About Bob Bob serves as President and CEO of GuideStar and serves on the boards of Vision TV, Grameen Foundation USA, and the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy. More...
About GuideStar GuideStar gathers and publicizes information about nonprofits. We advocate that nonprofits share information openly and completely. Any nonprofit we track can update its report for free. More...
|
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on March 15th, 2012, in these categories: Charitable GivingIs the influence of the “One Percent” good for the world of philanthropy? The nonprofit sector has been struggling with this issue for some time and the political debates of the last few months heightened by the Occupy Wall Street movement have helped to sharpen the issue.
 Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America Let’s face facts. Much of the public attention goes to small charitable contributions from individuals: think Kiva, and DonorsChoose, and all the talk about texting donations to a favorite cause. Although it may attract celebrities and news articles, and sometimes a nonprofit may even raise millions of dollars through these means, these efforts pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed by the super-wealthy.
Last week I trudged through pouring rain to attend a Georgetown University seminar, presented by the Center for Public and Nonprofit Leadership, where the speakers explored these issues. The presenters covered a range of topics: Is it okay when strapped governments ask philanthropists to help pay for public health issues? Are billionaires changing public policy? Can philanthrocapitalism change the world? Do private funds reinforce democracy or obstruct democratic decision making? All big and excellent questions. Unfortunately, there were no easy solutions and I left with new questions to ponder, though few answers.
There were a few common themes that I think are helpful to think about:
- Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America, observed that not everything can be solved by a techno-capitalism market approach. This is a good reminder in a time when so much emphasis seems to be placed on technology, rational giving, and measuring impact. Market failures require rights corrections, not just marketplaces, Offenheiser remarked. He reminded us that long before we even learned the word philanthrocapitalism, large foundations started by wealthy individuals were making major contributions to changing society. Conclusion: philanthrocapitalists didn’t invent bold philanthropy that looks for results–they’re only the latest wave and only part of the picture.
- Big money has many people feeling very uneasy. Big money now dominates politics with SuperPACs. Big money – maybe some of the same people – now seem to be dominating philanthropy. That’s what the inarticulate, primal scream of the Occupy Wall Street was partially about. More transparency and accountability about names and motives would go a long way towards easing some of the suspicion.
- Is the accumulation of many small gifts from many individuals actually better for philanthropy than big gifts from a small number of individuals since it not only also makes a difference, it encourages civil engagement and accountability? Small and courageous gifts often make a big difference. How can we make people more at the center of our philanthropic work and at the same time encourage more civic engagement?
How do you think the super rich fit into strategic philanthropy? Do you believe the influence of the one percent helps or hurts the philanthropic cause?
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on December 28th, 2011, in these categories: Charitable GivingI’ve spoken to more than 30 print, radio and TV reporters during the last month talking about charitable giving. A few issues stand out as we head into the home stretch of the giving season:
 1. Generosity. Giving to charities during the holiday season seems to be baked into the DNA of the American public. None of the questions I fielded challenged the notion that Americans should give and that this is a good time of year to be doing it. After a year of nonstop chatter about tax cuts and too much spending, it’s comforting to know that Americans are still concerned about the poor, the homeless and those less fortunate than we are, and that they trust nonprofits to provide that much-needed support. It places an extra responsibility on all of us who run charities to earn and maintain this trust by being efficient and effective in our work.
2. Hard Times. No reporters challenged me, like they did in 2008, about whether people should be giving to charities at all given their own personal situations and the dismal economy. Maybe consumer confidence is starting to pick-up. Based on my discussions with reporters, I am feeling slightly more optimistic about how the overall donation results for 2012 will turn out than I was feeling several months ago.
3. Legitimacy. Reporters are very concerned about scams and phony charities. I’m sure that part of that is due to the occasional nonprofit scandal that pops up. There are just enough bad stories to keep everyone alert – and for reporters to keep looking. But I think another factor may be a healthy one:donors are beginning to realize that not all people soliciting for donations are legitimate. There are indeed fakes and scallywags. One of my messages this year has been to try to get people to stop and reflect about their values and priorities before they donate. For nonprofits, demonstrating legitimacy is increasingly important and I’m pleased that GuideStar continues to be in the forefront of helping nonprofits do just that .
4. Giving Wisely. Reporters, thanks to their readers, listeners and viewers, are increasingly turning to questions of impact and effectiveness. People are concerned about doing the right thing and making sure that donations have value and impact. They don’t want donations to go to ineffective organizations and thereby waste their hard earned dollars. Reporters were very interested in learning exactly how to research and what to look for when analyzing a charity. This was encouraging and gave me hope that some of our efforts like our Money for Good II campaign and Charting Impact project are coming at just the right time.
My experience with reporters suggests that nonprofits are in a good environment for attracting strong support this year. At the same, performance expectations are on the rise as well, especially around issues of demonstrating legitimacy and impact.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on December 9th, 2011, in these categories: GuideStar‘Tis the season to give to your favorite charity, and as a nonprofit ourselves we also look for support at this time of year. Please find my video blog on YouTube:  http://youtu.be/qJzd6rL5zh0.
We appreciate your support. To make a donation, please visit: http://bit.ly/phKkVq.
This is our first video blog, so please let us know what you think in the comments!
From all of us here at GuideStar, thank you for all that you do for the nonprofit sector. Happy Holidays!
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on November 29th, 2011, in these categories: Money for Good This morning, Greg Ulrich of Hope Consulting and I participated in a host of interviews with radio and TV stations across the country to talk about how donors can make more effective giving decisions.
With online tools making research easier and less expensive, more and more people are looking at nonprofit information and making more informed choices about the organizations they support.
Here at GuideStar we’re not satisfied with the pace of change. We’d like to see more people doing better research.
Earlier this year, GuideStar teamed up with Hope Consulting to conduct a new study on what it would take to increase donor research on nonprofit organizations. We surveyed more than 5,000 individuals, as well as hundreds of advisors to donors and foundation grantmakers. Our goal? To understand what types of information, in what format, through what channel, would get these groups to do more research, and ultimately, to divert more of their charitable dollars to high-performing nonprofits.
The process and results have been enlightening. I believe that this research – which is just being made public today – will help organizations like ours foster a more informed giving population. Indeed, we are currently experimenting with the information we provide on our site, and how we present it, based on the findings.
While there are many fascinating findings from the research, there were two key takeaways that I found particularly interesting:
- Donors, advisors, and grantmakers are looking for a complete picture of nonprofit organizations. They want information on financials, impact, and legitimacy (not just one data point), and they want portals like GuideStar to provide them with this range of information (not just simple ratings) so that they can make their own decisions. GuideStar is committed to being the world’s largest and most comprehensive database on nonprofit information. We seek to provide the most complete picture of nonprofit performance that we can, and respect the users to make giving decisions themselves.
- The most critical need is for better information on effectiveness and impact. This is the highest unmet need of every user group, and critical to identifying which organizations are indeed “high-performing.” Our recent acquisition of Philanthropedia, and partnership in Charting Impact, show our commitment to expanding our focus on impact data. Indeed, the survey showed that all three user groups are interested in self-reported information
of the type that Charting Impact provides on nonprofit organizations. So, nonprofit leaders – fill out your Charting Impact report now!
Obviously a detailed study with thousands of respondents can’t be summarized easily in a blog post. On our special landing page, http://www.GuideStar.org/moneyforgood, you can find recommendations to help high-performing nonprofits increase funding, help individuals make more informed donation decisions, and how intermediaries like ourselves can do a
better job of presenting information.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on December 14th, 2010, in these categories: Donors | Fundraising | GuideStar | Nonprofit PracticeLast week another 17 families announced they were taking the Giving Pledge and committing to giving the “majority of the ir wealth to philanthropy.” This follows an earlier announcement in August when a group of 40 families took the pledge, a long-term charitable project launched by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates. Thanks to Darin McKeever of the Gates Foundation for pointing out the website for the Giving Pledge – www.givingpledge.org – which has copies of the letters that each of the families has written. Check it out; it makes for some fascinating reading.
Among the more interesting pieces is that of Warren Buffett. Here’s my favorite quote from his letter: “I’ve worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions. In short, fate’s distribution of long straws is wildly capricious.”
And a few more excerpts from his letter:
Millions of people who regularly contribute to churches, schools, and other organizations thereby relinquish the use of funds that would otherwise benefit their own families. The dollars these people drop into a collection plate or give to United Way mean forgone movies, dinners out, or other personal pleasures. In contrast, my family and I will give up nothing we need or want by fulfilling this 99% pledge.
Moreover, this pledge does not leave me contributing the most precious asset, which is time. Many people, including — I’m proud to say — my three children, give extensively of their own time and talents to help others. Gifts of this kind often prove far more valuable than money. A struggling child, befriended and nurtured by a caring mentor, receives a gift whose value far exceeds what can be bestowed by a check. My sister, Doris, extends significant person-to-person help daily. I’ve done little of this.
Some material things make my life more enjoyable; many, however, would not. I like having an expensive private plane, but owning a half-dozen homes would be a burden. Too often, a vast collection of possessions ends up possessing its owner. The asset I most value, aside from health, is interesting, diverse, and long-standing friends.
My wealth has come from a combination of living in America, some lucky genes, and compound interest. Both my children and I won what I call the ovarian lottery. (For starters, the odds against my 1930 birth taking place in the U.S. were at least 30 to 1. My being male and white also removed huge obstacles that a majority of Americans then faced.) My luck was accentuated by my living in a market system that sometimes produces distorted results, though overall it serves our country well.
The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others.
I think Mr. Buffet’s comments are honorable, and as I’ve mentioned before, I think the Giving Pledge is a great thing for the nonprofit sector. It increases public attention of the vital work the nonprofit sector provides and the need for financial support. By increasing visibility, the Pledge helps to encourage people to think more about philanthropy and their own giving commitments. I like the fact that Mr. Buffet’s priorities are applicable to all of us – not just the super rich.
However, I can’t stress enough how important it is for these donors – for all donors – to take a few minutes to think about priorities and goals before they give. Asking a few questions before investing can ensure that the billions being donated are going to the most effective nonprofits – which can in turn make the sector that much more successful.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on October 22nd, 2010, in these categories: Donors | Economy | Fundraising | GuideStar | Nonprofit Practice Here at GuideStar we try hard to listen and learn from people working in the nonprofit community. Every day GuideStar is in contact with hundreds of people like you at nonprofit organizations through emails and phone calls, answering questions, giving tips, and helping you meet the challenges of your important jobs. Another way we try to stay on top of issues is through our economic surveys which we share with the sector. Now, we are expanding our approach through a unique partnership. This week we launched a new economic survey in partnership with the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Blackbaud, Inc., the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the Foundation Center, and the National Center for Charitable Statistics. By partnering with these institutions, we’re reaching out to new participants, expanding the audiences that will see the results, increasing the survey’s overall impact—and cutting down on the number of surveys you’ll be asked to take this fall.
We invite you to be part of this inaugural survey by answering the questions at the 2010 Nonprofit Fundraising Survey website: http://www.nonprofitfundraisingsurvey.org/. The survey will take about five minutes of your time. The questions in this month’s survey are about changes in giving. A summary of responses to date will be visible as soon as you hit “submit,” and you can go back later to check again. Data collected will be reported in the aggregate, with no reference to individual participating organizations. Results will be published jointly by the participating organizations throughout the year, with further analysis to help guide you and your colleagues in this new era for fundraising.
On another note, last week, the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that charitable giving to the nation’s 400 biggest donor-funded nonprofits fell 11 percent in 2009, the steepest drop since the Chronicle began tracking those numbers 20 years ago.
The United Way and the Salvation Army, which saw decreases of 4.5 percent and 8.4 percent respectively, actually got off relatively easily. Other top 10 organizations like the Y (17.2 percent) and Food for the Poor (27 percent) reported much bigger drops. Experts don’t expect charities, which are as battered by the recession as any other industry, to do much better in 2010 than they did in 2009; most fundraising directors say they’re expecting growth of just 1.4 percent over last year.
These results track with GuideStar’s own most recent economic survey, released in August, which showed that 40 percent of respondents saw a further decline in contributions in the first five months of 2010 compared to the first five months of 2009. At the same time, a majority (63 percent) saw an increase in demand for their services. As I said before, there’s no doubt that the nonprofit sector continues to face an incredibly difficult philanthropic environment
One academic researcher responded in the Chronicle that our interpretation of the survey results was too bleak. Here is our response which was published Sunday in the Chronicle:
In a letter to the editor (“The Nonprofit World’s Finances Are Not as Bleak as a New Study Suggests,” September 23), Lester Salamon commented on GuideStar’s 2010 Economic Survey, taking us to task for what he felt was an overly grim picture of the effects of the economic downturn on the charitable sector.
We at GuideStar stand by our interpretation of the data resulting from our economic survey. While we are pleased for each nonprofit that has moments of good news, the data is clear in its conclusion that many continue to face great challenges, and most have a long way to go to achieve the success they experienced before the recession.
One important aspect of our findings with which Mr. Salamon disagrees is the impact of the decline in charitable giving. Although it may be statistically correct that “such giving accounts overall for only about 12 percent of nonprofit revenues,” when you start to actually look at individual organizations, you see a different picture.
Charitable revenues, when viewed in the aggregate, are dominated by a relatively small number of very large health-care providers, universities, employee-benefit trusts, and the like that derive most of their revenue from program services. For the 4,102 respondents to the GuideStar survey that gave us sufficient information to track back to their Form 990 filings, the median dependence on charitable contributions was 44 percent; for those with annual revenues under $5-million, about a third of respondents depended on charitable giving for 75 percent or more of their revenues.
There is another aspect of the GuideStar survey, however, that is difficult to convey in numbers. There were 7,014 usable responses, and nearly 3,000 of the respondents made comments about how their organizations were doing.
Although 69 percent of survey respondents reported that their 2010 budgets had increased or stayed about the same, this is not necessarily an unalloyed sign of good health. Consider these typical comments from organizations that didn’t cut their budgets in 2010:
“It was better than 2009, but not as good as 2008. We do feel that we’re no longer in free-fall.”
“Cash flow continues to be the problem. We will survive but we may have to cut programs and positions.”
“We have increased revenues by about 50 percent but most is one-time stimulus funding and will not likely continue.”
“Due to decrease in donations, we had to rely on credit to continue operating and now we are in debt.”
“We are struggling financially due to the decrease in contributions.”
“We are operating out of our reserves. We have about six months left and we will fold if no money comes in.”
To be sure, not all the comments are negative, and many of them show resilience as old organizations learn new strategies for raising funds. But the overall tenor of the comments from organizations we are in direct contact with suggests a sector that is nervous and uncertain about what the future holds.
If we report that things are better than they are, the individuals and institutions that are in a position to help may not step up to the plate.
We hope you find these surveys helpful as you make your plans for the remainder of 2010 and 2011. One of the characteristics I like best about my nonprofit colleagues is their optimistic, can-do attitudes. We are resilient and determined. This continuing economic downturn is difficult, but not impossible. What makes us stronger – and more creative and innovative – makes us better. Good cheer to all.
Although we wouldn’t presume to have the answer to Sigmund Freud’s famous question, we do applaud the approach that Cynthia Gibson and Bill Dietel take in their provocative article “What Do Donors Want?,” in a recent issue of Nonprofit Quarterly. At GuideStar, we have long known that the majority of donors give according to their hearts. They look for nonprofits that align with their own sets of values, and they look for the nonprofits themselves to prove that they are worthy of the donations. That’s what makes the nonprofit sector so interesting – there’s something for everyone.
We think it’s important that nonprofits make that emotional connection for donors. But in a crowded marketplace, with multiple nonprofits working towards the same mission and providing similar programs, we also believe it’s the high-performing nonprofits that, in fact, deserve these generation donations. And that’s a distinction that we have to make.
In fact, many donors who are solely motivated by strong personal interests─religion, education, health and friend─will probably continue to be the vast bulk of donors. But even here data can play a role: one person told me he gives to the same organizations every year, but uses GuideStar to make sure everything is still okay.
And it must be said: sometimes it is the most passionate donors who seek data. In our experience, an increasing numbers of donors who are determined to solve a problem or make a difference are the ones most likely to want to know about the results of the organizations they support. If a person’s goal is to, say, provide low income housing or end malaria, these passionate donors want to make sure the organizations to which they send their hard earned money actually know how to make a difference. During the Haiti earthquake crisis we were flooded with phone calls from people not about whether to make a contribution, but which organizations had the capabilities and experience to actually deliver. Passion often demands data.
Above all else, we know that we need to understand better what drives charitable giving in order to understand better how to drive that giving to high performing nonprofits. We recently partnered with Hope Consulting to conduct and market test research on this topic to better understand and inform the philanthropic sector on the behaviors, motivations, and needs of individual donors, foundations, and those who advise them. We hope to use the findings of this research to help shape our core offerings of nonprofit data and information to the world.
As President Obama recently remarked at the Millennium Development Goals Summit in New York, New York, “Guided by the evidence, we will invest in programs that work; we’ll end those that don’t. We need to be big-hearted but also hard-headed in our approach to development.” In other words, the job of providing data to donors is tough, but somebody’s got to do it.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on August 18th, 2010, in these categories: Economy GuideStar June 2010 Economic Survey - Map of Responding Organizations GuideStar’s latest economic survey has just been released, and you can find the results here. Over the last two years, we’ve increased the number of economic reports we undertake in order to get a better feel for what is happening in the field. This was our first economic survey this year and the fourth survey we have released in the last 18 months. Participation in the survey was high, with more than 7,000 nonprofits responding.
The headline for this latest report: the economic recovery is slow and painful for many nonprofit organizations.
About 40 percent of respondents have seen a further decline in contributions in the first five months of 2010 compared to the first five months of 2009. at the same time, a majority (63 percent) have seen an increase in demand for their services.
Given the general state of the economy, I don’t think we should be too surprised by these results. After a nice boost in the first half of the year, the recovery seems to have stalled and maybe is even beginning to drift—sideways if we’re lucky, but perhaps even downwards.
We know from experience that the most accurate predictors of charitable giving are such indexes as the stock market, the unemployment rate, and consumer confidence. If these are uncertain or declining, so too will charitable giving. And now we have a new factor: the sorry condition of state government budgets, which is putting enormous pressure on nonprofits that rely on fees for services.
When the Great Recession hit in late 2008, I began writing about the “new normal” for the nonprofit sector—a period where the nonprofit sector will no longer experience the revenue growth (from foundations, individuals and government) we had become accustomed to over the last few decades. In Monday’s Wall Street Journal, Mort Zuckerman said he thought the “new normal” meant that our children will not have a better economic life than we have had. That’s very sobering, more than I’m willing to admit at this point. I wasn’t saying that the “new normal” meant nonprofits wouldn’t have any resources, since many still have plenty, but that for most the next few years will be a time when consolidation and contraction are more likely than growth and expansion.
Back in 2009, a few friends and correspondents took me to task, saying I was unnecessarily negative and that things would quickly bounce back to normal. The “new normal” may not apply for certain subsectors of the nonprofit sector and for some regions of the country, but in general our new survey underscores the fact that we still have a slow and painful recovery ahead.
To read GuideStar’s press release about our economic survey, please click here.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on August 9th, 2010, in these categories: Donors | Giving WiselyWhat do you think of the efforts of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett to urge their fellow billionaires to donate more to charity? So far, about 40 billionaires have responded positively, and I’ve seen one estimate that the amount pledged so far is approximately $600 billion.
I had several reporters call me last week, and I told them that I think this campaign is a big plus for the nonprofit sector. First, it increases public attention of the vital work the nonprofit sector provides and the need for financial support. More media attention about the importance of giving to charity should help heighten people’s awareness about their own giving habits. Warren Buffett was quoted as saying, "At its core, the Giving Pledge is about asking wealthy families to have important conversations about their wealth and how it will be used." Mayor Bloomberg said, "By giving, we inspire others to give of themselves, whether their money or their time."
Second, although many of these signatories are already major philanthropists, this effort should result in more money going to charitable causes. That’s a good thing, too.
I wish more attention had been paid to giving wisely. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has earned a well-deserved reputation for strategic thinking, deep due diligence, and careful monitoring of results and impact. When Warren Buffett announced several years ago that he was asking the Gates Foundation to manage his charitable giving, he said it was harder to give away money wisely with impact than to earn it. We haven’t heard much yet about making sure this increase in donations ends up sending more money to high-performing organizations that are carefully measuring what they do and how they do it. Maybe that will come later.
What type of activity the billionaires support isn’t as important to me as making sure the money is carefully spent and leveraged as much as possible. I hope we’ll see some instances of pooling of money to increase the impact even more. Some of the billionaires on the list are already major philanthropists and regularly make huge gifts to important institutions. Not every one likes that: Pablo Eisenberg commented in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Very wealthy individuals have [an] unbalanced record when it comes to philanthropy. They give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups, grass-roots organizations, or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities."
Finally, Steven Pearlstein had a very thought-provoking column in last Friday’s Washington Post. He says the pledges remind him of the "hollowing out" of the middle class in America. He points out, "The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office show that in 2007, the top ‘quintile’—the 20 percent of the households at the top of the income ladder—took home 52 percent of the nation’s after-tax income, with the top 1 percent of households earning 17 percent. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that from 1979 to 2007, the average after-tax, inflation-adjusted income of households in the middle of the ladder increased 25 percent; for the top 1 percent, it rose 281 percent."
Pearlstein urges us to reconsider our public policies that help all Americans improve their economic status. "With its ‘giving pledge,’ the Gang of 40 has taken an important step in revitalizing America’s philanthropic institutions, but it will take much more to revive the virtuous cycle by which wealth begets opportunity which in turn begets more wealth. Whether at an individual company or in the country at large, it is the feeling that we are all in it together that creates the basis for a truly vibrant economy and just society. Trickle-down alone won’t cut it."
Although I’m thrilled that the Giving Pledge has billionaires making strides towards significant philanthropy, I encourage these individuals—and all donors—to give wisely. Research and evaluate the organizations that support your beloved causes. Ask nonprofits about their performance and their results. Ultimately, make sure your dollars are making a real and sustained difference. It is this kind of due diligence that can ensure the billions being donated are maximizing impact.
Posted By Bob Ottenhoff on July 23rd, 2010, in these categories: Nonprofit PracticeWe know the need is there. What will it take to increase charitable giving? Giving USA recently reported that donations surpassed $300 billion for 2009, an amazingly generous amount given the state of the economy this past year. But in this, the wealthiest country in the world, shouldn’t we be doing better? Are there things that can be done to increase incentives and reduce barriers to increase donations?
A couple of weeks ago, I attended a workshop called "Markets for Giving" hosted by LiquidNet for Good and Global Giving. Present were representatives of more than 25 online sites that engage donors and volunteers and a number of important funders and intermediaries. The purpose of the workshop was to explore how we can increase giving and overall impact by working more closely together. There was a general consensus that the online "philanthropic ecosystem" is fragmented, with little coordination and too much duplication of efforts.
Jacob Harold, program officer at the Hewlett Foundation (and a GuideStar board member), submitted a provocative paper in advance of the workshop where he argued that the "many websites that facilitate philanthropy need to begin thinking of themselves as a single community with a common purpose." Today, he pointed out, "consumer awareness is fractured across too many brands"—he estimates there are at least 47 giving platforms, 7 social investing sites, and 8 sites encouraging volunteering. Among his proposed solutions are cross-platform interoperability, acquisitions, and institutional collaboration.
The assembled group spent the better part of a day in facilitated discussions exploring potential solutions. Among the enthusiasm and good ideas, three struck me as critically important for GuideStar:
-
There was widespread agreement that a lack of globally adopted, simple, and clearly understood metrics for judging nonprofits is holding back charitable giving. I was surprised at how strongly everyone felt about this. One emerging solution, we hope, is the GuideStar Exchange, where we collect more than 200 fields of data that give a very good picture of a nonprofit’s activities. Our colleagues at DonorEdge go even deeper in data collection. But what the participants at this workshop argued for was something simple and easy. Simple and easy that is also comprehensive and meaningful is a challenging task. We want to do it right and do no harm. Current examples that focus on simple and easy metrics are using overhead as the way to judge nonprofits—a metric that is not only wrong but harmful. I’m determined to have GuideStar find the right balance.
-
Second, the group recognized that data are important not only for donors but for nonprofits as well to help them become more efficient and effective. This is a goal we share at GuideStar and we think is a critical way to improve sector impact.
- Finally, the group agreed that coordination, collaboration, even consolidation were essential for progress. Coordination and collaboration are important parts of GuideStar’s strategy. On the content side, we added GreatNonprofits to our site last year; this year we’ve added Philanthropedia, GiveWell, and Root Cause, with more content providers to come. On the distribution side, we have partnerships with more than 25 organizations, and GuideStar data are used by more than 7 million people on these sites. We are by no means content with these numbers and are ambitiously talking with many other organizations.
Improving the giving ecosystem is a complicated subject. Solutions are likely to come from many directions. Stay tuned for more developments.
|
