People should be aware that there are two different "bell Ringers" that solicit money during the holidays. People should avoid giving money to the Salvation army especially in manhattan and certain parts of NJ since many bell ringers are actually seminary students that come into the metro area from suffern, ny to solicit funds and take those funds out of the metro are not to be used for holiday of helpy the needy in the community. Moneys for the most part go to overseas missionary service areas and the remainder helps support the seminary's operation. The other salvation army bell ringers collect money for local  centers(churches) and  use the money for yearly operation of its centers (churches). Most of the annual budget for these centers are administration and building costs but very little to none is used to actually help people. The salvation army has refused repeatly to submit finacial information to watch dog organization Charity Navigator even though the majority of there monies come from federal funds for the "charity" programs they claim to elicit public money for. The leader in NYC has a penthouse apartment on the upper west side with a lake front home on a private lake in Northern NJ. Not to shabby for considering the claim of living a life of "charity to others". More like living big on the charity of others.

(Actually, they're financial statements--sorry.)

Secular charities and other nonprofits file tax returns, and they can be found on guidestar.org.

I think all charities(religious/secular) should be held accountable for where their donation money go. It should be going to people who need it and not lining the pockets of these organizations.

OK... I agree that gov't money shouldn't be used for religious reasons... but the Salvation Army is so low down on the list of churches that should be looked at. How about these mega-churches with television studios, private jets & Rolls-Royce cars for the Pastors who spend more time condemning Democrats, Liberals, Left wingers... and pay not a freakin' cent in taxes!?!?! Yeah, they have freedom of speech, but whay do we taxpayers subsidize them? Tax exemption for religious bodies is in itself a fairly nebulous area (I have no religion, so why do I subsidize ANY religious group, action or property?) but once they get into some area, any area, other than religion they should not get exemption from paying taxes.

At least the Salvation Army is helping people who need assistance... not buying jets for their gold-trimmed preachers!

You're right, they are the least offensive religious organization. However, if the they proselytize they are not entitled to public funds. These policies are a holdover from Bush 43, who is now among the missing.

PRAISE THE LORD, BY JESUS I BELIEVE YOU HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

Amen.

yeah, well our welfare programs are inefficient, which is why we have to rely on faith-based programs and other third-party service providers who have varying competencies in navigating the system.

fix welfare, fix poverty.

queue: gothamist's racist social scientists.

Faith based services had about 1900 years to get it right. Go look at "How the Other Half Lives" by Jacob Riis for pictures showing the results of their 'work'.

http://www.authentichistory.com/1865-1897/progressive/riis/index.html

But government can't fix the problem either. No one can. You can merely manage it by making sure that people don't so get hungry they break down doors in the nice part of town. Any goal beyond this is utopian fantasy.

Life requires winners and losers. Take that away, and no one will try, but everyone will complain.

Poverty sucks, but earthquakes suck too, and you can't end either one.

And finally calling welfare 'racist' is not a solution, it's just a good way to end the conversation.

And government has had....3000 years to get it right? Assuming we're dating to the Code of Hammurabi, or whatever. You seem to place a pretty ridiculous standard. But they are doing a good amount of charity work.

"You can merely manage it by making sure that people don't so get hungry they break down doors in the nice part of town. Any goal beyond this is utopian fantasy."

Faith-based services pick up a lot of slack, and yeah, it's fucked up that the SA did this. I agree. However, there are lots of people who would go hungry without church soup kitchens and soup pantries in this city, and it's not as though those places preach at you while you eat. (In my experience - if they do that, equally fucked up.)

Probably a little late for this reply, but - rasputinsghost - you have misunderstood my citation. As best I can tell, governments did not get involved in the life of the poor until around 1900 - and that change is generally seen as a result of the Riis book and photos. Before 1900 all charity was 'faith based'.

"However, there are lots of people who would go hungry without church soup kitchens and soup pantries in this city"

The big question is would the poor would pick up and go elsewhere to find better opportunity if free food was not an option. I'm not sure either way on this argument, but as I said in my last post, it's pretty much a fact that people will generally only try as hard as they have to. If you give a man a fish, etc.