Triple the Fraud at AARC

[TheWho]

They money is very likely being offshored.  AARC wages to employees account for less than two million per year, out of the six million taken in by AARC each year.  The original Forge Rd building was paid off long ago, and the expansion into the digs formerly occupied by AARC parent Peter Boyd's AARCIS was entirely funded over two years ago.  Thus, each year, millions of dollars are vanishing through AARC.

It could be going off shored if the board members felt more comfortable with that, but after all expenses, expansions etc. the remaining money goes to the board members to do with as they please.  Some may send it off shore (as was suggested).  Others may choose to invest it in the market or summer/ investment property, upgrade their existing residence etc.
Check some of the leading charities' financial reports and compare them to AARC.  You will see they keep the books pretty much the same.  Charity or non profit doesnt mean the employees and board members dont make a profit.  It means the company (or entity) doesnt grow thru increased profit each year.  The money gets spent.

[Anonymous]

A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them only to help pursue its goals. If an organization is to qualify for tax exempt status, the organization must specify that no part of its assets shall benefit any of it's members, directors, officers or agents (its principals). Misappropriation of funds is a.) fraud, and b.) a felony.

[TheWho]

A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them only to help pursue its goals. If an organization is to qualify for tax exempt status, the organization must specify that no part of its assets shall benefit any of it's members, directors, officers or agents (its principals). Misappropriation of funds is a.) fraud, and b.) a felony.

Sure, but if the nonprofit is nearing the end of the fiscal year and see that they are in a strong financial position for that year then they can distribute funds in the form or bonuses or "one-time wage adjustment" to employees of that nonprofit, but they need to avoid the term bonus when recording these into the books.  This is legal as long as the employees of the nonprofit are motivated by the pleasure of their work and not the money.

[TheWho]

Not that I am defending AARC but in all fairness there isnt an easy way to  determine how much money you will use in any given year (only estimates).  Some years AARC may sponsor many kids and others less.  The surplus cash doesn’t necessarily get rolled over to the next year and can be distributed among employees as bonuses.
The problem isn’t with the IRS.  They will only give these places a tongue lashing , if they go too far with cash distributions, which forces them to be more careful in how they distribute and record the surplus.  What Charities need to be careful of is pissing off the donors.  If donors dont like the bonuses or “salary adjustments” then they will not donate the following year and this becomes a major problem for the nonprofit org.

[Anonymous]

Nah, he can keep all of it he likes.  There is no law against getting rich off of a company you started.  The donors dont care because they get their tax cut no matter what is done with the money.

Last Year's AARC gala sponsors (who, according to the AARC spokesperson here, don't care where their donations go as long as they get their tax cut):

Remington Development Corp
Vermilion Energy Trust
Bantrel
Nexen
E Provident Energy Ltd.
Arcis
Hampson-Russell
Mawer Investment Management Ltd.
Scotia Capital
First Energy Capital
GLJ Petroleum Consultants
Meillennium Geomatics Ltd.
Rolex
J.Vair Anderson Jewellers
Ultimate Dental Wellness
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
McKesson Canada
Loney Financial Corporation
McElhanney
Rundle Energy Partners
Superior Propane


Way to bite the hand that feeds you, AARColytes.  :tup:

[TheWho]

Nah, he can keep all of it he likes.  There is no law against getting rich off of a company you started.  The donors dont care because they get their tax cut no matter what is done with the money.

Last Year's AARC gala sponsors (who, according to the AARC spokesperson here, don't care where their donations go as long as they get their tax cut):

Remington Development Corp
Vermilion Energy Trust
Bantrel
Nexen
E Provident Energy Ltd.
Arcis
Hampson-Russell
Mawer Investment Management Ltd.
Scotia Capital
First Energy Capital
GLJ Petroleum Consultants
Meillennium Geomatics Ltd.
Rolex
J.Vair Anderson Jewellers
Ultimate Dental Wellness
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP
McKesson Canada
Loney Financial Corporation
McElhanney
Rundle Energy Partners
Superior Propane


Way to bite the hand that feeds you, AARColytes.  :tup:

You are a little naive if you think Rolex (as well as the rest) are going to send people over to look at AARC's books.  They probably dont even remember donating anything.  Its a write off for them.  Who gives a shit.  Rolex doantes to thousands of causes each year.  If you give the guy on the street $5 do you care if he buys booze with it or not? or do you think he gets himself a good meal.
AARC throws a nice Gala each year and makes everyone feel good about themselves.  Maybe a special surprise awaits them in their hotel room at the end of the night for being generous.  Whether they are 80% effective or 40% effective doesnt really effect the bottom line.  Its good PR though.

[Anonymous]

Nah, he can keep all of it he likes.  There is no law against getting rich off of a company you started.  The donors dont care because they get their tax cut no matter what is done with the money.

Well, I am sure Dean is pocketing the majority of it - it is the way I remember it being... What's Dean driving this week? The Saab or the Audi?

An independent study would be better but many places just cant afford it so they hire professionals to oversee their own study to add credibility. This is not uncommon.

When it comes to budgeting, it's not hard to see what AARC's priorities are.

[Anonymous]

I have seen contradictory evidence as to the amount of AARC fees generally paid by clients. AARC themselves claim that most client families are subsidized in some way, whereas most of the former inmates to whom I have spoken have families that footed the bill.
80% of AARC's funding is derived through government grants and charitable donations. If the client families do indeed pay most the $150 per day, then AARC is taking in an additional $300 to $600 per day per individual client on top of fees paid by the clients. Again, with a staff of amateur Clinicals and Peer Counselors, where is this money going?