Charity Navigator's CEO Debates Hudson Institute Director on the Realities of Ranking Charities

  • 1,337 views
Uploaded on

Ken Berger's slides from his debate with William Schambra (Director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at The Hudson Institute) at the Grants Managers Network Annual Conference. …

Ken Berger's slides from his debate with William Schambra (Director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at The Hudson Institute) at the Grants Managers Network Annual Conference. The debate centered on the realities of ranking charities.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,337
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Your Guide Where the to HeartIntelligent Meets the Giving Mind
  • 2. DEFINING OUR TERMS – THE SIZE OF CHARITIES
  • 3. OUR DEFINITIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY &TRANSPARENCY (per Prof. Brackman Reiser)ACCOUNTABILITY - is an obligation or willingness bya charity to explain its actions to its stakeholders.1) FINANCIAL - to safeguard and manage the charities financial resources.2) ORGANIZATIONAL – to consistently follow rules of governance and operational process.3) MISSION – to set goals and then measure and manage performance to assure the charity is achieving meaningful results.TRANSPARENCY - an obligation or willingness by acharity to publish and make available critical 3 accountability data about the organization.
  • 4. FROM ACCOUNTABILITY IN ONE DIMENSION TO THREE AND BEYONDCN 1.0 CN 2.0 CN 3.0 2002 - 2011 - 2013 -Financial Organizational MissionFinancial Accountability Results A scalable, inHealth (Governance) Reporting depth, multi- & dimensional Transparency charity rating system. THE FUTURE (CN 4.0?): OUTCOME MEASUREMENT
  • 5. QUALITIES OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN N.P. ORGS. Organizational: Governance (A&T) Mission: Results (RR) High • Strategy/Theory of Change • Passion Performance • Positive, sustainable • Experience • Data management discipline change • Persistence • Constituent feedback • IndependentlyHIGHER RISK • Creativity evaluated LOWER RISK • Outcome focused intentINVESTMENT • Ability to get other s to follow • Relate efforts to outcomes INVESTMENT • Learn and adjust approach • Continuous improvement Capable Impact Leadership Financial: Financial Health Health Financial* Inspired by the Alliance for Effective Social Investing
  • 6. THE DONOR PROBLEM 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Orgs Effectiveness 90% How the Org will Use my Donation 87% Quality of Leadership 78% Percent of Costs to Overhead 76% Ease of Donation 62% Not Being Asked for Money Too Often 59% Ability to Direct Donations Use 46% Regular Progress Reports 41% Endorsements by Person I Trust 34% Prompt and Sincere Thank You 31% Ability to Get Involved 30% Org Approach - Novel / Innovative 28% Contact with the End Beneficiaries 24%* Based on the Money for Good donor research of Hope Consulting 6
  • 7. The Nonprofit Sector Problem* “… there is virtually no credible evidence that most nonprofit organizations actually produce any social value.”*“The End of Charity” by David Hunter – Philadelphia Social Innovations Journal
  • 8. THE BENEFICIARY PROBLEM 8
  • 9. THE PROBLEM SOLVED (The Nonprofit Marketplace Hewlett Foundation, 2008)
  • 10. HOW WE ARE HELPING SOLVE THE PROBLEM