“Charities’ financials are just as complicated as those of a corporation, if not more,” says Laurie Styron. “Be careful as a layman of reading too much into these.” It’s important to do financial checks, Ms. Styron says, but when in doubt, she advises donating to a charity that has a good reputation.”

“Choose the charity you want to (support) before you’re asked,” says Laurie Styron. “If you give in response to someone pressuring you . . . you don’t have time to check out the group. Don’t feel guilty about saying, ‘No,’ “ Styron says.”

“Ending one year in negative territory doesn’t necessarily mean the organization is going under, says Laurie Styron. But if the organization comes up short for several years in a row, she says, “that’s an indication it could be winding down. Your contribution could be used to pay legal fees or creditors rather than the programs you are intending to support.””

“Laurie Styron said the nonprofit should be more forthcoming. “Charities have an ethical obligation to be transparent,” she said.”

“VIDEO: “They are really playing some accounting tricks here because once you reallocate all their collection costs back into fundraising, where [they] really belongs, they actually spend a very low percentage of their budget each year on their programs,” Laurie Styron said.”

“Says Laurie Styron, a financial analyst: “There are real consequences to giving to an inefficient charity. You may accomplish less giving $1,000 to an inefficient charity than giving $100 to an efficient one.” Put in clearer terms: “If ABC charity feeds five starving children with a $100 donation and XYZ charity can feed 50, if you give to the inefficient one, that’s 45 children not being fed,” Styron says. “That’s why making educated decisions is such a key element to giving.” Adds Styron: “People who hustle to get donations in by year-end are more susceptible to highly emotional appeals. Whatever shows up in our mailbox — a solicitation with photos of starving children — and voila, I have my charity.” Don’t let the research involved in responsible giving dissuade you, Styron says. Instead, take advantage of the growing transparency and your ability to give more to your chosen cause with minimal effort. Says Styron: “The most charitable thing anyone can do is to educate themselves on where their money is going, to ensure they accomplish the most good for something that really matters to them.””

“If you determine that a charity you donated money to has made poor use of financial contributions, do you have any recourse? It’s not likely you will get your money back. “Charities are rarely under any legal obligation to return your donation to you in the event you later become dissatisfied with your giving decision,” says Styron.”

“Researching different charities and products for a breakdown of how funds are allocated is time consuming and most charities and companies don’t make it accessible, according to Laurie Styron, charity analyst. “Even if you want to do your homework, the public has no way of confirming,” says Styron. “Information isn’t available and companies don’t want to give it to you.”If you are asked by a cashier, telemarketer or someone on the street to donate to a charity, Styron said to be wary. “Generally speaking, only about one-third of what you donate to a telemarketer gets to charity,” she says. “Don’t respond to telemarketing calls or feel pressured to give on the spot.””People confuse the cause with the specific charity associated with the cause,” Styron says. “People say, ‘I care about saving the dolphins, or breast cancer, or recycling ,’ and hand money over, because they think it’s associated with the cause.” Also think about direct mail solicitation, which can oftentimes be considered “awareness,” as long as there is some type of educational information presented in the message, Styron says. “They are basically calling ‘fundraising’, ‘awareness’.””

“An employee and their relatives should not use a charity’s resources for personal gain or to offset personal expenses,” said Laurie Styron, an analyst.”

“Don’t be ‘guilted into giving,’ “ Styron said. “If they pressure you, let the person know that you never give ‘on-the-spot’ without having time to research the charity. A charity’s ability to show you sad photos or rattle off statistics doesn’t really tell you anything about how efficiently it is operating, or if any of your donation will really be used for charitable causes.””

“A lot of donors assume that if a charity files with the IRS then that means the charity is legitimate,” said analyst Laurie Styron. “But that doesn’t mean someone has rigorously checked out the charity and determined your donation will be spent the way you intend.” Most charities are regulated at the state level. There are no minimums on what they must spend on programs nor legal limits on how much they may spend to raise money. But some groups that claim to spend a hefty chunk on “programs” may use a different definition than donors. Those pre-printed address labels and note cards that regularly come in the mail to play on your guilt to send back a check? If the fundraising pitch contains a reminder to get a breast exam or gives a statistic about homeless veterans, the group could call that part of its “educational program,” Styron noted. “Most donors would be shocked if they knew that the same charity telling you we spend 90 percent on programs was really using most of your money just to send more direct mail to you,” she said.”

“Styron said that inflating the value of in-kind donations is a common way to fudge a charity’s numbers, making a non-profit appear efficient on paper, when it’s wildly inefficient in practice. Another way that charities can fudge their numbers is to claim their fundraising expenses as “educational” costs, Styron said. Charity regulators allow the cost of mailed solicitations to be classified as “education” (which falls under the “programs” umbrella) as long as there is some “call to action” in the fundraising appeal, she said. What’s that? It can be as mundane as saying: “Remember to get your annual breast exam,” Styron said. Or “Vote!” In addition, the cost of salaries for staff members must be allocated between “programs,” “administration,” and “marketing,” based on how they spend their time. That, too, is a subjective process, where those with the most aggressive stance about what falls into the “programs” basket look the best.”

“Ms. LAURIE STYRON (American Institute of Philanthropy): “Never give to charity based on emotion or give to a charity that you’re not familiar with. There are just too many scams and frauds.” ”

“The use of CFC participation as a badge of honor by participating charities creates a problem for all donors, not just federal workers, since donors may think the government has investigated the groups, says Laurie Styron, an analyst for the American Institute of Philanthropy, another watchdog group. That’s no big deal if you’re wealthy enough to hire an investigator, “but if you’re a little old lady giving $100 a year, you think this group has a governmental seal of approval and you think these groups have really been checked out,” Styron said.”

“Laurie Styron pointed out that the Trib’s story “missed the whole point” of the Farm Aid concert. She says the purpose of such extravaganzas — not just the concert but any other high-profile charity event, including the familiar black-tie auction and ball — is to raise visibility and drum up donations. These events are expensive, she explains, and on a balance sheet often not particularly profitable.”

“Celebrities typically align themselves with a specific cause and a noble cause, like helping sick and dying children. However they often don’t take the next step of making sure that charity they are working with is operating efficiently and effectively,” Styron continued. “The charity gives too much to fundraisers and not enough to kids.””

“Laurie Styron said fake charities relying on emotional appeals and limited government scrutiny are common. But she said Thompson “took charity scams to another level. . . .”” He appears to be someone who crossed the line fairly early on.” She was cheered by Thompson’s arrest. “Millions of charitable dollars that could have helped veterans were wasted,” she said. “People should take this as a lesson to be more vigilant.” U.S. Navy Veterans Association”

“If you really want your clothing to do something charitable, sell them yourself or donate them to a highly efficient charity whose values are in line with your own,” said CharityWatch analyst Laurie Styron. ”

“In 2005 the group gave out more money to pay celebrities to play golf than the group in its entire three years of operation gave out to injured players,” explained Laurie Styron. She also said it appeared to be unintentional. “It doesn’t appear there was ill intent, it appears there was just a lot of mismanagement.””

“Follow the cash because including donated goods in this analysis can greatly skew the numbers and make certain charities appear to be operating very efficiently, even when most of its cash donations are being used for fund-raising or management,” says Styron. Be wary of any organization that fails to respond to your inquiries about their finances. ”