do you have other examples to compare to?

Again, I'm not asking anyone to donate to the national organization, but rather donate to the local ones.

3% on admin? Doesnt that mean that the CEO salary makes up 10% of the entire admin budget?

And 20% for advertising/fundraising is outrageous for a $123M charity. The Red Cross spends about 6% for fundraising. 20% for a $123M charity makes it sound like lavish parties and ponzi schemes.

I donate food to our local shelter. They could use some of that money.

I don't know much about the Humane Society.

However, the ASPCA is a truly legitimate scam organization. They claim to be no-kill, which is technically true. However, all they do is give animals to other organizations, like the Humane Society, to kill them.

Humane Society is a cess pool. Purposefully hidden behind their photos of sad puppies in the shelter is an anti-gun, anti-meat, anti agriculture, leftist agenda that they funnel nearly all of their resources towards.

There are far better organizations to support to help what they scam people into thinking their main mission statement is.

(01-08-2018 11:35 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Humane Society is a cess pool. Purposefully hidden behind their photos of sad puppies in the shelter is an anti-gun, anti-meat, anti agriculture, leftist agenda that they funnel nearly all of their resources towards.

There are far better organizations to support to help what they scam people into thinking their main mission statement is.

St. Jude's immediately comes to mind....and they walk on two legs.....

every time I see see those pandering commercials touting overseas starvation/rogue sect/sympathy card playing factions, like the panhandler on the side of the road, I simply cringe and chalk it up to ponzi central....

and I have a rescue dog.....

Personally, if people want to give their money to animals (four legged) then more power to them. I like to help the humankind, you know, the two legged kind...no, no, not the Clinton Foundation type.

(01-08-2018 12:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  and I have a rescue dog.....

Best kind of dog to have. We have two, and all but one of our family dogs have been rescues.

charity navigator gives the clinton foundation (which is currently under investigation by the FBI) a 94/100 rating. Obviously bought and paid for.

I would not rely on that website as a reputable source.

(01-08-2018 11:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't know much about the Humane Society.

However, the ASPCA is a truly legitimate scam organization. They claim to be no-kill, which is technically true. However, all they do is give animals to other organizations, like the Humane Society, to kill them.

We had a cat we had to give to a shelter. Awesome, healthy, friendly Siamese cat we got my son on his birthday. Only problem was he refused to pee in the litter box and ruined the floor. After working with the vet for almost a year, we had to give up. We had another cat and surely this one would be fine in another home without another animal. I watched the website for when the cat was put up for adoption. Never happened... a secret I have kept from my wife and son. Quite sure they killed him.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(01-09-2018 12:30 AM)Kronke Wrote:  charity navigator gives the clinton foundation (which is currently under investigation by the FBI) a 94/100 rating. Obviously bought and paid for.

I would not rely on that website as a reputable source.

That's a ridiculous assumption. They're not under investigation for how much of their contributions are misused or not going for charitable purposes, or for not being a financially stable organization. That's really all Charity Navigator rates.

Quote:About Us
Charity Navigator is the most-utilized charity evaluator in America. The organization helps guide intelligent giving by evaluating the Financial Health, Accountability and Transparency of over 8,000 charities and provides basic data on the rest of the 1.4 million U.S. nonprofits. Charity Navigator accepts no advertising or donations from the organizations it evaluates, ensuring unbiased evaluations, nor does it charge the public for this trusted data. As a result, Charity Navigator, a non-profit 501 © (3) public charity itself, depends on support from individuals, corporations and foundations that believe it provides a much-needed service to America's charitable givers.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...&cpid=1653

(01-09-2018 07:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2018 11:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't know much about the Humane Society.

However, the ASPCA is a truly legitimate scam organization. They claim to be no-kill, which is technically true. However, all they do is give animals to other organizations, like the Humane Society, to kill them.

We had a cat we had to give to a shelter. Awesome, healthy, friendly Siamese cat we got my son on his birthday. Only problem was he refused to pee in the litter box and ruined the floor. After working with the vet for almost a year, we had to give up. We had another cat and surely this one would be fine in another home without another animal. I watched the website for when the cat was put up for adoption. Never happened... a secret I have kept from my wife and son. Quite sure they killed him.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if he was given to another group to be put down.

I have a very real hatred for that scam group. They exist to raise money, nothing more.

These numbers are subject to a lot of SWAGs. Ideally, you'd like to see 10% to admin and 90% to operations, but the numbers are subject to a lot of interpretation, but 20/80 is probably an acceptable ratio. 20% is probably too much to spend on fundraising. Interesting to note how these charities compare to federal welfare programs, which of course do not have the fundraising component.

As for the Clinton Foundation, the problem there is not what is measured in the 94% number, but what happens "off balance sheet." Fund raising is pretty cheap when you can say, "Hey, you want that uranium deal, give a few million to my foundation."

(01-10-2018 08:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  These numbers are subject to a lot of SWAGs. Ideally, you'd like to see 10% to admin and 90% to operations, but the numbers are subject to a lot of interpretation, but 20/80 is probably an acceptable ratio. 20% is probably too much to spend on fundraising. Interesting to note how these charities compare to federal welfare programs, which of course do not have the fundraising component.

As for the Clinton Foundation, the problem there is not what is measured in the 94% number, but what happens "off balance sheet." Fund raising is pretty cheap when you can say, "Hey, you want that uranium deal, give a few million to my foundation."

It also only accounts for the US arm. It does not account for the Canadian entity (The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership), for example, which does not have to disclose its donations under Canada law and is used as a pass-through front to anonymously launder donation money and hide expenses to the foundation.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us...oogle.com/

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk