Crowdsourcing, Transparency and Results Based Charity Ratings

2,644 views

Published on

Charity Navigator's President & CEO, Ken Berger, presented on the topic of “Crowdsourcing, Transparency and Results Based Charity Ratings: The Next Generation of Nonprofit Evaluation” at Columbia University.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Travel
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,644
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
656
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Crowdsourcing, Transparency and Results Based Charity Ratings

  1. 1. Crowdsourcing, Transparency and Results Based Charity Ratings – The Next Generation of Nonprofit Evaluation Presented by Ken Berger, President & CEO NextGen:Charity New York, NY November 19, 2010 *Prototype for purpose of illustration only and in no way represents the final product.
  2. 2. Your Guide to Intelligent Giving Where the Heart Meets the Mind
  3. 3. <ul><li>America's premier </li></ul><ul><li>independent charity </li></ul><ul><li>evaluator providing timely, relevant, </li></ul><ul><li>unbiased information on the fiscal health </li></ul><ul><li>of nonprofit organizations. </li></ul><ul><li>Largest evaluator of charities: 5,500+ </li></ul>#1 Web Site for Rating Charities – “Your Guide to Intelligent Giving”
  4. 4. The Data Proves Impact <ul><li>Estimated 3 million distinct visitors per year </li></ul><ul><li>92% say evaluations affected their decision to support individual public charities </li></ul><ul><li>CN ratings influence decisions on billions in donations annually </li></ul>
  5. 5. (The Nonprofit Marketplace Hewlett Foundation, 2008) *Includes Charity Navigator- evaluates nonprofits and provides meaningful information. ** Includes individuals, foundations, corporations and government funders.
  6. 6. The Explosive Growth of Nonprofits in the US
  7. 7. The Problem
  8. 8. The Solution!: A 3-D View
  9. 9. QUALITIES OF A HIGH IMPACT ORGANIZATION Accountability & Transparency Financial Health <ul><li>Positive, sustainable change </li></ul><ul><li>Independently evaluated </li></ul>HIGHER RISK INVESTMENT LOWER RISK INVESTMENT
  10. 10. Introducing CN 2.0 Financial Health Accountability/Transparency Results More Comprehensive Rating System
  11. 11. THE EVOLUTION OF CHARITY NAVIGATOR <ul><li>2001 – FORMED WITH A MISSION TO BE A DONOR’S GUIDE TO INTELLIGENT GIVING. </li></ul><ul><li>2002 – 2007 - USED IRS DATA (990’S) BECAUSE MANY NONPROFITS DIDN’T LIKE US! IT WAS THE ONLY DATA AVAILABLE FOR META ANALYSIS. </li></ul><ul><li>2008 - ANNOUNCED PLANS TO REVAMP RATING SYSTEM TO MOVE TO 3-DIMENSIONAL </li></ul><ul><li>2009 - FORMED ADVISORY PANEL </li></ul><ul><li>2010 - RECEIVED HEWLETT GRANT TO </li></ul><ul><li>LAUNCH VOLUNTEER STUDENT RATING PILOT </li></ul><ul><li>PROJECT TO SCALE UP & FIDELITY CGF TRUSTEE’S PHILANTHROPY FUND FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING . </li></ul>
  12. 12. 100% Financial 33.3% Account- Ability/ Trans- parency + 66.6% Financial 50% Results + 17% Accountability/ Transparency + 33% Financial
  13. 13. SCALING UP: 6 Steps to a 3-Dimensional Rating System July 2010 Accountability & Transparency Methodology Launched (achieved) Fall/Winter 2010 Financial Metrics Revised (in process) July 2011 Methodology to Measure Results Launched (provided adequate funding is secured to scale up) Accountability & Transparency Now Part of Star Rating (in process) July 2012 Results Dimension Now Part of Star Rating (assuming data has now been collected for all charities in CN’s database) July 2013 Incorporation of reviews/data into Results Dimension (e.g. beneficiary satisfaction, volunteer reviews, expert reviews and independent impact evaluations.) 1 2 3 4 5 6
  14. 14. <ul><li>Working Capital </li></ul><ul><li>Current Ratio </li></ul>SUSTAINABILITY (23) < 8 < 9 < 13 High Risk 0 Stars 8 – 11 9 – 10 13 – 17 Significant Risk 12 – 25 11 – 12 18 – 21 Intermediate Risk 26 – 37 13 – 14 22 – 26 Moderate Risk 38 – 50 15 – 17 27 – 33 Low Risk Keystone/NPC 7 Questions & 3 rd Party Reviews Web Site & 990s Overhead (3 yr. moving average) EFFICIENCY (10) RESULTS (50 Points) ACCOUNTABILITY/ TRANSPARENCY (17 Points) FINANCIAL (33 Points)
  15. 15. RESULTS 0 – 4 STARS 50 Points Max DCCK: 41 out of 50 ACCOUNTABILITY/ TRANSPARENCY 0 – 4 STARS 17 Points Max DCCK : 14 out of 17 FINANCIAL 0 – 4 STARS 33 Points Max DCCK: 27 out of 33 0VERALL SCORE: 0 – 4 STARS; 100 POINTS; RISK LEVEL DCCK SCORECARD: 82/100 POINTS Low Risk
  16. 16. TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY
  17. 17. RESULTS 7 Questions* - 50 Points Total Maximum *For this prototype, we are using 7 questions devised by Keystone Accountability and New Philanthropy Capital. 3 3. Does the charity report its activities (what it does)? 3 3. Does the charity report its outputs (short term results)? 3 2. How does the charity demonstrate the demand for its services? 5 1. What is the charity’s commitment to reporting results? Max Points QUESTION
  18. 18. RESULTS 7 Questions - 50 Points Total Maximum *Prototype for purpose of illustration only and in no way represents the final product. 12 7. Does the charity adjust and improve in light of its results? 14 6. What is the quality of evidence for reported results? 10 5. Does the charity report its outcomes (defined as the identifiable differences that it makes through its work)? Max Points QUESTION
  19. 19. Sample Agency Dashboard
  20. 20. EFFECTIVENESS/RESULTS 3 rd Party Evaluations/Reviews Weighted score based on quality and rigor of data: <ul><li>Volunteer Reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Primary Constituents Feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Independent Expert Reviews </li></ul><ul><li>Independent In-depth Research and Analysis </li></ul>
  21. 21. Charity Navigator Soon to Launch Collaboration with GreatNonprofits <ul><li>Charity Navigator users will now be able to write and read reviews by Donors, Clients Served, Volunteers, Former Staff, Board Members, General Public </li></ul>
  22. 22. Donors Can Expand for More Details GNP REVIEWS TO REPLACE COMMENTS TAB
  23. 23. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED
  24. 24. The Battle for the Soul of the Nonprofit Sector
  25. 25. OUR BEST HOPE <ul><li>Educated and Engaged Stakeholders are our Best Hope! </li></ul>
  26. 26. More Information <ul><li>Article: “The Battle for the Soul of the Nonprofit Sector” Berger, Penna and Goldberg, Philadelphia Social Innovation Journal of </li></ul><ul><li>Books: </li></ul><ul><li>Billions of Drops in Millions of Buckets by Steve Goldberg </li></ul><ul><li>2. Money Well Spent by Paul Brest, et. al </li></ul><ul><li>3. The Nonprofit Outcome Toolbox by Dr. Robert Penna (March 2011) </li></ul><ul><li>Web Sites </li></ul><ul><li>www.alleffective .org </li></ul><ul><li>www.keystoneaccountability.org </li></ul><ul><li>www.WhatWorks.org </li></ul><ul><li>Video : www.savingphilanthropy.org </li></ul>
  27. 27. Your Questions & Our Web Addresses Website- www.charitynavigator.org Blogs- www.kenscommentary.org blog.charitynavigator.org Twitter- kenscommentary

×