We're Beholden to Logic Only
There’s a shrill little troll out there on the internet (I’m not going to link to him—it would give him some sort of legitimacy and if three of you actually clicked on the link, it would triple his web traffic and crash his home-made server) that is trying to impugn our credibility with one of the dumbest accusations I’ve ever heard. (And when you’re in the charity ratings business, you hear your share of accusations).
It goes like this: Because we allow charities to count in-kind contributions when we analyze their data, we must be in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical industry, since they make a lot of in-kind contributions (medicines, usually) and in this person’s eyes, pharmaceutical companies are all evil and trying to poison little children everywhere.
Yes, we count in-kind contributions (better known to normal people as gifts that are not cash) as both an input and an expense for the charities we rate. And yes, in some cases, that includes pharmaceuticals. Here’s what it also includes: food given to the hungry, computers given to schools, software, mini-vans donated to youth groups and the handicapped, books given to kids from low-income neighborhoods, coats for the homeless, work clothes like the kind Dress For Success gathers for women on welfare to wear on job interviews, etc. The list could go on and on. We count non-cash donations because that’s the currency most charities utilize and we follow the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, IRS guidelines, and industry standards for valuing those gifts.
If we didn’t count in-kind contributions, it would be illogical and unethical, and would get us laughed out of the sector tomorrow. It's not proof that we're beholden to Pfizer, it's a sign that we're not insane haters of charities, donors, and common sense. Anyone who doesn't count in-kind contributions, or non-cash gifts, is either too dumb to understand charity accounting or too mean-spirited to be trusted. And then to slander those that do it the right way, well, that's just off the charts on the unconscionable scale.
Be careful of what you read out there on the web, especially if the site on which you find it is held together by twine and popsicle sticks and powered by a mouse on a bicycle.
Words are cheap. Data is power. And jealous lies get us nowhere. Donors deserve better.
Labels: Big Pharm, Bill Clinton, Charity Navigator, Dress For Success, Goodwill, insane little bitter backpack-wearing haters that shun logic and rationality, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer
posted by Trent Stamp at 12:07 AM
4 Comments:
I know exactly to whom you're referring, Trent, and you're right, he's an imbecile and doesn't desere to see his name in print. Thank god Charity Navigator came along to refute that guy. I run a charity where we do our best to avoid EVER dealing in cash, dispensing food, and only raising enough money to pay my employees. And for that, he tells people we don't actually do anything. And yet, we'll feed over 40,000 families next year.
Okay, you're not beholden to the pharmaceutical industry, but … you are beholden to the entire non-profit sector in general, right? Don’t Charity Navigator’s contributions/donations come primarily from other non-profits, the very non-profits Charity Navigator’s offers “ratings” for? Charity Navigators’ ratings are really given out as part of quid pro quo arrangements with such non-profits, aren’t they? So, you’re not in the pocket of Big Pharm -- you are in somebody’s pocket to be sure.
Who is this guy? If this is an important thing to resolve because a lot of people are listening to him or otherwise agree with him, link to him so we can see his perspective and have a 2-sided discussion. If not, and it's really an argument no one believes being made by a 2-reader blog, then bother bringing it up?
Trent, this is the second time I've seen you argue with someone you don't identify, and I don't really get it. Seems to me that the discussions that aren't important enough to have openly aren't worth having at all.
you're not the Holden who spent months having arguments (and taking cheap shots at everyone in the sector) and not identifying who YOU yourself were, are you? if not, i apologize. if so, this may be the GREATEST pot calling the kettle black comment in the history of mankind.
Post a Comment
<< Home