Salvation Army misses its Target; bell ringers banned The familiar sight and sound of bell-ringing Salvation Army kettle solicitors won’t be part of the traditional holiday scene at another major retail store. Target is the latest major retailer to include acorporate policy prohibiting any solicitors for charity outside its stores. According to Lindsay Evans, director of advancement for the Salvation Army’s East Territorial Headquarters in West Nyack, N.Y., several retail stores have had a no-solicitation policy for a number of years, including Kohl’s, Lowe’s, Home Depot and others. Sixty percent of all funds raised by the Salvation Army during the year are received during the last quarter of the year. "While we certainly respect Target’s decision, we’re disappointed it will have an impact on our kettles this year,’’ Evans said. "Nationally, last year, we raised about $93 million in our Christmas Kettle program. And almost $9 million came from Target stores across the country -- so that’s almost 10 percent of our total income that we’ve at least lost the opportunity to get this year." ... All I can say is FTW?
What's sad is that these kind of decisions are usually to 'protect' the company from having to say 'yes' to other soliciters. Our society is too litigious. Edit--Our society is too 'litigious,' and I can't spell. And I can't find my dictionary. So sue me.
Why does the Salvation Army get all the credit? What about the Salvation Navy? Someone has to help out all those homeless guys, bobbing out there in the middle of the ocean.
How about the Salvation Airforce? Suddenly as I wrote that I got a flash of Andy Griffith in "No Time for Sergeants"
I've seen better from you Dan. I cant throw a rotten tomato at you, so neg. rep will have to suffice.. (note: doooht. the computer I am currently using surprisngly wont respond to any attempts to rep... spolied again.)
Frankly, I'm not too choked up about it. If the Salvation Army wants people to take them seriously as a charity, then they should stop hiding behind their religious IRS exemption and provide their financial information in the same manner as all non-religious charities are required to do - so we can see how much of that spare change actually goes to the poor.
Wasn't there some significant investigations into their use of funds for "administrative" expenses about 10 years ago? I don't remember much of the outcome but it seems like there were some folks that received a very handsome compensation package for their work. Not that that should in any way demean the good they have done around the world, only that they do not get a pass when it comes to responsible action and compensation. Let's see how all the money is spent just like our soccer BOD have to do.
The Salvation Army is one of most revered charities in the nation. Not only that but their books are open. If you are truly concerned they might squander your spare change you can peruse their annual reports, which are available at their website.
I relied on Charity Navigator, which may have been mistaken or out of date. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/61/cpid/50.htm#1 Apparently "after repeated requests," they have provided financials to the American Institute of Philanthropy, however, but not for the headquarters or world offices (which does make you wonder what the big boys are spending on themselves). According to AIP, "while the parts of The Salvation Army that have been evaluated receive a high rating from AIP based on their financial performance, AIP members should be aware that the organization lacks an independent governing board." http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/salvarmy.html As you say, the website appears to include the financials as well, so I'm not sure whether these charity watchdogs are simply asleep, or whether they have problems with the contents of the financials. For full disclosure - I'm also personally biased against any religious charities.
Well why didn't you just say so instead of slandering an effective and honorable institution? Don't know if you noticed but the AIP gave each of the Salvation Army's regional organizations top marks.
Don't know if you noticed, but I said as much in my post, as well as the source of my original information. But hey, feel free to stone the atheist for his non-belief.
I noticed. I would have ignored your original assessment had the next two posts not naively reinforced the notion that the Salvation Army is some sort of corrupt entity run by Jimmy Swaggart. Have a Happy December 25th!
at least you are honest - ok I will bite - if you are "personally biased against .... religious charities" - what "charities" are acceptable to you and why? Charities based on ? are ok versus charities administered via religious entities?
Two reasons, really. First, to the extent religious charities do not publicly disclose all finances or fail to account where every charitably given dollar goes, then I have a problem - any charity worth its weight in salt should be utterly transparent, and if it turns out that portions of those charity dollars are actually being routed towards some other part of the religious entity, then I believe there is a problem. Second, I don't like when charity is combined with an effort to proselytize religion, or a religion agenda, such as when population growth aid is tied to celibacy counseling only, or when bibles are handed out with free soup. Of course not all religious charities do this, and if a religion wants to do that, fine - but don't ask me to chip in. I prefer a charity that is formed for the purely secular purposes of a addressing a secular problem - though they must also be watched to make sure they don't stray from that path (sort of like recent battles within the Sierra Club, which isn't even a charity, really).
I agree with much of Norsk Troll's last post, though I will give credit to the Salvation Army on the proslytizing front. Paying my way through college and supporting myself in graduate school was much easier thanks to the Red Shield Boutique, and nary once was I preached to.