The Cost of Doing Business / Scope Creep

Some charities are good, some much less so. An interesting look at the Canadian branch of Mothers Against Drunk Driving at The Toronto Star:

MADD's `exorbitant costs' anger charity's volunteers
People who donate to Mothers Against Drunk Driving are told by the charity that most of the $12 million it raises annually is spent on good works � stopping drunk driving and helping families traumatized by fatal crashes.

But a Star investigation reveals most of the high-profile charity's money is spent on fundraising and administration, leaving only about 19 cents of each donor dollar for charitable works.

MADD chief executive officer Andrew Murie defends the expenses, saying the paid telemarketers and door-knockers are actually performing good works because they educate the public as they ask for cash. That's a defence Canada's top charity regulator rejects.

The controversy over squandered millions has many MADD Canada volunteers � typically people whose relative or friend was killed or injured by a drunk driver � calling for the charity to clean up its act.

"These are exorbitant costs," said Sue Storey, whose mother was killed and father injured when their car was hit by a drunk driver in 1999. Storey is the co-founder of MADD's Dufferin chapter. "I feel like I have been let down."

Yeah -- an 81% administrative overhead is not good. There is a great comment from the MADD founder:

Anti-drunk driving crusader John Bates says the group created at his kitchen table many years ago has "taken a national tragedy and turned it into a fundraising machine."

This is a perfect example of Scope Creep -- MADD was founded with good intent but as it grew, people had to be hired and the administrative overhead took on a life of its own.