
How to know if a charity can be trusted with your money? This one thing can tell you
I'm updating my living trust, and would like to set aside some of the funds from my estate for charities. However, over the past several years, I've heard or read about instances of money being donated to a charity, but as little as 10% to 20% actually gets to the cause itself — the rest might go to 'unscrupulous people,' which infuriates me. Is there any way I can find out which charities can be absolutely relied upon to use at least 80% of the money donated to helping the specific cause?
Many of us have charitable instincts, but might not know where to direct them. Andrew Katzenstein, a tax and estate planning attorney and lecturer at USC Gould School of Law who works with high-net-worth clients, said one client came to him with a conundrum: He had $50 million he wanted to give away. But he didn't know who to give it to. He liked the idea of seeing his name on a building on his drive home from work.
He recommends clients identify what their interest is, and from there, narrow down what they'd like their gift to do. For instance, if you decide diabetes is your chosen cause, do you want to support an organization that helps people living with diabetes, or one researching a cure for it? There's not a wrong answer — just a right one for you.
More Information
Contact us
Do you have a question about your personal finances? Email jessica.roy@sfchronicle.com with the subject line 'No-Nonsense Money' and you may see it answered in a future column.
• Got money questions? Here's how to send them to our California budgeting advice columnist
Eric Flett, the regional president of wealth management firm MAI Capital, said he tells clients to reflect on what brings them joy: animals, music, education, art, health and welfare, to name a few.
'A lot of us use all these great resources in the Bay Area without realizing that these are probably heavily funded by philanthropic organizations,' he said. So the next time you're enjoying a hike or a play or a museum exhibit, think about looking into what groups support those endeavors. He recommended both the San Francisco Foundation (sff.org) and the East Bay Community Foundation (ebcf.org) as good places to look for charities that work in your communities.
Once you've identified your charitable interest, is there a way to know how 'effective' a charity will be with your money? Yes. And no.
Yes, in the sense that many nonprofits and foundations file something called a Form 990, which you can look at to see where donations go. The general benchmark in the philanthropy world is that about 75% to 85% of donations should go to the cause itself, while about 15% to 25% goes toward administrative overhead — think fundraising efforts and employee salaries.
Websites like Charity Navigator, GuideStar and Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance aggregate these filings and rate charities on their efficacy. ProPublica publishes a database of charities' tax returns.
Charity Watch and GiveWell do deeper dives into nonprofits' finances to see how carefully donations are spent and which ones are dollar-for-dollar the most effective. But that level of analysis means they're limited in how many organizations they can evaluate — so if you don't see your favorite charity on there, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a worthy one.
These are all good places to start your search. But rating sites like Charity Navigator don't tell the whole story, said Cecilia Diem. She's the director of the Center for Civil Society, which offers trainings and activities to help nonprofits and foundations operate more efficiently, and publishes the online journal Philanthropy Daily. Those sites tell you that the organizations aren't fraudulent — that the unscrupulous people you're concerned about aren't pilfering your hard-earned money — but they don't always offer a ton of insight beyond that.
A four-star Charity Navigator rating isn't meaningless, 'but all that means is that you have financial statements and that you've made them available,' she said. 'The Charity Navigator rating is not going to tell you anything about whether or not they will honor your intent or how they operate or their leadership.'
She said the best way to find out how a group is going to steward your major gift is by getting involved before you give it. She recommended making what she called a 'handshake donation' to start: $500 or $1,000. That amount should put you at the threshold where the group will reach out personally to thank you with a note or a phone call.
'It's amazing how few nonprofits actually do that, and that's a really good indication of how, if they take your $1,000 gift seriously, then they're probably going to take larger gifts seriously,' Diem said. 'If you give $1,000 and no one can be bothered to acknowledge it or thank you for it, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence that they're going to feel any particular loyalty to what your interests and wishes are when you're leaving them money after you die.'
Raul Gastesi, an attorney who specializes in trusts and estates, says he always recommends clients get involved with the charities they choose: 'It gives you a feel for how really effective they are and how effective your contributions are going to be.'
That's what Katzenstein's $50 million donor did. First, they worked to narrow down his interests: He was drawn to medical causes and curing diseases. They looked up his commute and found a hospital he passed every day. An introduction was made, and the client went on to make a number of substantial contributions and got personally involved with the organization. And his wish was granted: His name is now on the side of the building.
You might not have hospital-naming money to throw around. But you can do your own research and start building a relationship with an organization now to make sure your future contribution will be well-spent.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
2 days ago
- Forbes
How This Biotech Billionaire Outmaneuvered Merck In China. Plus: Your At-Home Office Is Adding To Burnout
This is this week's ForbesWomen newsletter, which every Thursday brings news about the world's top female entrepreneurs, leaders and investors straight to your inbox. Click here to get on the newsletter list! W hen K-pop star Lisa from Blackpink casually flaunted a Labubu keychain on her bag in early 2024, she likely had no idea of the phenomenon it would soon become. In the year and a half since Lisa's Labubu outing, the mischievous plush elf from Pop Mart has turned into a cultural and commercial juggernaut, doubling Pop Mart's 2024 revenue and appearing on the bags of stars like Rihanna, Dua Lipa, Madonna and more. Chances are good you've seen Labubus (and chatter about these creatures) on social media and out in the wild… or maybe you also own one? My colleagues on the Forbes breaking news desk reported earlier this summer that 'the hashtag #labubu has been used in 32,000 TikTok posts over the past week in the United States alone and in more than 1 million posts overall.' That was in early June. This week, those same colleagues reported on 'a limited edition collaboration' between Vans (the popular shoe brand) and Labubu that could 'sell for five figures on the secondary market as an eBay auction for the doll creeps toward the $10,000 mark.' Five figures! My Beanie Baby-collecting younger self is beside herself with jealousy… but the Pop Mart founder, Wang Ning, is laughing all the way to the bank. Cheers! Maggie McGrath Exclusive Forbes Profile: How This New Biotech Billionaire Outmaneuvered Merck In China aseko Michelle Xia gained experience at U.S. pharmaceutical firms before launching her own biotech company back home in China. In a trial last year, the firm's cancer drug outperformed the world's best seller—and its surging stock just made her a billionaire. With a $1.2 billion fortune, based on her and her family's 8.5% stake in the company, Akeso (named for a Greek goddess of healing), Forbes estimates she is one of just nine Chinese women billionaires in healthcare (including two who inherited their fortunes)–-and one of 13 self-made female billionaires in healthcare globally. ICYMI: News Of The Week Tunisia's Ons Jabeur celebrates victory against Colombia's Camila Osorio during their women's singles match on day five of the Australian Open tennis tournament in Melbourne on January 16, 2025. (Photo by Yuichi YAMAZAKI / AFP) / — IMAGE RESTRICTED TO EDITORIAL USE - STRICTLY NO COMMERCIAL USE — (Photo by YUICHI YAMAZAKI/AFP via Getty Images) AFP via Getty Images Ons Jabeur, two-time Wimbledon runner-up, posted on X that she is taking a break from tennis. She said she's no longer happy playing the sport and it's time to put herself first. We talk a lot about the sectors of work in which women are underrepresented, but did you know that women make up a majority of tipped waitstaff and bartending staff in the U.S.? And this week, we at Forbes released the first episode of a new video series hosted by one of the nation's top mixologists (of any gender), Pam Wiznitzer. In this first episode, Pam demystifies America's #1 drink, the Margarita, and she also interviews Indian Matchmaking" star Aparna Shewakramani. Check out the full episode here! While some reviews hail it the 'best show on Netflix,' an extensive press rollout that included a feature in The New York Times and hype around show creator Lena Dunham's much-talked-about return to television, her new show, 'Too Much,' didn't take off on Netflix during its debut week. Adelita Grijalva secured the Democratic nomination this week for Arizona's 7th Congressional District special election to fill the vacancy created by her father's death. If successful in September, she will become the first Latina to represent Arizona in Congress and will bump Latina representation in Congress to an all-time high, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. The Checklist 1. Switch up your work-from-home set-up. Physical clutter and visual distractions can drive stress, reduce focus and lead to emotional exhaustion. If you're feeling burned out in spite of a hybrid or virtual work structure that helps you avoid the drain of commuting, here's how to revamp your home office with wellbeing in mind. 2. Safeguard employees with your reproductive healthcare benefits. The most common mistake that companies make when offering reproductive health benefits is failing to protect the private data from employee benefits use, according to researchers at RMH Compass. Adopting the wrong delivery process for abortion care benefits can place you and your employees at significant legal risk. 3. Job search without losing your mind—or motivation. The emotional toll of looking for a new gig is real. There's the ghosting, the automated email rejections seven minutes after you hit 'submit' on your application, and the five rounds of interviews only to be told that the position went to an internal candidate. Here's how to buttress your sense of resilience. The Quiz Michelle and Barack Obama joked about the latest round of divorce rumors in a joint podcast appearance this week, with the former first lady shutting down speculation that their 32-year marriage was on the rocks. What has Michelle previously attributed divorce rumors to? Her candid statements on struggles when their children were young That she keeps a schedule separate from her husband's Speculation that she may run for president Changes to her physical appearance thanks to a new workout routine Check your answer. Liked what you read? Click here to get on the newsletter list!


Bloomberg
3 days ago
- Bloomberg
PBS, NPR Set to Lose Federal Funding as Senate Passes DOGE Cuts
By , Erik Wasson, and Jack Fitzpatrick Save Republicans are set to succeed in their decades-long quest to end federal funding for public broadcasting after the Senate passed a $9 billion package of cuts derived from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency effort. The Senate voted 51 to 48 to approve the cuts to the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio and a swath of foreign aid. Two Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska — voted no.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Senate works overnight in bid to pass Trump's DOGE cuts package as deadline looms
The Senate is working overnight into the early hours of Thursday morning as it weighs whether to claw back $9 billion in federal funds already congressionally approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting programs as a deadline to act on the White House priority looms. A 'vote-a-rama' on the administration's request – known as a 'rescission package' on Capitol Hill – began Wednesday afternoon after senators narrowly cleared two procedural hurdles late Tuesday to move closer to a final vote. If passed, the GOP effort would effectively codify a small portion of the Department of Government Efficiency's spending cuts. The Senate and House must pass the legislation by Friday, under an obscure presidential budget law used to circumvent the filibuster, or be forced to start over at a later date. It was not immediately clear when a final vote would take place, but it appeared poised Wednesday afternoon to pass with a potential tie-breaking vote from the vice president. The effort appeared to get a boost Tuesday when Senate Republicans signaled resolution on sticking points related to a key global health initiative and rural radio access. Despite that progress, three GOP senators joined Democrats in voting against the measure later that night, forcing party leadership to once again summon Vice President JD Vance to the Capitol to help advance it. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with top Senate appropriator Susan Collins and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell voted against the package Tuesday, defended her vote in the face of a threat from President Donald Trump to withhold support from any Republican who opposes the bill. The Alaska Republican said she took the legislative power of the purse 'personally,' adding, 'So I'm going to execute on it. The president can say what he's going to say, but that's fine. I'm going to do what I'm going to do.' Murkowski declined to say how she would vote after the marathon voting session on amendments. Unlike in other vote-a-ramas, the amendments offered to the rescissions package must be 'germane' to the bill, which limits the kinds of amendments lawmakers can offer. Still, the process allows Republicans to make changes to the legislation and provides Democrats an opportunity to force their Republican colleagues to vote on politically difficult issues. Sticking points Among the changes Republicans are expected to make to the bill is the removal of a controversial $400 million cut that senators believed would impact the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. Gavi, an organization focused on providing vaccinations for children around the world, would also not face cuts in the package, Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters. 'We were reassured by the [White House Office of Management and Budget] director that would not be affected in this process,' he said. On another front, Sen. Mike Rounds announced he would back the measure after working out an agreement that would keep funds flowing to rural radio stations in his state of South Dakota, an issue he's been working for weeks to resolve. Rounds said of his negotiations on X: 'We wanted to make sure tribal broadcast services in South Dakota continued to operate which provide potentially lifesaving emergency alerts,' and said that he worked with the Trump administration to find 'money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.' The OMB director projected confidence about the package, despite the expected changes to it. 'We're fine with adjustments. This is still a great package,' Russ Vought told reporters after a closed-door meeting with GOP senators Tuesday. The Senate, he added at the time, 'has to work its will and we've appreciated the work along the way to get to a place where they think they've got the votes.' Despite the OMB director's visit to the Senate GOP lunch, Collins and Murkowski, in explaining their votes, argued they had not received specific information from the administration on how the cuts could affect global health programs and public broadcasting. Murkowski also argued that the rescissions package from the White House sets a harmful precedent undermining Congressional authority. 'We're lawmakers. We should be legislating. What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority. We want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round,'' she said ahead of the procedural votes on the package. 'I don't accept that. I'm going to be voting no.' Thune on Wednesday acknowledged concerns from the three Republican senators over how specific cuts would be carried out, saying they made a 'fair point.' 'The administration needs to be more specific. I think that's a fair point. But this is an area of the law historically where it isn't as specific. In most cases, when it comes to the State Department, grant a good deal of flexibility about how to allocate some of the resources that Congress appropriates. But I don't disagree. I think that more specificity would be a good thing,' the Republican leader said. Thune said despite the lack of details, he and most members of his conference felt like they had enough information to advance the bill that's expected to pass Wednesday or Thursday. House test on the horizon Since senators are planning to make changes to the bill, it is expected to have to return to the House for final passage – marking the second time this month the Senate GOP would be jamming the House on a Trump priority. House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier in the day encouraged the Senate to send the package back to his chamber 'as is' due to the House Republicans' narrow majority. The Louisiana Republican said he's urged the Senate 'as I always do, to please keep the product unamended, because we have a narrow margin and we got to pass it.' 'We're going to process whatever they send us, whenever they send us. I'm hopeful that it will be soon,' Johnson said Tuesday. This headline and story have been updated with additional developments. CNN's Lauren Fox, Alison Main, Manu Raju, Casey Riddle, Veronica Stracqaulursi, Maggie McCabe and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.