4 ms·
And a tricky part of this, for certain kinds of nonprofits, is that you'll be penalized for it because your efforts to raise more money will be classed as overh
by koreth1 3y ago
And a tricky part of this, for certain kinds of nonprofits, is that you'll be penalized for it because your efforts to raise more money will be classed as overhead and will lower your efficiency rating on various charity-rating lists.
A nonprofit that spends 1% of its funding on fundraising and barely scrapes by each year will be rated as more cost-effective than a nonprofit that spends 10% of its funding on fundraising and grows its donations by 15% a year, even though the latter is ultimately going to be able to devote far more resources to its programs.
- swatcoder 3y agoThat's not a bug. Small nonprofits generally are more cost-effective. If they deliver on the cause you want in a scale that makes sense to you, they're where you want to put your charity for the greatest impact. But maybe they can't organize around your cause because the coordination and scale is too large. That's what large non-profits are good for. They burn efficiency on overhead, but can coordinate larger and grander projects. It's a whole ecosystem. Experienced people are almost never comparing the cost-efficiency of a small organization and a large one for the same cause; they're using it to compare peers within whatever other criteria.
- quickthrower2 3y agoCould someone set up a charity whose goal is to fundraise for other charities
- bombcar 3y agoYes, and some of the largest most famous actually operate that way.
- wincy 3y agoI knew a guy who did this. He lived in a 15,000 square foot mansion.
- quickthrower2 3y agoIn Oxford, UK?
- devoutsalsa 3y agoThe United Way works like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Way https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Way