3 ms·

> Share of costs that go to administrative purposes is orthogonal to abuse. I already pointed out that the "Three Cups" story falsifies this claim. And that st

by lutusp 13y ago

> Share of costs that go to administrative purposes is orthogonal to abuse. I already pointed out that the "Three Cups" story falsifies this claim. And that story is by no means uncommon. People of limited commitment to a charitable cause find it very easy to justify personal expenditures as "administrative" costs. Again, this is based on decades of experience inside and outside charities (both as a funding source and as a volunteer). I can't find anything to object to in your final paragraph -- it's well worth reading.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I already pointed out that the "Three Cups" story falsifies this claim. The story of an incident of abuse of administrative costs does not falsify the claim that the share of administrative costs is orthogonal to the level of overall abuse; that incident doesn't demonstrate a positive relation between administrative costs and abuse any more than the many, many stories of self-dealing and other abuse by charity decision-makers in the non-administrative costs of non-profits demonstrates a positive relation between non-administrative costs and abuse. Lack of accountability measures (which themselves tend to be things that actually involve administrative expenditures) are probably the single biggest risk factor for abuse, since its the one thing that is directly related to being able to get away with abuse.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > that incident doesn't demonstrate a positive relation between administrative costs and abuse ... Greg Mortenson abused his foundation to the tune of over a million dollars by withdrawing administrative funds for his personal use. That demonstrates a positive relationship between administrative costs and abuse. Have a nice day.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Greg Mortenson abused his foundation to the tune of over a million dollars by withdrawing administrative funds for his personal use. That demonstrates a positive relationship between administrative costs and abuse. No, it doesn't. A correlation between two variables can't be demonstrated by a single data point.

by lutusp 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I already pointed out that the "Three Cups" story falsifies this claim. The story of an incident of abuse of administrative costs does not falsify the claim that the share of administrative costs is orthogonal to the level of overall abuse; that incident doesn't demonstrate a positive relation between administrative costs and abuse any more than the many, many stories of self-dealing and other abuse by charity decision-makers in the non-administrative costs of non-profits demonstrates a positive relation between non-administrative costs and abuse. Lack of accountability measures (which themselves tend to be things that actually involve administrative expenditures) are probably the single biggest risk factor for abuse, since its the one thing that is directly related to being able to get away with abuse.

lutusp 13y ago
> that incident doesn't demonstrate a positive relation between administrative costs and abuse ... Greg Mortenson abused his foundation to the tune of over a million dollars by withdrawing administrative funds for his personal use. That demonstrates a positive relationship between administrative costs and abuse. Have a nice day.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Greg Mortenson abused his foundation to the tune of over a million dollars by withdrawing administrative funds for his personal use. That demonstrates a positive relationship between administrative costs and abuse. No, it doesn't. A correlation between two variables can't be demonstrated by a single data point.