Viewing entries in
"charity"

Comment

Pinkwash? For Every $100 Of NFL Pink Merchandise Sales, Only $3.54 Goes Toward Cancer Research


by Rick Chandler | 8:45 pm, October 9th, 2013
The NFL, meanwhile, keeps $45: making it a huge moneymaker for a league that already enjoys nonprofit tax-exempt status. (The league says that it doesn’t actually profit from this, however. See below). So should the NFL get flagged for “pinkwashing”: exploiting a good cause for its own benefit? With its Breast Cancer Awareness “Crucial Catch Campaign” Month, is the league more interested in promoting its brand — especially among women — than it is in actually helping a good cause?
According to Business Insider, the NFL is keeping approximately 90 percent of money from sales of Breast Cancer Awareness gear, like that towel above. And of the money that the American Cancer Society does receive, less than 80 percent of that goes toward actual research.
When we contacted the NFL’s online shop for clarification, we were told 5% of the sales are being donated to the American Cancer Society. If the pink products have a typical 100% mark-up at retail, that means the NFL is keeping 90% of the profit from the sale of Breast Cancer Awareness gear.
And then consider that only 70.8% of money the ACS receives goes towards research and cancer programs. So, for every $100 in sales of pink gear, only $3.54 is going towards research while the NFL is keeping approximately $45 (based on 100% mark-up).

Read more at Sports Grid

(http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pinkwash-for-every-100-of-nfl-pink-merchandise-sales-only-3-54-goes-toward-cancer-research/) 

Comment

Comment

Head to head – Disability protest: the right to an independent life

Linda Burnip, Simone Aspis and Alice Maynard

The Guardian, Tuesday 8 October 2013

Campaigners protest outside Scope’s offices in north London last month

Protest against the segregation and institutionalisation of disabled people at Scope’s offices in north London last month

THE PROTESTERS

As part of our recent week of action, about 30 disabled supporters from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and the Alliance for Inclusive Education (Allfie) picketed disability charity Scope's offices to protest against its continuing policies to segregate and institutionalise disabled people, and its failure to do enough to combat government cuts to disability benefits.

Disabled people have fought long and hard to have a UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was ratified by the government in 2009. The convention seeks to protect disabled people's human rights and promote their full inclusion in society on an equal basis to non-disabled people...

via the Guardian 

https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html

Comment

Comment

Is it too difficult for people with disabilities to find volunteering roles?


disabled volunteer
Disabled volunteer Michael Duggan giving out directions. Photograph: Tom Jenkins for the Guardian

Research by Disability Rights UK and Community Service Volunteershas found evidence that many people with disabilities are experiencing a surprising level of difficulty in finding volunteering roles.
Earlier this year the organisations ran four seminars across England, interviewing disabled people to find out what barriers were stopping them from volunteering. Sue Bott, director of policy and development at Disability Rights UK, says that some who attended the sessions had been waiting for up to four years for a role.
"One of the main barriers is the attitude of organisations in the voluntary sector," she says. "There are a lot of assumptions about disabled people. Rather than thinking about what they can offer, organisations tend to imagine some of the perceived problems having disabled volunteers will cause them."
Read the full article at the Guardian 

Comment

Comment

Volunteering Linked With Lower Risk Of High Blood Pressure

Posted: 

Volunteering might literally be good for your heart, a new study suggests.
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University found an association between volunteerism and decreased risk of high blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for heart attack, stroke, heart failure and metabolic syndrome.
"Participating in volunteer activities may provide older adults with social connections that they might not have otherwise," Rodlescia S. Sneed, who is a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at the university's Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, said in a statement. "There is strong evidence that having good social connections promotes healthy aging and reduces risk for a number of negative health outcomes."
The study, published in the journal Psychology and Aging, included 1,164 adults between ages 51 and 91, who all had normal blood pressure levels at the beginning of the study in 2006. Researchers interviewed the study participants about their volunteerism and other factors at the start of the study, and then again at the end of the study in 2010. The participants also had their blood pressure taken at the end of the study.
They found that older adults who spent at least 200 hours a year volunteering seemed to have a 40 percent lower risk of high blood pressure by the end of the study, compared with those who didn't volunteer at all. Researchers didn't find that the type of volunteer work seemed to matter in lowering hypertension risk.
"Our findings suggest that volunteerism may be an effective, nonpharmacological intervention for reducing hypertension risk. Future research should more precisely explore possible biological and psychological mechanisms linking volunteerism to hypertension, such as neurohormonal changes that may result from the initiation of volunteer activities or changes in psychological stress, social connectedness, or self-esteem that may decrease disease risk," the researchers wrote in the study...

Comment

Comment

Sir Richard Branson To Donate Half His Fortune to Charity


March 9, 2013


In a world full of celebrities behaving badly and so much misfortune and poverty, it is refreshing to write about The Giving Pledge, an organization created for the purpose of asking the wealthiest individuals in the world (Richard Branson, Bill and Melinda Gate, Warren Buffett, etc.)to make a commitment to give the majority of their fortune to philanthropic and charitable causes either while they’re alive or after their death.
What is called a “moral contract,” was started by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates in 2010. Prior to that, Buffett had promised most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which was started by the Microsoft founder and his wife to support initiatives in education, world health and population, and community giving
After meeting with various philanthropists, Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates formed The Giving Pledge and by 2011, 69 billionaires in the United States had pledged to give 50% or more of their wealth to charity, including well-known figures like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, George Lucas and Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg. According to The Daily Mail, the campaign is not designed to collect money but to ask the wealthiest amongst us to give a portion of their fortune to whatever good cause or charitable organization they wish to support.

Comment

Comment

Charity Groups Worry The White House Is Abandoning Them





By: Evan McMorris-Santoro

WASHINGTON — Struggling charity groups facing deep cuts to their federal funding amid deepening sequestration are worrying that Democrats and the White House have left them high and dry by failing to make their case to the American public.

Groups that help the less fortunate have been dismayed as the Obama administration has failed to foster outrage at the deep impact sequestration is likely to have on programs that educate, feed, and clothe low-income Americans. Charitable organizations have already seen some cuts to federal funding, and they expect to see more. Local news outlets across the country have covered the serious impact sequestration is having on Head Start, Meals On Wheels, and other programs that rely on federal support as well as private donations.
And yet, Americans don't seem too concerned about sequestration.
Charity groups blame that national apathy in part on poor messaging from the White House, which, in an effort to gain leverage during budget negotiations earlier this year, led many people to believe that the ultimate impact of the sequester would mirror the government shutdowns of the 1990s — and perhaps be even worse.Since the cuts have begun to take effect, however, the only result many Americans know about is the canceled White House tours, a stunt that has become the subject of widespread media attention.
Activists grumble that if Democrats had focused a little more on the poverty impacts of the sequester rather than White House tours and furloughs for federal workers, the public might be more engaged on what sequestration really means.
"The White House, I don't want to say that they haven't spoken up about how this will impact the poor in general. I think they could probably do a better job of saying how this would directly impact poor programs, but, you know, looking at it from the big picture, the big top-level picture," said Eric Mitchell, director of government relations at the charity Bread For The World.

Comment