My children, with the particular parental-caused eye roll that is a tool to all youth, will confirm for you my fascination and, yes, obsession, with Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.”
I am expert on more than a dozen versions of the movie, I have three different audiobook versions in my library and I have a well-thumbed print edition that has been read aloud to these same children with what I am sure they regarded as unsettling regularity. I am pretty good at Ebenezer Scrooge’s voice. I do a fair Bob Cratchit.
But every year, as this season cycles into view, I return to one passage from the book, delivered by a gentleman who stops at Scrooge and Marley’s to ask for a charitable donation: “It is a time, of all others,” he says, “when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices.”
This would be why, in the spirit of the season, and this unnamed gentleman, we are asked with particular urgency to donate to any of a number of charitable good works.
Charitable good works are the fundamental purpose of organizations such as the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which serves San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.
For an embarrassing length of time, SVCF was under a cloud of ineffective and even questionable leadership. There also was an uneasiness that the merging of the Peninsula foundation into the Silicon Valley foundation left San Mateo County’s needs and contributions eclipsed and rendered secondary.
All this has been remedied, and more, since Nicole Taylor was named president and CEO of SVCF in 2018. From 2018-23, SVCF and its donors granted $345 million to support more than 750 San Mateo County nonprofits; $55 million went to San Mateo County nonprofits in 2023. SVCF is the largest funder of San Mateo County nonprofits.
Taylor is what you would want in a nonprofit leader — charismatic, realistically upbeat, warm and determined to expand the reach of her organization.
Expanding the local reach has been a challenge and a frustration for Taylor. Indeed, one of the long-standing criticisms of SVCF is the amount of money over which it has limited control.
SVCF has more than $11 billion in charitable assets under its management. But 74% of that money is in restricted, donor-advised funds, which means the foundation can spend the money only on specific programs and recipients as dictated by the donors.
Silicon Valley long has been criticized for giving that lags behind other major American industries. Perhaps it is because so much of the wealth here has been accumulated quickly, often by younger people. Then, there are those who tend to see their wealth as the result of their own efforts and not as a reflection of a setting in which their success was made possible, supported and accommodated.
Recommended for you
What has also plagued SVCF has been the need of some to do big things with big money.
A newly wealthy entrepreneur may think to solve world hunger, rather than finding that the solution to world hunger lies in feeding the family around the corner.
Taylor acknowledges some frustration that more donors direct their money in sweeping ways and do not “see what the needs are right in their backyard. … I would love for more of the dollars to be directed to organizations here.” She added: It is not an either/or proposition, it’s both/and. You need to understand what’s happening in your backyard, where the produce on your plate comes from, and the wealth gap” in this area.
She is too judicious to say this, so I will: These donors need to trust the process at SVCF under Taylor’s leadership and make more donations that can be applied by the foundation staff to meet identified local needs that can be improved immediately by a donation.
All of which brings us back to the annual effort by virtually every charity to raise funds at this “time, of all others, when Want is most keenly felt.”
And the associated question: To whom should we give?
In the theme of today’s missive, I would offer this paraphrase of a well-known motto: Think globally, give locally.
There, you will find 13 local organizations that will make good and honest use of your money. Two of my longtime favorite local organizations are on the list — Samaritan House and Second Harvest of Silicon Valley.
We are, most of us, comfortable, warm, well fed and cared for. We should give in ways that reflect this reality. Make it possible for Abundance to rejoice.
Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.
Thanks for your column, Mr. Simon, and a description of SVCF. However, I’d recommend that before anyone donate to SVCF, or any foundation, that they do the research to determine whether these charities are worthy of your hard-earned money. To that end, I took a quick look at the 2023 Financial Statement Audit for SVCF and it shows over $11 billion in Net Assets without donor restrictions, while showing $325 million in Net Assets with donor restrictions. Am I missing something? And then we have the issue of what staff at SVCF is paid. How many $millions are being paid in overhead that could be used to fund programs? From a quick look, several $million is being paid to executive staff. Again, before sending money to charities, do the research and see how much is being paid for salaries and expenses unrelated to program expenditures. Any money spent on these extraneous expenses doesn’t help the programs they purport to support. BTW, sorry I missed it but how did your talk at Feldman’s go? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Anything new to report since then?
Wow, that is a huge team: https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/about/meet-the-team
Also important to understand are salaries paid through donations or through grants.
Whenever we see grants being used for salaried leadership, the public should require openness about where these grants are coming from. Because these grant givers might have too much influence now in what the group is doing - this kind of setup has led to many situations where Corporate Interest has turned former fine Charities into their own Astroturfing organizations.
The top 5 execs take home almost $3 million combined, with the CEO topping out at over $1 million. The SVCF has a 94% rating which means overhead is only 6% of proceeds, which is impressive. Running a 'needs' program is clearly lucrative.
Um, thank you. I think maybe you should have just skipped this column. Having been on several nonprofit boards, the standard cynical criticism is to question how much is spent on overhead. It's a child's way of looking at nonprofits, akin to protesting how much government employees get paid and then complaining that government doesn't work effectively.
I am actually more concerned about charity leadership that isn't paid by donations but by hidden grant givers.
The first question is why do charities even need salaried leadership in the first place?
The answer is they don't. A lot of these could simply be volunteer based by people feeling good about the cause. Charities always worked this way.
Once the leadership is paid and the thing turns professional, the whole money thing becomes iffy.
Let's take the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) as an example. The make a few bugs from the rather small number of paying members they have, but somehow can afford 20-25 salaried positions for "outreach" and "marketing" etc. These salaried positions however are paid through grants - and it is unclear who that is.
Here is the problem tough. This is a 50 year old organization and while bicycle infrastructure and cycling is flourishing in many other cities and areas, it is stable at 1% in Silicon Valley. It is really hard to achieve that level of incompetence with 20-25 salaried employees and in an area like this.
So who gives grants to an organization that is absolutely atrocious at what their core goal is? And depending on who those grant givers really are - we have to assume the grant givers are paying these salaries so SVBC does NOT have the success we would expect these days. And if they are paid to being unsuccessful, now the 1% of cyclists in an area with millions of bright, young professionals and high-density loving YIMBYs, make much more sense. This is Astroturfing 101. And many charities around here work this way now.
Mark - I will never skip one of your columns. My concern or gripe is that organizations such as the SVFC are apparently looking for needy opportunities and then staff accordingly. Looking at their website, and the plethora of high level staff positions at lofty compensation make me wonder whether they aren't justifying a perceived need. Their specialization in particular should raise some eyebrows. These type of organizations count on the public's desire to do good and to make donations for causes that may be invented. The titles of the senior team certainly indicate vague purposes. I have also served in several non-profit and service organizations and found out that as long as they are small and local they serve their purpose. They can count on volunteers to keep the overhead down. The Rotary Club is a good example. Once they grow, their specific mission becomes generally too distributed which in turn requires more staff. Remember that 6% of a few $billion, the SVCF's annual budget, is a lot of money. I make, and I recommend, donations at the local level where I can be assured the money is going to its intended purposes.
My wife and I donate 50-50... not by design... more by chance. We support some successful large nonprofits, and we give locally. It just works out that way. I find it easy to be a cheerful giver when I can connect with someone at a smaller, local organization. I'm not looking for any special thanks, however, it is gratifying to see everyone's donations at work.
I do think you make a good point that some larger foundations may chase dollars to the detriment of filling local needs. At the same time, if Mark's column has inspired anyone to make a donation or two when they otherwise may not have done so... that's a good thing.
Is it just me or does it sounds like Mr. Simon is being defensive by being offensive? So, Mr. Simon, no explanation on why you say 74% of $11 billion is in donor-advised funds when the Financial Audit shows $11 billion is WITHOUT donor restrictions? Perhaps your information is incorrect? And you claim asking how much is spent on overhead is a child’s way of looking at nonprofits. Remember, money wasted on overhead is money not going to help the charities they purport to help. So would you be okay if SVCF executives took home $10 million? $30 million? $300 million? What's your limit before you stop defending them?
Speaking of skipping, you’ve guaranteed I’ll skip making any donations to the SVCF and I’ll happily inform everyone else to skip making donations to the SVCF. As for your other recommended charities, I’d implore folks to research them thoroughly before donating because their donations may be better suited elsewhere. BTW, do you feel insulting people (basically everyone commenting) is the best way of ginning up support for the SVCF? I ask, what’s the value added from the top 5 SVCF execs taking home almost $3 million? Looking forward to your future columns. Perhaps in a future column, you can tell us why you feel government works effectively.
You have misread the information of the SVCF website and have it exactly backwards. But thanks for making the discussion personal. It reminds me of why I don’t comment on your dour postings.
Mark, given the amount of time that “Terrence Y.” spends writing in the SMDJ comments section, I can’t help but conclude that “Terrence” is on the payroll of some organization intent on flooding local newspapers with their point of view. Maybe you should do some investigations into that possibility 😁!! What a hoot that column might be!! Do the words “collusion,” “perfect phone call,” etc., come to mind! 🤣
Au contraire, Mr. Simon. A bit hard to misread when I’m repeating what the Financial Audit shows, the amount WITHOUT donor restrictions. But thanks for taking the time to respond in a huff. A standard Democrat tactic when unable to answer simple questions to support their assertions. Meanwhile, still no justification as to why SVCF should be considered for donations?
Should we get into the organizations where SVCF made substantial grants? Such as left-of-center criminal justice organizations, left-of-center criminal justice think tanks, left-of-center immigration organizations providing legal advocacy for illegal immigrants. Seems to me that folks should completely avoid giving to SVCF because chances are, they’re working more for soft-on-crime policies than others. Find a better organization than SVCF to give to.
Hey David Kristofferrson, nice to “see” you again. I hope you enjoyed the Thanksgiving holiday. I’m flattered by your adulation and as always, I appreciate your staying abreast of my comments. I imagine you think it takes a lot of time to respond but I have “canned” responses which haven’t been able to be rebutted (even by you) that apply to TDS-fueled rants and other conspiracy theories. As for investigating me, please do so and you’ll find that as always, I’m for truth, justice, and the American way. However, if you want to do a worthwhile investigation, you might want to do a deep dive into the following phrases and let us know what you think they mean, because Kamala doesn’t know - leading to her glorious defeat.
“We will work together, and continue to work together, to address these issues, to tackle these challenges, and to work together as we continue to work operating from the new norms, rules, and agreements, that we will convene to work together…We will work together.”
“We push to move forward; that we are guided by what we see that can be, unburdened by what has been. And I know everyone in this room understands this.”
“We've got to take this stuff seriously, as seriously as you are because you have been forced to take this seriously.”
Mark - I wonder why you are promoting an organization that seems mostly interested in ensuring that every possible need is met with an executive staff. Come on, they are skimming millions off the donations. No wonder they are smiling in every photograph.
Wow. If I ever a modern example of the "when did you stop beating your wife" style of inquiry, you've provided a stellar version. I don't see this organization the way you cynically do. I guess this column wasn't for you,
Maybe I'm a skeptic, but children in the USA want, they do not need because of our incredible socialist safety nets. That's why I suggest and prefer donating to and helping people in other countries who are in need of clean water and electricity. 25% of the world's population does not have access to clean safe water. 680 Million people have no electricity. Imagine living without a toy or living without clean water and or electrify.
Some staff in a few of these organizations have been known to convert donated cars for personal use. I know of one where a senior exec was wearing an expensive mink coat which had been donated as well. Salvation Army truck drivers have been known to divert nice furniture for personal use or sell before it gets to the the designated warehouse. I am not insinuating that this is going on everywhere in this space but donors should be aware that their generosity is not always applied where it should.
Come on Mark - you opened up Pandora's box. It is not that we don't want to help our fellow-men/women but it is the industry that has evolved. Once we start looking into these organizations and see dollar amounts in the billions of $$ we start scratching our heads. How many supporters know that millions of $ bucks are spent on managing this enterprise? A CEO, making more than $1million per year by helping those in need? Come on! "Not Bah, humbug", but What the H*&&!
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(19) comments
Thanks for your column, Mr. Simon, and a description of SVCF. However, I’d recommend that before anyone donate to SVCF, or any foundation, that they do the research to determine whether these charities are worthy of your hard-earned money. To that end, I took a quick look at the 2023 Financial Statement Audit for SVCF and it shows over $11 billion in Net Assets without donor restrictions, while showing $325 million in Net Assets with donor restrictions. Am I missing something? And then we have the issue of what staff at SVCF is paid. How many $millions are being paid in overhead that could be used to fund programs? From a quick look, several $million is being paid to executive staff. Again, before sending money to charities, do the research and see how much is being paid for salaries and expenses unrelated to program expenditures. Any money spent on these extraneous expenses doesn’t help the programs they purport to support. BTW, sorry I missed it but how did your talk at Feldman’s go? Good? Bad? Indifferent? Anything new to report since then?
Wow, that is a huge team: https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/about/meet-the-team
Also important to understand are salaries paid through donations or through grants.
Whenever we see grants being used for salaried leadership, the public should require openness about where these grants are coming from. Because these grant givers might have too much influence now in what the group is doing - this kind of setup has led to many situations where Corporate Interest has turned former fine Charities into their own Astroturfing organizations.
The top 5 execs take home almost $3 million combined, with the CEO topping out at over $1 million. The SVCF has a 94% rating which means overhead is only 6% of proceeds, which is impressive. Running a 'needs' program is clearly lucrative.
See above.
Um, thank you. I think maybe you should have just skipped this column. Having been on several nonprofit boards, the standard cynical criticism is to question how much is spent on overhead. It's a child's way of looking at nonprofits, akin to protesting how much government employees get paid and then complaining that government doesn't work effectively.
I am actually more concerned about charity leadership that isn't paid by donations but by hidden grant givers.
The first question is why do charities even need salaried leadership in the first place?
The answer is they don't. A lot of these could simply be volunteer based by people feeling good about the cause. Charities always worked this way.
Once the leadership is paid and the thing turns professional, the whole money thing becomes iffy.
Let's take the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) as an example. The make a few bugs from the rather small number of paying members they have, but somehow can afford 20-25 salaried positions for "outreach" and "marketing" etc. These salaried positions however are paid through grants - and it is unclear who that is.
Here is the problem tough. This is a 50 year old organization and while bicycle infrastructure and cycling is flourishing in many other cities and areas, it is stable at 1% in Silicon Valley. It is really hard to achieve that level of incompetence with 20-25 salaried employees and in an area like this.
So who gives grants to an organization that is absolutely atrocious at what their core goal is? And depending on who those grant givers really are - we have to assume the grant givers are paying these salaries so SVBC does NOT have the success we would expect these days. And if they are paid to being unsuccessful, now the 1% of cyclists in an area with millions of bright, young professionals and high-density loving YIMBYs, make much more sense. This is Astroturfing 101. And many charities around here work this way now.
Mark - I will never skip one of your columns. My concern or gripe is that organizations such as the SVFC are apparently looking for needy opportunities and then staff accordingly. Looking at their website, and the plethora of high level staff positions at lofty compensation make me wonder whether they aren't justifying a perceived need. Their specialization in particular should raise some eyebrows. These type of organizations count on the public's desire to do good and to make donations for causes that may be invented. The titles of the senior team certainly indicate vague purposes. I have also served in several non-profit and service organizations and found out that as long as they are small and local they serve their purpose. They can count on volunteers to keep the overhead down. The Rotary Club is a good example. Once they grow, their specific mission becomes generally too distributed which in turn requires more staff. Remember that 6% of a few $billion, the SVCF's annual budget, is a lot of money. I make, and I recommend, donations at the local level where I can be assured the money is going to its intended purposes.
Hey, Dirk
My wife and I donate 50-50... not by design... more by chance. We support some successful large nonprofits, and we give locally. It just works out that way. I find it easy to be a cheerful giver when I can connect with someone at a smaller, local organization. I'm not looking for any special thanks, however, it is gratifying to see everyone's donations at work.
I do think you make a good point that some larger foundations may chase dollars to the detriment of filling local needs. At the same time, if Mark's column has inspired anyone to make a donation or two when they otherwise may not have done so... that's a good thing.
Is it just me or does it sounds like Mr. Simon is being defensive by being offensive? So, Mr. Simon, no explanation on why you say 74% of $11 billion is in donor-advised funds when the Financial Audit shows $11 billion is WITHOUT donor restrictions? Perhaps your information is incorrect? And you claim asking how much is spent on overhead is a child’s way of looking at nonprofits. Remember, money wasted on overhead is money not going to help the charities they purport to help. So would you be okay if SVCF executives took home $10 million? $30 million? $300 million? What's your limit before you stop defending them?
Speaking of skipping, you’ve guaranteed I’ll skip making any donations to the SVCF and I’ll happily inform everyone else to skip making donations to the SVCF. As for your other recommended charities, I’d implore folks to research them thoroughly before donating because their donations may be better suited elsewhere. BTW, do you feel insulting people (basically everyone commenting) is the best way of ginning up support for the SVCF? I ask, what’s the value added from the top 5 SVCF execs taking home almost $3 million? Looking forward to your future columns. Perhaps in a future column, you can tell us why you feel government works effectively.
You have misread the information of the SVCF website and have it exactly backwards. But thanks for making the discussion personal. It reminds me of why I don’t comment on your dour postings.
Mark, given the amount of time that “Terrence Y.” spends writing in the SMDJ comments section, I can’t help but conclude that “Terrence” is on the payroll of some organization intent on flooding local newspapers with their point of view. Maybe you should do some investigations into that possibility 😁!! What a hoot that column might be!! Do the words “collusion,” “perfect phone call,” etc., come to mind! 🤣
Two for one…
Au contraire, Mr. Simon. A bit hard to misread when I’m repeating what the Financial Audit shows, the amount WITHOUT donor restrictions. But thanks for taking the time to respond in a huff. A standard Democrat tactic when unable to answer simple questions to support their assertions. Meanwhile, still no justification as to why SVCF should be considered for donations?
Should we get into the organizations where SVCF made substantial grants? Such as left-of-center criminal justice organizations, left-of-center criminal justice think tanks, left-of-center immigration organizations providing legal advocacy for illegal immigrants. Seems to me that folks should completely avoid giving to SVCF because chances are, they’re working more for soft-on-crime policies than others. Find a better organization than SVCF to give to.
Hey David Kristofferrson, nice to “see” you again. I hope you enjoyed the Thanksgiving holiday. I’m flattered by your adulation and as always, I appreciate your staying abreast of my comments. I imagine you think it takes a lot of time to respond but I have “canned” responses which haven’t been able to be rebutted (even by you) that apply to TDS-fueled rants and other conspiracy theories. As for investigating me, please do so and you’ll find that as always, I’m for truth, justice, and the American way. However, if you want to do a worthwhile investigation, you might want to do a deep dive into the following phrases and let us know what you think they mean, because Kamala doesn’t know - leading to her glorious defeat.
“We will work together, and continue to work together, to address these issues, to tackle these challenges, and to work together as we continue to work operating from the new norms, rules, and agreements, that we will convene to work together…We will work together.”
“We push to move forward; that we are guided by what we see that can be, unburdened by what has been. And I know everyone in this room understands this.”
“We've got to take this stuff seriously, as seriously as you are because you have been forced to take this seriously.”
Mark - I wonder why you are promoting an organization that seems mostly interested in ensuring that every possible need is met with an executive staff. Come on, they are skimming millions off the donations. No wonder they are smiling in every photograph.
Wow. If I ever a modern example of the "when did you stop beating your wife" style of inquiry, you've provided a stellar version. I don't see this organization the way you cynically do. I guess this column wasn't for you,
Maybe I'm a skeptic, but children in the USA want, they do not need because of our incredible socialist safety nets. That's why I suggest and prefer donating to and helping people in other countries who are in need of clean water and electricity. 25% of the world's population does not have access to clean safe water. 680 Million people have no electricity. Imagine living without a toy or living without clean water and or electrify.
I wonder what the staff overhead is at Saint vincent De Paul and The Salvation Army?
Some staff in a few of these organizations have been known to convert donated cars for personal use. I know of one where a senior exec was wearing an expensive mink coat which had been donated as well. Salvation Army truck drivers have been known to divert nice furniture for personal use or sell before it gets to the the designated warehouse. I am not insinuating that this is going on everywhere in this space but donors should be aware that their generosity is not always applied where it should.
I’m beginning to think the only thing missing from this conversation is a terse, “Bah, humbug.”
Come on Mark - you opened up Pandora's box. It is not that we don't want to help our fellow-men/women but it is the industry that has evolved. Once we start looking into these organizations and see dollar amounts in the billions of $$ we start scratching our heads. How many supporters know that millions of $ bucks are spent on managing this enterprise? A CEO, making more than $1million per year by helping those in need? Come on! "Not Bah, humbug", but What the H*&&!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.