Either you didn't understand what your prof said, or he has some problem understanding the stats. -rounder(over the hump) @拉斯维加斯华人论坛:拉斯维加斯枫下论坛 The Rolia Forum of Las Vegas

枫下茶话 / 社会 / 你知道在加拿大你捐给慈善机构的钱有多少百分比用到项目上吗？ less than 5% - 在Seneca College 的 Business 课堂上学到的，老师的观点：开一个慈善机构，是一个投资回报非常高的生意。 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006869@0)

就这个耸人听闻的结论你也信。老师说什么你就信什么，幼稚。 -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006888@0)

也比信你的话强啊！ -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006900@0)

老师讲的东西，你自己也要分析一下，至少需要一些 common sense 吧。 -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006930@0)

我们在学NT改变它资助策略时学的。老师在讲NT为何削减资助The Uinite Way而去资助大学时，这是一条NT很重要的理由。 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006948@0)

我怀疑你可能理解错误，或者是有歧义。请问其它95%以上支出到什么地方了？都到了领导和雇员的腰包里了？ -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006953@0)

the money went to fund raising companies and charity management -tongcd(不明真相的总是群众); 2003-1-28 (#1006957@0)

对啊，就是说加拿大的慈善机构把募捐来的95%都用在支付管理费用上了，这可能吗？ (专门 fraud 的机构另当别论) -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006968@0)

当然不是所有，但是存在；欲知详情，请看#1006966 -tongcd(不明真相的总是群众); 2003-1-28 (#1006970@0)
你自己也要分析一下，至少需要一些 common sense 吧?:-) -fatboy(大胖墩儿厨); 2003-1-28 (#1006976@0)

#1006974 -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006981@0)

Believe or not, it's true. I was told in my Marketing class in UW. And the professor is the Dean of Faculty of Art in UW. -jeffrey815(Smartiecat); 2003-1-28 (#1007384@0)

管理、广告和其他 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006959@0)

不太相信. 这里的慈善机构,财务方面好象还是比较透明的, <5%似乎有点说不过去吧. -country_boy(乡下小子); 2003-1-28 (#1006889@0)

昨天才上的课，记忆很清楚。 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006910@0)

It seems either your school or your teache is garbage. -wins(wins); 2003-1-28 (#1006905@0)

难怪揭露安龙内幕的女职员找不到工作。 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006919@0)

-littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦)is right! that was published couple of weeks ago on the news! -fatboy(大胖墩儿厨); 2003-1-28 (#1006934@0)

有人害怕真相。 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006936@0)
我看过那篇报道, 最差的一家基金会用掉100万, 只有一千元用于资助项目.也就是0.1%. 不过也有好的, 最高的一家90%用于资助项目.平均下来好象是10%左右. -fox69(fox); 2003-1-28 {105} (#1006975@0)
我是宁可信其有. 因为贪婪, 自私是人的本性. 要不是有好的管理, 监督机制, 国外的贪污, 腐化一点也不会比国内差.

我刚刚看完这篇文章，所谓“平均下来好象是10%左右.”是指那1/6的troubled charities. -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006989@0)

If you can, go to ask a accounting professor of UT of YorkU, then you will know how stupid your teacher is. -wins(wins); 2003-1-28 (#1006938@0)

This is my teacher's name and telephone, Indira Somwaru, 416-491-5050 EXT. 6322. You can ask her. -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006955@0)

Why do I ask a college teacher instead of my university teacher. You even said an anti-static ribbon can reduce 10% gas consumption before, do you think I will wast time to verify it ? -wins(wins); 2003-1-28 (#1006984@0)

So do I. -littleboat(小舟：日行两百里ing); 2003-1-28 (#1007033@0)

BUSINESS好像是HRM第一学期的课吧？INDIRA教过我，挺好的人，考试都很STRAIGHTFORWARD。恭喜你了，拿A没问题。 -bigfool(bigfool); 2003-1-28 (#1007390@0)

Really? Thanks. -littleboat(小舟：日行两百里ing); 2003-1-28 (#1007601@0)

绝对是个NICE TEACHER。我是去年HRMC POST-DIPLOMA CO-OP班的，她教我们BUSINESS，还教NON CO-OP的COMP。好像是MBA出身，对加拿大中学教育颇有微言。注意她的复习课，考试内容一般都在REVIEW之内。 -bigfool(bigfool); 2003-1-28 (#1007681@0)

My accounting teacher was pretty smart. He's also a CMA. -jeffrey815(Smartiecat); 2003-1-28 (#1007392@0)

The case you are talking about is very rare,but does exist. The most ridiculous case I remember was that more than 98% percent raised moeny went to management and fund raise. Less than 2% percent went -tongcd(不明真相的总是群众); 2003-1-28 {573} (#1006939@0)
to do good.
Some of the best charities has more than 95% percent rasied money went to charity. Toronto star has a detailed report about it on November 12, 2002 .
But there are definitely some bad charities spend most of the money on fund raising. I believe some of them are just totally fraud. One story I remembered was that two charities operated by two brothers in same house's basement. They donated moeny to each other's charity which built a false impression that the money they raised actually do good for others. And these two charities were froced to shutdown
如果慈善机构的筹款成本在30％以上，换句话说就是他把他说筹来的款项用于慈善事业少于70％，这个机构就会被kick out。下次他就没有政府的税收优惠了， -killer(流血五步伏尸二人); 2003-1-28 (#1006962@0)

not really:-) -fatboy(大胖墩儿厨); 2003-1-28 (#1006971@0)

比例不对？ -killer(流血五步伏尸二人); 2003-1-28 (#1006979@0)

小舟，帮你找了一块砖头砸他们 -tongcd(不明真相的总是群众); 2003-1-28 (#1006966@0)

Thanks. -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006973@0)
这恰恰说明了她老师纯属胡说八道。注意只有one in six 花在管理等的费用比实际用于慈善项目的多。 -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006974@0)

那是NT的报告。真是：厕所里的石头又臭又硬。 -littleboat(小舟：当司机很辛苦); 2003-1-28 (#1006985@0)

请仔细把这篇文章看完，再下结论吧 -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1006994@0)

继续砸：） -tongcd(不明真相的总是群众); 2003-1-28 {94} (#1006987@0)
All the files are related to this topic under this directory
http://www.bouffordca.com/TStar/

打开之后是乱码 -lovestory(巴黎野玫瑰); 2003-1-28 (#1006996@0)

try again. All those 6 files needs to be open by acrobate reader -tongcd(不明真相的总是群众); 2003-1-28 (#1007008@0)

谢谢你这篇文章。我现在比较明白为什么写论文的时候必须不厌其烦地详细列出每个数据的出处了。 -foreveryoung(老杨-过把瘾); 2003-1-28 (#1007011@0)

到底谁对谁错 -lovestory(巴黎野玫瑰); 2003-1-28 (#1007015@0)

慈善机构有多少钱用在正道上关我P事，反正我从来没捐过钱也没买过彩票。我只知道我给政府交了税，政府就至少要管我孩子的教育。人家讨论的是希望工程这种形式是不是合理，你不是有点跑题？ -rockywei(落基山); 2003-1-28 {118} (#1007058@0)
以前说过多少遍了，提到中国不好就一定拿美国加拿大来对比，难道别人流氓你就可以混蛋？文章里说的美国的教育政策你怎么不比？

再说一句，加拿大真是欠你们的，这么不光彩的调查结果能公布出来让你们骂。回中国去看看，这种资料在内参里都不一定找得到，眼不见心不烦那环境能让你幸福得不得了呢。 -rockywei(落基山); 2003-1-28 (#1007075@0)

按你的理论：我们讨论关你什么事？ -littleboat(小舟：日行两百里ing); 2003-1-28 (#1007282@0)

不关我事，我就不能发言吗？ -rockywei(落基山); 2003-1-29 (#1008324@0)

One thing for sure: 80% goes to administration. -noideas(胡不归); 2003-1-29 (#1008409@0)
发言可以，但要心平气和，不要一张嘴就是P。另外讨论加拿大的事，请你不要老是联想中国，再说中国和你还有啥关系吗，顶多是生气的时候拿来骂骂是吧，没啥意思。 -windnorth(Y2J); 2003-1-29 (#1008718@0)

不骂怎么会改善？我们不就喜欢这里稍微民主及自由一点才来这个国家吗？你不积极争取及发出声音，不好的现象就不会改变了 -9604(眯眯眼); 2003-1-29 (#1008709@0)

看来9604和windnorth是后来才看见这个话题的。原本这个贴子的只是一个跟贴，主贴是说国内的希望工程的。不知道哪位斑竹把这篇跑题的跟贴从里面摘出来，结果就是突然之间我的贴子成了跑题和无理取闹了。真是够滑稽。 -rockywei(落基山); 2003-1-29 (#1009464@0)

曾给一个叫RAINBOW什么的机构，按每月$10捐了一年多。后来从电视里看到善款利用率的调查，这个RAINBOW的利用率只有40%，立马打电话取消了捐赠。报道中最的只有15%。 -terrych(z); 2003-1-29 (#1008535@0)
5% of Seneca's professors are qualified? -rounder(over the hump); 2003-1-29 {236} (#1008565@0)
If that is exactly what your professor said, he is obviously mis-reading the stats on Canadian charities. He took some of the worst cases as the average. Using his logic I can probably say 5% of Seneca's professors are qualified. :-)

According to your theory, 10% of University of Waterloo's professors are qualified as well. -jeffrey815(Smartiecat); 2003-1-29 (#1008834@0)

Either you didn't understand what your prof said, or he has some problem understanding the stats. -rounder(over the hump); 2003-1-29 {897} (#1009976@0)
Let me tell you something. The United Way is the biggest charity in Canada. It's admin ratio is about 16%. The Food Kitchen is another popular charity, again the admin ratio is in the teens. These big programs accounts for most of the $ donated every year. While the Star report said "one in six" charities spend less than 50 cents on their money raised, their $ share of the total charity donation is much less than 1/6, because these bad apples are typically small operations. You do the math, how can the average charity only spend 5% on the good deeds?

There are some good charity programs here, like the ones for elderly Chinese. I think cynicism is dangerous sometimes. Sure we should avoid those shady telemarketers asking for money, that doesn't mean we can write off the good deeds others are doing. I donated to United Way this year, and I believe it is put to good use.

电视台有一次公布过调查，大部分组织需要70%资金用于本身运作，不过话说回来，希望工程就是因为本身运作资金为0，才出现问题的。 -nolater(nolater); 2003-1-29 (#1008783@0)
记得那年警察工会募捐吗？80％的捐款给承办机构。那个承办机构曾因为一个为儿童募捐的活动而一夜之间净赚几百万。剩下的20％能全用到项目上吗？ -noideas(胡不归); 2003-1-29 (#1008838@0)
至少接受我捐赠的world vision有84.1%的钱是用在项目上的.每年我都能收到受助孩子的信和照片.他的成长情况.身高体重等.不过world vision的总部是美国的.也许不在你老师统计之列.台湾的慈济更是100%的款项用于项目. -deepblue(Shopping...); 2003-1-29 (#1008989@0)

慈济是华人慈善事业做得最成功的了吧? 北美的主要城市都有机构, 大陆也有 -passby(passby); 2003-1-29 {31} (#1009321@0)
据说还开了不少学校, 医院什么的.

@Las Vegas

Either you didn't understand what your prof said, or he has some problem understanding the stats.

Replies, comments and Discussions:

More Topics