Are Small Charities Small for a Reason?
On Charity Navigator today, we are running the transcript from an online roundtable discussion we had with several leaders of charities too small for evaluation by us. One of the more persistent criticisms we hear is from people like this who wish we would expand our ratings to include smaller groups. They say that by only analyzing the larger groups, we contribute to a charitable marketplace where the rich get richer and the small, underfunded groups that do great work are ignored.
I understand this criticism and wish that we could do more to highlight the smaller groups, good or bad, that may not receive the exposure they deserve. But we too have limited funds (shockingly, this charity evaluation business costs money) and want to have as much value as we can to the largest number of donors, so we focus on those groups that have the most funders. Plus, not everyone likes being rated (shocker #2) so it's imperative that we add groups in a systematic and unbiased way (basically, by looking at how much money they get from individuals) and not leave ourselves open to the perception that we're cherry-picking in any way, and including some small groups but not others. And still, we do evaluate at least 800% more groups than anyone else ever has, and the groups on our site account for just over 80% of all donor money.
But we would like to shine a light on some smaller groups, mainly because many of them are doing good work with little acclaim, but also because some are operating scandalously outside the public purview. So we decided to use our power of the pulpit, minimal as it may be, to provide a forum for a few small charities to talk about their work, their challenges, and why they really are a better destination for donor dollars than the big groups we've all heard of.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the roundtable. We had a ton of trouble finding small groups that were willing to participate. Despite the fact that we have received thousands of emails and calls from small charities over the years begging to be included in our rating system, when they saw the types of questions we wanted to ask them, most declined. Check out the questions yourselves; we weren't exactly a investigative Senate committee, but we weren't interested in just letting them run a commercial for themselves. We wanted thoughtful answers about their work and the sector in which they ply their trade.
And as a result, most went running scared. Not all; we eventually found seven capable and courageous non-profit leaders eager to tell their tales, but I must admit that I was saddened by the number of groups who wanted free publicity, but weren't willing to think introspectively and let their thoughts be public record. Remember, these were all groups that had contacted us previously, asking to be included on the site. But answer a few questions about what you do, and why? That, they had no interest in.
Based on this response, is it possible that this is the reason why some groups never go to scale? Is timidity of leadership an option? Seems possible to me.
Anyhow, check out the roundtable. It's at least mildly interesting and the seven leaders of the non-profits involved had no fear of going on the record at Charity Navigator. For that at least, they should be commended. I had no idea that by doing this simple task in advancing their group's mission, they would be the exception, not the norm.
I understand this criticism and wish that we could do more to highlight the smaller groups, good or bad, that may not receive the exposure they deserve. But we too have limited funds (shockingly, this charity evaluation business costs money) and want to have as much value as we can to the largest number of donors, so we focus on those groups that have the most funders. Plus, not everyone likes being rated (shocker #2) so it's imperative that we add groups in a systematic and unbiased way (basically, by looking at how much money they get from individuals) and not leave ourselves open to the perception that we're cherry-picking in any way, and including some small groups but not others. And still, we do evaluate at least 800% more groups than anyone else ever has, and the groups on our site account for just over 80% of all donor money.
But we would like to shine a light on some smaller groups, mainly because many of them are doing good work with little acclaim, but also because some are operating scandalously outside the public purview. So we decided to use our power of the pulpit, minimal as it may be, to provide a forum for a few small charities to talk about their work, their challenges, and why they really are a better destination for donor dollars than the big groups we've all heard of.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the roundtable. We had a ton of trouble finding small groups that were willing to participate. Despite the fact that we have received thousands of emails and calls from small charities over the years begging to be included in our rating system, when they saw the types of questions we wanted to ask them, most declined. Check out the questions yourselves; we weren't exactly a investigative Senate committee, but we weren't interested in just letting them run a commercial for themselves. We wanted thoughtful answers about their work and the sector in which they ply their trade.
And as a result, most went running scared. Not all; we eventually found seven capable and courageous non-profit leaders eager to tell their tales, but I must admit that I was saddened by the number of groups who wanted free publicity, but weren't willing to think introspectively and let their thoughts be public record. Remember, these were all groups that had contacted us previously, asking to be included on the site. But answer a few questions about what you do, and why? That, they had no interest in.
Based on this response, is it possible that this is the reason why some groups never go to scale? Is timidity of leadership an option? Seems possible to me.
Anyhow, check out the roundtable. It's at least mildly interesting and the seven leaders of the non-profits involved had no fear of going on the record at Charity Navigator. For that at least, they should be commended. I had no idea that by doing this simple task in advancing their group's mission, they would be the exception, not the norm.
Labels: Camp Laurel Foundation, Charity Navigator, Friends for an Earlier Breast Cancer Test, Learning Lab, Mt. Pleasant Animal Shelter, Roundtable, SAFENOWPROJECT, The Healing Species, Think New Mexico
posted by Trent Stamp at 9:06 AM
2 Comments:
I actually don't support small charities unless they are doing something that I think will actually make a difference.
Larger charities have more money, more influence and can do more on a larger scale.
If there was a way to get exposure to smaller charities, that would be great, but until that happens it is just a risk to send money to organizations that you cannot verify as legit or where the money actually goes.
I run a small non-profit that provides a unique service to the 13 county area we serve in North Georgia – for that matter I have been told we are the only agency of its kind in the state. However, I am not surprised that you had problems finding agencies to address your questions or provide answers. Most small and mid-size agencies have been left out of the debate and are not considered factors in the game. Unfortunately this is one of the many myths that you ought to address.
I appreciate your efforts to acknowledge our existences as a group but until the sector acknowledges our numbers and our collective impact, we the small and mid-size organizations will be treated as step children to the major organizations – many of whom are really powerful because they are the sum of their chapters many of which are themselves small.
Because we are discounted, rarely our there efforts to bring us to the table or to reach out and educate us about changes in local, state or federal regulations. Most nonprofit symposiums ignore these issues or provide limited coverage of them. Therefore, little of the information you wanted to discuss lands on the desk of the executive who besides wearing the hat of the CEO is frequently doing the work that larger organizations have whole departments addressing and reporting to the CEO. Few of my colleagues have time to keep current on the changing landscape of nonprofit regulation and oversight made worse by the fact that many of the regulations are buried inside laws that on the surface would never indicate nonprofit regulatory issues.
Maybe in recognizing that we do exist you will now target some of your material and education/information pieces to that very segment that had problems answering your questions.
(As a side note - I found the Roundtable discussion very interesting.)
John C. McGee
Family Relations Program, Inc.
Gainesville, GA 30501
Post a Comment
<< Home