Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-07-15
protection against starvation is a
more pressing need. The Rookie
f>llae Eoundatioa canfrihaaAad =

lA1SAS pressing A~SS AWAY
Teller Foundation contributed a
considerable sum in 1921 to charity,
as that word is generally under
stood. 1t gave to the famine re-
lief funds to feed the hungry. But
that is not the purpose of the
Foundation as it is explained by
John D. Rockefeller, Jr. The main
idea of his father, according to the
son, is not to relieve poverty by
charity or gifts, but to attack the
sources of poverty SO as to pre-
vent poverty in the future. The
three main sources of poverty, &C.
cording to MI. Rockefeller, are
disease, ignorance, and intemper-
ance. If these can be either elm
mated or reduced poverty will be
eliminated or reduced. Therefore
the income of the Foundation can
be most profitably spent in fighting
disease by medical investigation
and education, fighting ignorance
by schools and universities, fight
ing intemperance by sumptuary
legislation and spreading knowledge
of its evils. Of these three main
objects the Foundation Mr.. Rookie
Teller says that his father believes
that for the present at least he can
accomplish more good with the
Foundation income by spending it
for medical education, hospitals,
and health movements. That is
why the Foundation has spent so
much money on a campaign against
disease, and especially epidemic
diseases, which often originate in
Asia and afterwards sweep through
Europe and the world. We think
the idea of the founder of the
Rockefeller Foundation is sound
and shows the business sense which
made the Rockefeller millions.
Another part of the Rockefeller
Foundation report is very interest
ing to us. and it also illustrates the
business sense Of the founder. The
administrative cost Of distributing
this vast sum Of money. nearly sew
en- and a half million dollars, was
just rs per cent or S1S5,702. Op-
Grating as it does in foreign coun-
tries and distant lands as we'll as
all over the United States this is
a remarkably low administrative
expense. Indeed it is so low that
it has elected a good deal of crit
icism from other charitable and
philaptropic enterprises in this
country which show a much larger
overhead cost. These critics gen.
orally point out that in the Rookie
Teller Foundation there is no ex-
pense for collection. The Founda-
ton got its seven and a half mill
lion from clipping coupons on
bonds donated by MI. Rockefeller,
and if a deficit doomed up in front
of them the only cost of increasing
the sum available for any needed
purpose was a two cent stamp and
a letter addressed to John D.
Rockefeller, who responded with a
big additional check. That is
doubtless true, but even after elm
mating the cost of collection of
funds the report of the Rockefel-
Ter Foundation shows a remarkably
low administration cost.
One Of the best managed funds
of this sort is the Cleveland, Ohio,
Community Chest Fund. which
supports ITO different charity or
CARNATIONS and which costs only
four per cent for administration,
distributing a total Of about four
and a half million dollars. Com
pairing the two reports a critic of
the Rockefeller Foundation report
says:
THE parent of all community
chests, so called, is the Cleveland
Welfare federation. Cleveland
raised last year the sum of $780,
84o. Incidentally, this is more than
SIS per capita.
The classified expenditures to
raise and administer these four and
a third million dollars are as fol-
lows:
Campaign expense ........$7e,4ss
Collection 33,053
Distribution expense ...... 20,585
Service expense .......... 5l,2z7
I'm percentages, the figures are
as follows:
Amount pledged .........10o.0o%
Campaign expense ....... 1869
Collection expense ....... 0.77I
Distribution expense $3.50. 0.44%
Service expense .......... l.l4%