Perla Ni
CEO
GreatNonprofits.org

Jennifer, you are trying to make a point the wrong way, and you are trying to “bundle” all this evidence t support something in a very neat and tidy way, but it doesnt work like that in real life.

It is very clear in your writing that you have a pre-existing assmuption that people and orgnizations are out to screw you and pull one over. You say this (yes, you do – dont get into semantics with me, please) about Facebook, Forbes, and several organizations. I question your understanding of the nonprofit world. Yes, the guy at Youth services is paid 6% of revenue. I know firsthand that in certain situations, it is better to have someone who may cost more because he or she can run the organization 10 times better than someone else. And guess what? That does not make them evil, that just means they are in demand an they may need to make a certain amount to keep their home and send kids to college. OK, so people should give to Youth Services Internationl if its program expenses were higher? Consider this: if my 25 year old niece went to run it for free, then it would be at 86%, right? But personally, Id rather know my money is being allocated and spent according to the vision and execution skills of a worthy manager who i in demand because he or she has relevant experience. And te free market economy (supply ad demand) DOES exist in the npo world. You need to think more about dollar amount, and less about %’s. If someone is running a nfp and making less than $150K, then an argument that that person is “perpetuating the organization instead of….”, I disagree with. If someone is making $300K, and its a higher than average % of revenue, then yes, that is wasteful. Remember that that % changes based on the revenue figure. Next year, youre going to see all these salary %’s rise. Why? Because the people sweating to run these still need t pay their mortgages and tuition, but they are receiving less in donations with this economy.

Your article would have been a lot better had you said to, for example, “see if the cause’s programs are redundant [with those of another npo]“. In THIS situation, then yes, one should donate to the organization with the better numbers (if the dollars are going to help the same thing). But youre going by numbers alone. Your article very clearly says that the smarter move is to donate to those organizations with a higher rating and better numbers. Jennifer, what is your plan to build futbol fields in south america and achieve a “4 star” rating right away? GO on, spend 50+ hours a week making this happen, pay your rent, car payment, etc, and have a ridiculously positive, tangible impact in the lives of these young people. Ill bet youd find that you couldnt make it to 4 stars right away. Well then, I guess you better give up, because then people shouldnt be donating to you, right? Sorry kids, no fields. I can understand if someone ELSE were already doing the same thing, and it was a redundant organization. But for me to decide I want to give to help make these fields a reality for these children, then I am willing to send 100 bucks knowing that 20 will get spent paying for the guy flying down to help build the fields eat and have a place to live while he is there. Ill tell my friends what he’s doing, then when we help them double the donations next year, guess what? His salary % is half of what it was. See where “big bad evil Facebook” (Causes, actually) is going with this? Newsflash: The internet generation is more excited by a guy who devotes his life to making things like this happen than they are by giving another $10 to the “4 star” Red Cross.

Do you want to be the one to tell those kids using their soccer field that they wont be making any more because they dont have a headquarters? The organization builds fields for kids to play soccer, and youre dogging npo’s left and right for being wasteful, then you take a picture of the house, interview neighbors and we are supposed to agree this makes it not legitimate because they dont pay rent to have a headquarters they dont need. Does that make sense to you? And dont hide behind semantics Jennifer, you called it questionable, got facts wrong and imply, imply, imply left and right that these are all charities undeserving of our donatons. If you want to write an article making sure that people know to do research, fine. But don’t screw up your own research, criticize worthy causes, criticize everyone involved in trying to help these causes and sensationalize your story with conspiracy theories. Next time, how about just saying “make sure you do your research on your charities”.

Honestly Jennifer, I dont mean to come across as mean or rude. I know you have good intentions here, I do, and I commend you for that. But you need to not “attack” as much, or else youre going to make all of us liberals look bad because, well, it doesnt hold much weight in reality – it just supports a very subjective theory that you are writing to defend. You will be a much happier person if you dont assume that businesses, people and organizations are all out to get you.

And, again, this isn’t about the “legitimacy” of the groups, but rather the efficacy. Not all 501c3s (the definition of a legitimate charity) are well run or use their donations in an effective way. Again, in the words of The Philanthropy Journal: far too many nonprofits focus more on perpetuating their own organizations than on improving the way they do business or deliver services.

You may not like my thesis, but its not about inadequate research. If I read your comment correctly, you don’t think its “unique or newsworthy” for a huge social network site to promote charities of widely varying efficacy. Its a fact that Facebook does just that.

However, we do agree on one thing: Buyer beware.

As for the charities supported on the Causes application, they all appear to be legitimate charities. This application supports donations to all 1.5 million registered 501c3 organizations in the US, so the onus is on the user to vet the organization with Charity Navigator or another such rating service before sending a charity gift or making any other kind of donation.

I don’t see what is unique or newsworthy about any of this and I’m disturbed how poorly-researched this article appears to be.

1. It’s pretty hard for an educated and informed, let alone a typical person to determine which charities manager their money appropriately.

2. There is indeed a need for more transparency in charitable organizations.

3. It’s a shame that organizations agree to sponsor or promote charities without doing their homework.

This type of open discussion educates and enlightens those of us interested in donating. I received an email yesterday from the owner of a large networking site currently in beta, noting that after reading this article she realized she needed to pout on her list, “vetting charities” as they ramp up….which I think is the point of this article.