5 ms·

Do you believe that there are no resources needed for non profits? That donations made by person A magically get to person B who needs them? You are oblivious o

Do you believe that there are no resources needed for non profits? That donations made by person A magically get to person B who needs them? You are oblivious of the underlying business aspect that any nonprofit requires as they grow. Someone has the make running that business their job, and they do deserve to be paid for it. Non profits must disclose what they pay or compensate those people and its public information. You're more than capable of looking into any organization yourself before donating to them.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Or, because my time is valuable to me, I'll just not donate to them at all, or donate something like food that no one is likely to line their pockets with. Why is it my responsibility as a donor to do all this research? > You are oblivious of the underlying business aspect that any nonprofit requires as they grow. I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals. It is not a business and should not act like one.
- mattferderer 7y ago
  Most charities have a mission. I use to have an attitude of critiquing how they use their money. Than I worked for a non-profit & another & another. Here's what I learned. I realized you can't critique how they spend their money from outside. The most important thing isn't how the money is used but the impact they have on their mission. If a CEO takes 98% of the money but the non-profit ends hunger, is that a problem? If you want talent, it costs money to keep & retain it. A lot of non-profits had amazing young people working there but those people wanted to have families & move up in the world. Non-profits that are 100% volunteer are usually less organized & less efficient. Most small non-profits that do pay employees pay very poorly & can't keep great employees which hurts efficiency of their mission. Sometimes really good opportunities come up for non-profits that could help their mission immensely but they have to turn them down because it would really look bad on their finances when people look at their administrative costs. There actually seem to be black markets out there of non-profits trying to move money around to achieve missions around without hurting their administrative cost to money spent directly on mission ratio. People need to quit handicapping non-profits. Solving problems cost money & non-profits often spend more time managing accounting than thinking about the problem they're trying to solve.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    > If a CEO takes 98% of the money but the non-profit ends hunger, is that a problem? That's not at all what's happening, though.
    - mattferderer 7y ago
      The quote is an extreme exaggeration & simplification to attempt to get some agreement.
- datapunk 7y ago
  You do research to make sure your not getting F'ked by some scheme fronting as a leukemia foundation. That should be obvious unless you like to just throw money at strangers. >I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals. Why not? What's wrong with maximizing the amount of good an organization can do? > It is not a business and should not act like one. It is a business, non profits register with the govt and must have a form of liability, especially with volunteer labor.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > That should be obvious unless you like to just throw money at strangers. Hence just throwing canned food at strangers instead.
- ska 7y ago
  Growth for it's own sake shouldn't be a goal, yes. But if growth furthers the mission of the charity, which it may well do depending on that mission, then absolutely it should at least consider it. From the outside as a donor/supporter of that charity and mission, the logical thing for me to care about is how efficiently they can deliver, and are they getting better or worse at that. Which is why you have charity efficiency ratings. Those are hardly perfect, but that's what is important, not some limited information opinions on salary. If they are doing a good job at it, they are demonstrably in a better position to judge how than you or I am; or almost anyone outside their area.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  > I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals. If a charity today is serving 1000 people well (say by providing food security), is it not better if they aspire to serve 1200 people next year? That’s what “growing a charity” looks like: helping more people.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I think there is a fair distinction to be made between growing the market, and growing the market share. You may find the Econtalk podcast interviewing Dan Pallota interesting. He is a high paid charity consultant (450k) and defends his work and salary. http://www.econtalk.org/pallotta-on-charity-and-the-culture-of-the-non-profit-sector/ http://www.econtalk.org/pallotta-on-charity-and-the-culture-...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

Or, because my time is valuable to me, I'll just not donate to them at all, or donate something like food that no one is likely to line their pockets with. Why is it my responsibility as a donor to do all this research? > You are oblivious of the underlying business aspect that any nonprofit requires as they grow. I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals. It is not a business and should not act like one.

mattferderer 7y ago
Most charities have a mission. I use to have an attitude of critiquing how they use their money. Than I worked for a non-profit & another & another. Here's what I learned. I realized you can't critique how they spend their money from outside. The most important thing isn't how the money is used but the impact they have on their mission. If a CEO takes 98% of the money but the non-profit ends hunger, is that a problem? If you want talent, it costs money to keep & retain it. A lot of non-profits had amazing young people working there but those people wanted to have families & move up in the world. Non-profits that are 100% volunteer are usually less organized & less efficient. Most small non-profits that do pay employees pay very poorly & can't keep great employees which hurts efficiency of their mission. Sometimes really good opportunities come up for non-profits that could help their mission immensely but they have to turn them down because it would really look bad on their finances when people look at their administrative costs. There actually seem to be black markets out there of non-profits trying to move money around to achieve missions around without hurting their administrative cost to money spent directly on mission ratio. People need to quit handicapping non-profits. Solving problems cost money & non-profits often spend more time managing accounting than thinking about the problem they're trying to solve.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > If a CEO takes 98% of the money but the non-profit ends hunger, is that a problem? That's not at all what's happening, though.
  - mattferderer 7y ago
    The quote is an extreme exaggeration & simplification to attempt to get some agreement.
datapunk 7y ago
You do research to make sure your not getting F'ked by some scheme fronting as a leukemia foundation. That should be obvious unless you like to just throw money at strangers. >I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals. Why not? What's wrong with maximizing the amount of good an organization can do? > It is not a business and should not act like one. It is a business, non profits register with the govt and must have a form of liability, especially with volunteer labor.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > That should be obvious unless you like to just throw money at strangers. Hence just throwing canned food at strangers instead.
ska 7y ago
Growth for it's own sake shouldn't be a goal, yes. But if growth furthers the mission of the charity, which it may well do depending on that mission, then absolutely it should at least consider it. From the outside as a donor/supporter of that charity and mission, the logical thing for me to care about is how efficiently they can deliver, and are they getting better or worse at that. Which is why you have charity efficiency ratings. Those are hardly perfect, but that's what is important, not some limited information opinions on salary. If they are doing a good job at it, they are demonstrably in a better position to judge how than you or I am; or almost anyone outside their area.
sokoloff 7y ago
> I disagree with the idea that growing should be part of a charitable organizations goals. If a charity today is serving 1000 people well (say by providing food security), is it not better if they aspire to serve 1200 people next year? That’s what “growing a charity” looks like: helping more people.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I think there is a fair distinction to be made between growing the market, and growing the market share. You may find the Econtalk podcast interviewing Dan Pallota interesting. He is a high paid charity consultant (450k) and defends his work and salary. http://www.econtalk.org/pallotta-on-charity-and-the-culture-of-the-non-profit-sector/ http://www.econtalk.org/pallotta-on-charity-and-the-culture-...