Charity Navigator announced two days ago that it was moving away from rating nonprofits based on their overhead to program expense ratios, to looking more deeply into transparency, governance, financial strength, and lo and behold, outcomes.  While some might say (and are), “Charity Navigator, you are arriving rather late to the party,” the entity, like Guidestar, is a prominent resource that many donors use when making decisions about whether or not to support a nonprofit.  They have 3 million users and research shows that their ratings impact donor behavior.   Thus, they carry a lot of weight in getting donor perceptions to change about how best to evaluate nonprofits’ effectiveness and impact.

At the same time, Ken Berger, the new-ish CEO of Charity Navigator, who is leading the changes in how the organization evaluates and rates nonprofits, back in February reported that, in doing research to guide their new direction, they found that less than 10% of the charities they polled had systems in place for measuring their actual outcomes, and that their findings had been corroborated by others in the field.

Many of us track the number of clients that participate in our programs, how many pounds of food / supplies are distributed, and so on, but these are outputs, not measures of how programs are changing lives and impacting well-being. Reasons commonly cited include:

1. Doing so generally takes more effort (and resources) than measuring outputs,
2. Historically most funders, while wanting evaluation results, do not fund the systems development and staff time it takes to measure outcome-based results, and
3. Most nonprofits feel the highest-priority use of their resources should be to funding programs.

With Charity Navigator, and others – among them, Guidestar, Philanthropedia, GiveWell and GreatNonprofits – denouncing overhead ratios and purely financial measurements as indicators of charity quality and focusing more on outcomes, it is realistic to assume that nonprofits will be feeling some pressure over the coming years to focus more on outcomes measurement.  And closer to home, there is at least one group of funders working on a common reporting guidelines that focus specifically on impact/outcomes.

I know that outcomes measurement can be (at least perceived to be…) difficult, but was very surprised that Charity Navigator’s findings were in the 10% range.

So in the interest of doing some informal research, I’m curious…  If you work in the nonprofit sector, does your organization measure its outcomes?  If so, how… and is it an onerous process?  How does doing so benefit you?  And if you are not measuring your outcomes, why not?  No clear benefit? Lack of resources?  What would it take to motivate you to do so?

Thanks for your feedback!

… and how self-appointed watchdogs are muddying the waters.

The economic crisis has put nonprofit organizations in a double bind. On the one hand, social-service organizations like food banks, rescue missions and health clinics have seen demand for their services skyrocket as the unemployment rate rises and Americans see their savings, home values and retirement accounts plummet. Yet while the demand for nonprofit services is rising, in a severe economic downturn it’s harder than ever to raise dollars to pay for those services.

Since Americans at all levels are trying to make the most of every dollar, what should people know before choosing to give money to a charity?

Throughout the worldwide investment community there is widespread agreement on the basic metrics that should be considered when potential investors are choosing where to place their hard-earned dollars. In evaluating a corporation, investors can assess leadership, revenue growth, price/earnings ratios and profit margins.

Evaluating charities isn’t so straightforward. Besides looking at the financial information of the organization, charity evaluations must include the importance and effectiveness of the program the charity provides. Hence, it’s difficult to establish metrics that can easily determine a charity’s success. Even the self-described “charity watchdog” groups can’t seem to agree on their own evaluation metrics.

For instance, the American Institute of Philanthropy only gives high ratings to charities that put at least 60 percent of their total spending toward programs. Charity Navigator only rates a nonprofit with “4 Stars” if more than 75 percent of its income goes toward program spending. The Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance demands that program spending be a minimum of 65 percent of total expenses.

This confusion would be laughable if the subject wasn’t so serious. As a result of this simplistic dependence on an arbitrary ratio rather than a full examination of an organization’s program effectiveness, well-known nonprofits like Girls Scouts of the USA are rated A- by AIP but given only two stars by CN.

In their 2005 Rating the Raters report, the National Council of Nonprofit Associations and National Human Services Assembly found that, “some of the organizations that rate [charitable nonprofit organizations] use their ratings as a critical component of their own revenue model (e.g., to generate membership/subscription fees, licensing fees, report fees, Web site advertisements), which leaves open to question whether they are motivated to inform donors or whether they are motivated by media attention that improves their revenue stream.”

Part of the problem lies in the fact that media attention fuels revenue for these groups, and negative assessments of charities garner the most media attention. This inherent conflict of interest might explain why their evaluations are anywhere between subjective and contradictory.

Whether these organizations are well-intentioned in their desire to evaluate charities or hamstrung by the inherent conflict of interest, they nonetheless are ineffective because they ignore the vital yet complex area of program evaluation.

So, what’s a donor to do?
The heart of the problem is that many self-appointed charity watchdog groups (and sometimes even the news media) are looking for a silver bullet: one statistic that is easy to calculate and can rate a charity as good or bad. As a result, they’ve become obsessed with the easiest ratio to calculate: the percents of revenue an organization spends on program, management and fundraising. Their simple reasoning is that the more a nonprofit spends on a program, the better it is.

While efficiency is indeed important, it pales in importance next to effectiveness. As Dan Pallotta wrote in a June 22 post titled “‘Efficiency’ Measures Miss the Point” on his Free the Nonprofits blog at HarvardBusiness.org, “In 1995, Physicians for Human Rights had revenues of approximately $1.3 million. They spent approximately $750,000, or 58 percent of revenues, on program. Today that organization would fail all of the watchdog standards for ‘efficiency.’ It would be ineligible for a BBB Wise Giving Alliance seal of approval. The Nobel Peace Prize committee felt differently. Physicians for Human Rights won the Nobel Prize in 1997 for its work as a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.”

Think about it. Who among us would ever invest a dollar of our retirement funds into a company that boasts to spend the least on management and marketing? No one. That company would soon be bankrupt. So why do the watchdogs want nonprofit organizations to disregard spending on skilled management and the most effective, growth-oriented fundraising programs? This spells disaster!

In reality, many of the most pressing causes of our day — poverty, literacy, AIDS research, homelessness, the environment — are best addressed not by big government and corporate America, but by nonprofit organizations. Habitat for Humanity; ASPCA; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Catholic Charities; Salvation Army; American Red Cross; Nature Conservancy; St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital; Operation Smile; and your local rescue missions, food banks and health clinics each day make the world a little better.

Because these issues are so vital, Americans should insist that the organizations that tackle them have the finest management and fundraising money can buy. Should we really scrimp on the leadership and marketing efforts of childhood cancer research and feeding hungry people? On the contrary — this is where we should invest even more money.

So, what’s a nonprofit to do?
Ultimately, the watchdogs’ current way of evaluating charities is woefully inadequate. Instead, there needs to be a more well-rounded way of assessing the success of nonprofit organizations. As Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant say in their book, “Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits,” we need to look at the overall impact of a charity. To do this, I suggest organizations ask five probing questions about their own performances:

1. Are we having a significant impact? Are we effectively addressing an issue or cause that is important to the potential donor? Do we do what we say we will with donated dollars, and do we have methods in place to measure our impact? Do we build houses? Feed the hungry? Rescue animals? Assist veterans? Simply put, the single most important factor for a potential donor to consider is whether an organization actually does work the donor wishes to support.

2. Are we growing? Just as growth is one measure of the effectiveness of a corporation, so it is with a charity. Growth is often an indication of dynamism, vision, effective leadership and success.

3. Do we spend enough of our revenue on programs? A thriving charity should spend most of its revenue on the programs it purports to conduct because that’s why donors give in the first place. But how much is the right amount? That depends on a number of factors including where the organization is in its life cycle (a new organization vs. a more mature charity vs. an organization in growth mode), what types of donations account for the bulk of revenue (e.g., small gifts, monthly pledges, large gifts, legacy gifts, gifts in kind) and what it needs to accomplish its objectives (e.g., hundreds of thousands of members to actually accomplish its advocacy goals).

A healthy, midsize charity in a strong growth mode that has a diversified development model across direct response, major gifts, gifts in kind, and foundation and government funds that designates 60 percent of its funds to program could be far more effective than a charity that is not growing and depends only on one or two sources of revenue, yet puts 75 percent of its income to program.

4. Do we invest enough in management and marketing? Strong management and marketing contribute to the effectiveness, sustainability and long-term impact of a charity. Skimping on either management or fund development is short-sighted and ineffective.

5. Do we adhere to the highest ethical standards? Is there an independent board providing governance and oversight? Is there an outside financial auditor? Are there written ethical guidelines for management and staff? Is there public access to financial data?

By many measures, Americans are the most generous people on earth. These otherwise practical people regularly give away their hard-earned dollars to assist people who are less fortunate and to address social issues of importance.

For a charity to be entrusted with precious donor dollars, it should require far more than compliance with a simplistic formula. It calls for strong impact, growth, effective programs, sound management and marketing, and the highest ethics.

When a nonprofit organization can answer these questions in the affirmative, then it has earned the right to ask donors for their time, talent and treasure. And that gives them and other supporters the opportunity to do their part in making the world better, which makes each of us, everyone, all the richer. FS

Tom Harrison is president/CEO of Russ Reid. Reach him at tharrison@russreid.com

<!–

–>

In the community foundation world, we have long lamented the fact that some charity evaluators got a lot of publicity for ranking nonprofits, but the rankings themselves did not really capture real reasons for a donor to consider giving to a charity. The question of overhead — what does it cost to run the organization — is a big one, and some evaluation systems did not seem to give enough thought to calculating those expenses relative to the work to be done.

Chharities are not created equal in terms of administrative costs, because not every charity does the same thing. In addition, experts say, charities calculate overhead and administrative costs differently and not always correctly. So you have to look at the results of their work, not just the financial ratios.

There are challenges to evaluating results too. Sites such as GreatNonprofits, GiveWell and Philanthropedia are trying to provide other tools, incorporating personal evaluations and reviews. Even one of the best known evaluation sites, Charity Navigator, is working on its system, noting the flaws and trying to make it better.

Far better than looking for a 4-star rating is taking the time to get to know a nonprofit personally or, to broaden and deepen your knowledge, turning to your local community foundation for help. In these tough times, we all need to keep on giving and make every effort to do it wisely.

Hello readers! It’s been a while since our last post and for good reason: we recently released our latest philanthropic investment guide, High Impact Philanthropy in the Downturn: Focus on Housing, Health, and Hunger (A Guide for Donors), just before the Thanksgiving holiday, and have needed some time to recuperate as well as to get the wheels rolling for our new projects in teacher quality and child survival. However, even as we completed the task of one small (and hopefully effective) contribution to the social sector, the world has not stopped buzzing with information, especially now, when the holidays are upon us and there are many individuals, families, and institutions in need of assistance.

Yesterday, the buzzing bee in the blogosphere fluttered in front of my eyes in the form of a press release, titled The Worst (and Best) Way to Pick a Charity This Year. It seems to be a call for an educational and behavioral shift away from old methods of measuring charity and/or nonprofit effectiveness. One specific metric of effectiveness that has been singled out for “extinction” is the use of  overhead ratio. For nonprofits, this relates to the comparison of program-related costs against the administrative and fundraising costs—perhaps, also known as the “barebones” of what keeps an organization running. This effort is a collaboration among 6 different players in the nonprofit and philanthropy world, including:

• GuideStar and Charity Navigator, the two leading organizations that have a rating system for charities.
• GreatNonprofits, a resource that allows individuals to rate and review charities based on prior experiences with their work.
• GiveWell, an independent research organization dedicated to evaluating nonprofit effectiveness.
• Philanthropedia, (formerly known as the Nonprofit Knowledge Network) a fairly new organization that serves not only as a foundation but also as a clearinghouse, for donors and nonprofits, of expert information and tools to leverage the “inside” knowledge of the philanthropic community
• Hewlett Foundation, a foundation based in Menlo Park, CA, which focuses on social and environmental problems. Hewlett’s president, Paul Brest, is the co-author of Money Well Spent.

Our work at the Center for High Impact Philanthropy also uncovered the issue of funding overhead costs during our 2008 study, I’m Not Rockefeller, when we interviewed 33 high net-worth individuals. It is worth noting that two of the organizations (see below) leading the charge in this new way of evaluating effectiveness had incorporated the use of overhead ratios in their rating system.

Interestingly, despite the fact that many nonprofits are now rated or scrutinized based on their “administrative cost ratios” (by Guidestar and Charity Navigator, among other online tools), many HNWP participants thought overhead was not a useful decision criterion. (Noonan, et al., 2008, p. 10)

Here are some quotes that we pulled from our conversations with donors regarding their thoughts on funding overhead costs:

[T]he whole issue of overhead expenses as a percentage of your total budget is…not regular. It seems like the wrong way to think about it.

[S]omebody needs to pay for the overhead in order for them to provide their services, so why shouldn’t it be us? And if we believe in the organization, why shouldn’t we pay for their overhead?

I think people tend to put too many restrictions, especially on small gifts, and these organizations end up chasing their tails and doing way too much, when what they should be doing is just focusing on their core missions. And most of our funding is just general operating funds.

I just run a business, and I understand that maybe you need to pay for infrastructure.

Here at the Center, we encourage any efforts to find new ways of evaluating how to leverage a philanthropic gift to help nonprofit organizations serve their target populations in need of basic resources such as education, health, and economic development and sustainability. Our research serves to uncover facts and data in order to synthesize, translate, and inform donors, advisors, and nonprofits so that the sector as a whole can have yet another reliable resource to rely upon for decision making and to effect positive social progress.

There is widespread anticipation of systemic shifts in thinking, behavior, and action due to the global financial crisis, which is affecting every facet of society. One big question that is looming on the horizon is centered around the “future of philanthropy.” You can check over at Philanthropy 2173, where Lucy Bernholz has been compiling her list of lists for the future of the sector, or mosey over to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, that is using twitter to gather information on the nonprofit fundraising outlook for 2010. Sean Stannard-Stockton of Tactical Philanthropy Advisors also just posted today on The Future of Charity Evaluation.

Our Center’s tagline is “defining the efficient frontier of philanthropy.” We focus on what exists, what works, and how to measure the existing information so that it can be used for practical guidance. We hope that our approach can foster a new way of thinking about, acting for, and achieving social impact for future generations to draw upon. As always, we welcome your thoughts on how we can improve or enhance our work.

If are confused with numerous organizations around you and are not sure which one to choose for making your donation, there is an easy way to figure out which organization is the right one for you.  Its called charity navigator.  The link is provided below.  This website provides a detailed breakdown of expenses by each organization so you know what percentage of your donation is actually reaching the people you meant it to reach. 

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Leading up to Thanksgiving, each day I will blog about what I’m doing to be more grateful. I invite you to join me, and to share your thoughts, observations, suggestions and ideas.

Day 17: Give someone a gift that reminds you of your gratitude

Feeling gratitude and not expressing it is like wrapping a present and not giving it.

~William Arthur Ward

Need help with wrapping your gifts of gratitude? Click here for gift-wrapping pointers from eHow.

This week I am looking for ways to share the things I’m grateful for. I guess that’s like the gratitude golden rule? Or paying it forward?

Usually I advocate choosing gifts with the recipient in mind — what would he or she really like?

This is a twist: giving gifts to others to help remind me what I am grateful for. Not that I won’t still think of whether the recipient will like the gift, but I’m starting from my own gratitude then seeking a good receiver for it.

For example:

• I am grateful I got a good education at Central Michigan University so I will make a donation to the journalism department there
• I am grateful my colleague, Jay, often treats me to a latte so I’ll be sure to return that favor
• I am grateful for homecooked meals in our cozy apartment so I recently cooked up a storm for an impromptu Sunday night dinner party to share a homecooked meal with friends. I’ll be looking to do that again soon.

If you’re broke, remember gifts don’t have to be extravagant or expensive. How about giving away a book or CD you already own? Or giving the gift of your time or talents?

Looking for inspiration to get you started on the gift-giving path?

• If you’d like to make a donation inspired by something you love, Charity Navigator evaluates their efficiency and effectiveness to make sure your money does what you hope it will. Here is a list of their four-star charities.
• Check out Catherine’s blog, Flamingo Room. Catherine’s been doing 29 days of giving, one of the main sources of inspiration for my Month of Thanksgiving.
• Catherine was in turn inspired by Cami Walker’s book 29 Gifts: How a Month of Giving Can Change Your Life. Check out 29 Gifts to read about how gift giving wasn’t just good for the recipients but transformative for Cami.

I’m also really grateful every time I open our mailbox and find a hand-written letter, so I can combine today’s pay it forward exercise with yesterday’s plan of sending thank you letters. It’s a two for one!

What do you love that you can share with someone else? Have you felt more gratitude when you’ve given a gift to someone else?

November 5, 2009 | Concord, VA – Gleaning For The World may be a small organization located in rural Concord, Virginia, but the non-profit organization towers over other charities in the United States as one of the most effective in the country.  Charity Navigator, the leading charity evaluator in the country, is proud to announce that Gleaning has achieved Charity Navigator’s 4-star “Exceptional” rating for sound fiscal management for the third consecutive year.

According to this national charity evaluator, “Only 13% of the charities we rate have received at least 3 consecutive 4-star evaluations, indicating that Gleaning For The World consistently executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way, and outperforms most other charities in America. This ‘Exceptional’ designation from Charity Navigator differentiates Gleaning For The World from its peers and demonstrates to the public it is worthy of their trust.” 

This recognition shows that Gleaning For The World utilizes contributions with integrity. Every $1 donated provides approximately $72 worth of critical supplies into the hands of those who need them most. $40 to $50 million worth of supplies is shipped each year across the United States and overseas. Since 1998, half of a billion dollars of supplies have been provided to the poor around the world.

According to the Rev. Ronald Davidson, President and founder of Gleaning For The World, “In the nonprofit world we see so many organizations that misuse the donations from the public. We are committed to be good stewards of every gift from every donor. This evaluation from Charity Navigator states that Gleaning for the World uses every dollar donated to it to change the world of the poor. We are honored to be recognized by our peers as the most effective charity in the U.S. But, even more importantly, we want our donors to know how much we respect them.”  

Organized in 1998 by the Rev. Davidson, Gleaning For The World is a non-profit humanitarian organization that recovers excess medical and essential supplies from industries in the United States and sends them to communities around the world where these supplies are critically needed. Gleaning provides medical supplies and equipment, nutritional supplements, food, water, shoes, clothes and more to people struggling with poverty, sickness, hunger, natural disasters and war.

Charity Navigator Announcement

Today is World Animal Day. Might be a nice time to do something for an animal in need.
Click on your favorite animal charity and give. Even a little will help.

© 2009 enlightened horsemanship through touch and Kim Cox Carneal

If you like what you have been reading, please subscribe to the RSS Feed, and visit Bloggers Choice Awards to vote for Enlightened Horsemanship Through Touch.

CURE Childhood Cancer is proud to announce that we have received Charity Navigator’s coveted 4-star rating for sound fiscal management.

As the nonprofit sector continues to grow at an unprecedented pace, savvy donors are demanding more accountability, transparency and quantifiable results from the charities they choose to support with their hard-earned dollars. In this competitive philanthropic marketplace, Charity Navigator, America’s premier charity evaluator, highlights the fine work of efficient charities and provides donors with essential information needed to give them greater confidence in the charitable choices they make.

Based on the most recent financial information available, Charity Navigator has calculated a new rating for CURE. We are proud to announce CURE Childhood Cancer has earned its 4-star rating for the ability to efficiently manage and grow its finances.

CURE Childhood Cancer consistently executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way, and outperforms most other charities in America. This exceptional designation from Charity Navigator differentiates CURE Childhood Cancer from its peers and demonstrates to the public it is worthy of their trust. 

——–Ken Berger, President & Chief Executive Officer of Charity Navigator

Forbes, Business Week, and Kiplinger’s Financial Magazine, among others, have profiled and celebrated Charity Navigator’s unique method of applying data-driven analysis to the charitable sector. They evaluate ten times more charities than others and currently attract more visitors to their website than all other charity rating groups combined, thus making them the leading charity evaluator in America. Data shows that users of Charity Navigator’s site gave more than they planned to before viewing their findings, and in fact, it is estimated that last year Charity Navigator influenced over $10 billion in charitable gifts.

CURE Childhood Cancer’s review is available here

ElaineGantzWright’s blog is for people interested in using the Web and online marketing to drive social change. Elaine covers social media for nonprofits, philanthropy trends, online giving, cause marketing, random life musings, and more. Find out more at SocialFuse.

“It is not enough to stay busy. So, too, are the ants. The question is what you are busy about.” Henry David Thoreau

Seth Godin has ignited an Internet firestorm with his recent blog post condemning nonprofits for their aversion to change and their resistance to embracing social media in a passionate way. I think he has hit a nerve, but I suspect the emotional reaction is indicative of a much deeper, lurking tension at the very heart of the public sector.

As I wrote on this blog last week, social media is more a functional change in the way we live – as opposed to just the newest bright, shiny gadget. Clay Shirky calls it “the largest increase in expressive capability in human history.” Seth, this is a vast, ubiquitous, socio-cultural revolution. Perhaps, that explains why nonprofit and for-profit enterprises, alike, are a little reticent about just “showing up” haphazardly on Twitter, Facebook, etc. If you may recall, Seth laments, “Where are the big charities, the urgent charities, the famous charities that face such timely needs and are in a hurry to make change? Very few of them have bothered to show up in a big way.” I think it’s more than “showing up.” Although, one of my favorite quotes is Woody Allen’s, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” I guess it’s complicated, as they say on Facebook. Perhaps we all need to just start swimming and learn to stay afloat as we go. Regardless, I think communicators have a daunting task ahead—no matter where they play—figuring out how to harness the enormous power within some sort of workable plan.

Still, I have to admit that on some level, Seth’s righteous indignation about an entire sector defining itself by “what it is not” (i.e. nonprofit) resonated strongly with me. As a wordsmith and amateur psychologist, I think this negative identity creates an inherent tension or incongruity of purpose. Perhaps even a self-esteem problem?

I was reminded of a brilliant closing session speaker I saw at last year’s Governor’s Conference for nonprofits presented by Austin’s One Star Foundation last year. The dynamic and innovative Valerie Keller, CEO of the Outreach Center in Lafayette, LA, spoke to this group of passionate Texas nonprofit leaders about this very issue. Her fervor took on the urgency of a battle cry—as she chided the well-meaning, often overly self-effacing social sector for settling for this dismissive “non” moniker. This concept also aligns with what I discussed last week when I mused about the emerging imperative for the nonprofit sector to rethink the ways it does business and functions at a core level.

In Valerie’s case, she definitely walks her talk. She has successfully reenergized a social service agency in a struggling region of Louisiana through creative public/private entrepreneurial partnerships and a social enterprise model. Social enterprise—now, that’s a term that jazzes me.

Another thought-leader in this area is Dan Pallotta, author of Uncharitable. Dan harshly critiques the underlying value system that confines our charities and other nonprofit organizations. Pallotta sheds light on the frugal, almost prudish constraints the public expects from nonprofits—everything from banning paid advertising, to perpetuating substandard wages for nonprofit employees. He examines the public’s unconscious expectation that nonprofits behave differently from for-profits and points the finger at Americans’ Puritan heritage of self-denial and frugality. That’s an interesting notion that may not tell the whole story—but may contribute to the perception.

We say, “Grow, grow, and do more . . . but, uh, don’t spend money!” On some level, we seem to want the nonprofit sector to shun the very strategies and tactics that drive the business sector. There’s the rub—a fundamental disconnect. Further, Pallotta argues that the public tends to fixate too tenaciously on fundraising ratios and low overhead costs as the only relevant success measures. These arbitrary efficiency calculations do not always translate into results—or impact, for that matter. Instead, he calls for donors to focus on this:

“What has the organization achieved, and what can it achieve with my donation?”

Pallotta challenges us to speak up on behalf of nonprofits and actively educate donors on the necessity of cost-effective administrative expenses and business techniques that can build the best launching pads for nonprofits and—the change they seek to create.

What do you think?

In the President & CEO’s Report for September, Ken Berger announced today the formation of a 15 member advisory panel to help Charity Navigator transition into their new three-dimensional charity rating system. Kat is one among many thought leaders in the nonprofit sector to participate in this new knowledge-building venture. Read more here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=951

Face it, many of us “wonks” (which I lovingly use) in the philanthropic sector have become enamored with being able to measure things. We also like to complain a lot when we can’t measure something.

Lately, all of the talk has been on the various ways to measure an organizational outcome. Under Ken Berger’s leadership, Charity Navigator has set a new course and begun studying ways to incorporate measurement of outcomes into their charity rating system. I applaud Ken and Charity Navigator and believe that for too long, we have not been focusing donor attention on the entire picture. It is inherently good to ask the question, “How effective have you been at actually achieving the thing we’ve been giving you money for?”. To be able to create mechanisms that address that question could potentially have a huge impact and be a game changing moment for the nonprofit sector.

In my work as an investment adviser, I choose investments to put money into. For the most part, I frankly don’t care how much a company spent on advertising expenses or other overhead costs, I care about their earnings. I care about their dividend. I care whether the company is growing or contracting. I care how much market share they have relative to their competitors. These and other things tell me how healthy a company is. While it is useful to compare the overhead of Home Depot to Lowes, it is pointless in my opinion to compare it to Johnson & Johnson if you are interested in the metrics of the home improvement business. They do completely different things. Measuring the right things is something that we’ve done a poor job at and it seems like good people are committed to making real improvements to how we track effectiveness. This is long overdue. Have we missed something along the way though?

When I first started becoming interested in philanthropy as part of my business, I wanted to help charities tell the planned giving story. When I went to become a Certified Financial Planner™ Professional, I saw the tax wizardry of Charitable Remainder Trusts and was amazed when I saw that one could potentially leave more money to heirs through the use of these and other kinds of charitable vehicles. I thought, “Wow, why doesn’t everyone know about this?” I felt that many more people would give to charity if they knew what kind of tax benefit they could get and that if heirs actually wound up receiving more in the process, well that would certainly be a win for everyone but the government. Over time, I learned that while many people do give for tax reasons, more give because they are inspired to do so for one reason or another. They give from their heart. They give to give something back or to make a difference.

While the measurement issue is a critical one, let’s not lose sight of the fact that we also need to be focused on showing people the way into philanthropy. We need to be creating opportunities to make new philanthropists by showing the world that we all make a difference and have the ability to do so. I discovered philanthropy. A business coach asked me to write my own eulogy. After a few minutes of sitting there, staring at him, and thinking about the question, I answered. I said, “I guess I would want people to say I made a difference…” The rest is history.

An article was recently posted on Midot’s website highlighting a joint study done by Midot and Sheatufim.   The study was presented at a Sheatufim conference on June 23, 2009.  The many findings of the study include:

• Israeli philanthropic foundations are investing great resources in the grant process and in grant selection before the transferring of funds to nonprofits; however, most foundations lack clear criteria that accompany the process and rely only on the reports from the recipients themselves.
• Even though the processes of the different foundations are similar, there exists little cooperation between the various foundations.
• Most foundations do not rely on external professionals to help check the recipients’ usage of the grants.
• Most foundations do not implement a suitable analysis before the donation is given.
• Foundations reported a lack of evaluation and measurement tools to check recipient organizations.  Foundations also noted a lack of tools to help analyze the financial statements of the organizations.

In response to the report, the article quoted Shlomo Dushi, Sheatufim’s CEO:

“During a period of a world financial crisis, the purpose of philanthropic foundations  is critical as they can provide much needed oxygen to organizations.  There is a need to formulate a shared tool that will provide an answer to the needs of  the foundation so that it can invest its grants in an effective manner.”

Recommendations of the Study:

1. To create a shared tool that foundations can use to evaluate nonprofit organizations.
2. To request help and advice from external professionals in the field when reviewing charities.
3. To define clear criteria to analyze nonprofits.
4. To work in cooperation [shituf pe'ulah] between the various foundations.

Personally, I wonder if item #4 will actually help foundations analyze their recipients better or if it will just lead to a Big Brother syndrome, with all foundations sharing information to the detriment of the nonprofit organizations.  Jury is still out with this question.  Any thoughts?

Tizku LeMitzvot [May you continue to merit doing good deeds],

Shuey

—————————————————————————————-

Some Background Information:

• Midot is an Israeli version of Charity Navigator.  The biggest glaring difference is that while Charity Navigator grades charities based only on their financials, Midot analyzes many different aspects, such as board participation and target audience.  Midot was founded by Meitav Investment House and the JDC.
• Sheatufim is an organization whose goals boil down to making nonprofits function better.  Contact Sheatufim to see if your charity can qualify for their programs.  The organization was founded by Zionism 2000,  the Rashi Foundation, the JDC, and the Gandyr Foundation.   For a full list of their partners and cooperating organizations, click here for Hebrew and here for English.

Whether you are looking for nonprofits or work for one nonprofit, here are the major directories for the sector. By the way, if you have nonprofit, getting your live URL on these sites is a free, easy way to help with your search engine results.

ONLINE DIRECTORIES OF NONPROFITS

Attorney General of New York State
     •  Searchable database of nonprofits in New York State

Better Business Bureau
    •  Searchable database of nonprofits. The BBB offers a BBB Charity Seal Program certifying that nonprofits meet their standards

Charity Navigator
    •  Searchable director and has rankings of top nonprofits in different categories. 

CharityWatch.org
    • Database of 500 charities by the American Institute of Philanthropy, a nationally prominent charity watchdog service whose purpose is to help donors make informed giving decisions. 

Grassroots.org
    •  Lists 1,627 charities. “The mission of Grassroots.org is to serve as a catalyst for positive social change by leveraging modern technologies and best business practices.”

GuideStar
    •  Searchable directory and IRD 990 tax forms.

Idealist
    •  Portal for nonprofits, list 87,000 nonprofits, 90,000 volunteers,  16,00 volunteer opportunities, and 655 consultants.

Independent Sector
     •  Membership list of their association of nonprofits.

Internal Revenue Service
      •  Searchable database of nonprofits in the United States.

UJA-Federation of New York
    •  A list of their 100+ member agencies 

Wiser Earth
     •  Online community connecting people, nonprofits and businesses working toward a more just and sustainable world.

- – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - 

NONPROFIT  - LONG ISLAND

The Long Island Way
    •  Portal for connecting nonprofits and businesses in Long Island.

- – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - 

VOLUNTEERING

Idealist
    •  Portal for nonprofits, list 87,000 nonprofits, 90,000 volunteers,  16,00 volunteer opportunities, and 655 consultants.

United Way of New York City
    •  Find volunteering opportunities in your area. 

Volunteer Match
    •  Find volunteering opportunities in your area. 

Volunteer Solutions
    •  Volunteer matching service 

- – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - 

ENVIRONMENTAL

Green Drinks
    •  Informal gathering of people interested in environmental issues. Monthly gatherings held in a different bar or venue around New York City. A happening scene that attracts hundred people, but can be noisy and difficult to network in.

- – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - 

NONPROFIT / BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS

Independent Sector
     •  A coalition of corporations, foundations, and private voluntary organizations that works to strengthen America’s nonprofit organizations.

Net Impact
     •  Net Impact is a network of more than 11,000 new-generation leaders committed to using the power of business to improve the world. Members believe that business can both earn a profit and create positive social change.

- – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - - – - – - - 

For an annotated list of nonprofit membership, associations and media resources, visit Red Rooster Group.

In an industrial zone a few blocks off the 101 Freeway, the Tarzana Treatment Center relies on government contracts and nonprofit tax status to serve drug addicts in poverty or trouble with the law.

A clerk sits behind protective glass in the lobby.  Down a hallway in the detox wing, down-and-out men are curled on their cots.  The coat hooks in the rooms flip down so patients can’t hang themselves.

It hardly seems like the headquarters of a $45-million-a-year business.

Tarzana dwarfs most other nonprofits in the same line of work.  By far the largest user of public funds for drug treatment in Los Angeles County, it draws 85% of its money from taxpayers.

Its top executives have also made it a lucrative operation for themselves, with compensation and business arrangements that are highly unusual in the industry.

Chief operating officer Albert Senella earned $428,057 in 2007, soaring above the highest paid county employee — the medical director of Harbor UCLA Medical Center, which has a budget 12 times Tarzana’s.  Chief executive Scott Taylor made $330,732 working 32 hours a week.

The two men collected hundreds of thousands more in deferred compensation in recent years, boosting their earnings far above those of top executives at comparably sized treatment centers, such as Walden House in San Francisco, Gaudenzia in Norristown, Pa., and Gateway Foundation in Chicago, according to federal tax filings.

And that’s not counting income from other arrangements involving legal services and real estate that several industry experts said they had never before seen at a nonprofit.

Taylor is also a lawyer with a long-standing contract to provide Tarzana with legal counsel.  Tax filings show the deal paid him $237,956 in 2007 — on top of his salary.

Taylor, Senella and two other board members also have ownership stakes in six properties that Tarzana leases as its headquarters and treatment sites.

In 2007, the four men collected rent of more than $2.27 million.

Taken together, the compensation and the other financial deals raise questions about Tarzana’s public mission and about how the government allocates drug treatment dollars, experts in drug treatment and nonprofits said.

Although Tarzana gets more than double the public funding of its closest competitor, government payers can’t say whether its patients fare any better than those at other centers after treatment.  Nationally, no one comprehensively tracks whether patients use drugs again, find work or get arrested.

Steven Winston, who earns $173,000 a year as the highest-paid executive at Daytop Village, a New York-based nonprofit treatment center that takes in $53 million a year, was incredulous at the compensation at Tarzana.

“These people are making what for-profit people make,” he said.  “It’s anathema to what real nonprofits and real charitable organizations do.”

Frances Hill, a professor at the University of Miami specializing in nonprofit tax law, said conflicts of interest were inherent at Tarzana because the chief executive wears so many other hats: chairman of the board, lawyer and landlord.

“My jaw is dropping over this,” she said.

The Internal Revenue Service allows self-dealing as long as a nonprofit can show that it considered alternatives and found that they were not as good a deal, said Marcus Owens, who led the IRS’ tax exempt section during the 1990s.

“These are all hot-button issues for the IRS right now,” he said.

Tarzana executives said they are meeting all legal requirements.  They said board members always sought the best deal for taxpayers, disclosing potential conflicts of interest in tax filings and abstaining from votes on those matters.

The pay, they said, reflects decades of success achieved by chasing government grants and expanding services.  Although the business is nonprofit, Senella said, “we are allowed to make money as individuals.”

The federal government places a $196,700 cap on what an executive can earn from a contract, but that does not restrict what one can collect from other sources.

Senella and Taylor said they comply with that cap because much of what they earn comes from a subset of patients who pay out-of-pocket or with insurance, an assertion the county confirmed.  In 2007, that was $7 million of the center’s $45 million in revenue.

“That doesn’t impress me,” said Ken Berger, head of the nonprofit watchdog group Charity Navigator, explaining that such high compensation undermines a nonprofit’s core mission of public service.

If the executives weren’t paid so much, he asked, “how many more services could be provided to people who need them?”

An Industry Was Born in the ’70s

In the early 1970s, California shuttered its drug rehabilitation programs at state mental hospitals and, along with many other states, began contracting the work out.

An industry was born.  From the early days of fly-by-night operations run by former addicts in rented garages, the treatment industry has grown rapidly, relying largely on federal dollars passed through states and counties.

Federal grants for drug treatment now total more than $2.5 billion a year.  But the basic requirement has remained the same: Only nonprofits need apply.  Nobody was supposed to get rich.

Tarzana, named Free Men Inc.  when it opened in 1973, started as a collaboration between Taylor, a young lawyer, and a social worker who had run a drug program at a state mental hospital.

Senella, a high school dropout and a former patient at that hospital program, was among the first hires, he said.  He started as a 20-year-old drug counselor and climbed the ranks.

“Albert has the blood of Tarzana,” said Silvia Cadena, who joined Tarzana as a bookkeeper in 1979 and now earns $280,422 a year, plus deferred compensation, as chief financial officer, the No.  3 executive.

In the late 1970s, after drastic state budget cuts, the nonprofit adopted a more entrepreneurial strategy, Senella said.  It began expanding its services, eventually adding mental health programs, basic medical clinics and HIV treatment, which attracted more government funding and qualified Tarzana for some private insurance plans.

With about 600 employees, the center treats more than 6,000 people a year for drug addiction and alcoholism, about 2,000 of whom are in its residential programs.

In Sacramento, Senella has gained the ear of state legislators as head of the California Assn.  of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, an advocacy group that often lobbies for drug treatment funding.

He was an outspoken proponent of Proposition 36, the successful state ballot measure in 2000 that allowed some drug offenders to get treatment instead of jail time and pumped $120 million a year into the industry.

If Senella is the public face of Tarzana, Taylor is its management guru.  He has always been president of the board, and in the mid-1980s he took over as chief executive.

It was natural for him to handle contracts, corporate filings and some litigation for Tarzana, said Bruce Glickfeld, an outside attorney who said he steps in when Taylor has a potential conflict of interest.

Taylor’s legal contract has never been put out for competitive bid, but the amount is less than Tarzana would have to pay an outside lawyer for the same work, Glickfeld said.

Glickfeld also defended real estate deals among board members as fair and in taxpayers’ best interest, saying that no one was collecting inordinate rents.

In the early 1990s, the building that Tarzana had been renting as its headquarters was for sale.  Taylor and Lane Weitzman, a real estate investor on the board, saw buying it as a way to ensure that the business would not have to move, Taylor said.

Taylor, Weitzman and Weitzman’s brother, Barry, bought a 50% stake in the building, the first of six arrangements that allowed board members to collect rent from Tarzana.

Many Patients Are Repeat Customers

With long waiting lists for residential drug treatment in L.A.  County, there is never a shortage of patients, many of them repeat customers.

Simon Yebio grew up in Alexandria, Va., got hooked on crack cocaine and methamphetamine and wound up on skid row in Los Angeles, he said.  He is now in residential treatment at Tarzana headquarters; it’s his first time at Tarzana but, at age 29, his 14th time in taxpayer-funded rehab.

“As far as being professional, this place blows the others out of the water,” he said.

Yebio said he’s been clean since he moved in late last year, but he is not hopeful about what will happen when he reenters the outside world.

“I don’t think it is going to work,” he said of his treatment.

L.A.  County, like most other jurisdictions, doesn’t keep track of what happens in cases like Yebio’s.  It is considered too expensive, treatment experts said.  Public funding of the treatment industry has largely been a product of tradition: Treatment centers with contracts tend to get more contracts, interviews and records show.

Each typically runs for two or three years and, as long as money is available, renewal is almost a given.

“They don’t change hands very often,” said Jim Gilmore of Behavioral Health Services, L.A.  County’s second biggest provider with a $16.8-million budget.

The county routinely conducts audits to monitor how money is being spent.  But the incomes of Tarzana executives have not been questioned.

“Everyone agrees that they are one of the better providers in the area,” said John Viernes Jr., director the county Alcohol and Drug Program Administration.  “We don’t tell them what to pay their executives.”

Tarzana executives said their compensation is based on a report by an independent consultant who looks at the going rates in the market, but they declined to release the report.

“It’s pretty tough to compare us to anybody,” Taylor said, explaining that Tarzana offers a range of services beyond basic drug treatment.  “I think we are so unique.”

Senella said the board of directors has “gone through great lengths to make sure that what we are doing is done openly and properly.”

But experts in nonprofits said the board itself is problematic.

Six of the nine members were receiving income from Tarzana — three executives, two landlords and a psychologist who until recently was paid $26,500 a year as a consultant, tax filings show.  Three directors have been in place for at least 30 years, three more for at least 20 years and one for 15.

“It shouldn’t be an old buddy network,” said Berger.  The head of Charity Navigator said he favors term limits.  He also explained that industry best practices restrict compensation to a third of board members or fewer.

The board may soon be tested by some difficult financial choices.

To help rein in the state’s budget deficit, Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to slash funding for drug treatment.  Tarzana would lose about $10 million a year, said Senella, who visited Sacramento last month to lobby against the governor’s proposal.

With $12 million in cash reserves, Tarzana is in a better position than many centers — a testament to its management, Senella said.

Still, he said, employees would lose their jobs; two dozen were laid off last year in response to state budget cuts.  Salaries could go down, including those of executives.

“The system is just too underfunded,” he said.

Researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report.

The informed donor movement. Old rules don’t apply in the information age.  New donor acquisition isn’t as easy as being the fashionable fundable with the ‘in’ crowds you’ve developed over years.  And you can’t rely on sexy direct mail to do all the work.  Sure, you’re going to get some donors with these methods, and by no means should you count out any kind of networking. But, you need to show the proof in the pudding to some new donors. Young professional prospects and now baby boomers in large numbers are doing their own research.

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter… these and other social media outposts are gaining you name recognition.  You yourself are learning about the ’causes’ that are near and dear to your friends hearts, but nobody is signing on to Facebook money in hand.

According to an article in the Washington post, most non-profits who use the app have not even raised $1000, and have spent unknown amounts of money paying staff to keep it up.  Of 179,000 non-profits using Causes, only 52 have broken $10,000, and only 2 have broken $100,000.  (Boston Nonprofit Business Examiner)

Are people looking at Guidestar (its extension Change.org), Charity Navigator, or the Better Business Bureau for advice and guidance?  The jury is still out on that…

Margaret F. Sloan at the University of Kentucky studied a sample of organizations in New York that received ratings from the Wise Giving Alliance. She found that “pass” ratings resulted in higher levels of donations the following year, but “did not pass” ratings did not result in declines in giving. (nonprofit literature blog)

…so it can’t hurt, right?  Transparency is in fashion in this post-scandalous business world.  Foundations and government funders are asking more accountability questions of nonprofits, why shouldn’t individual donors?  Take a look here locally at the IMA – they’re putting vital stats and impact right on their website.

Running an organization like an open book might seem like a daunting task, but if you look at it as an opportunity to brag about your positive impact and gain more supporters, then it will be well worth it in the end.

Last week I put up two lists of 50 things you can do love and serve, which I borrowed from Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and Jimmy McCarty. I decided to create my own list. My wife and I also got together with another couple and decided to start going through these lists doing the ones that we can, one by one until we have finished each list. I hope you do the same. 

1. Help former prostitutes and sex slaves by visiting starfish-project.com and buying some beautiful jewelry.

2. Contact your local Christian college/university or seminary to find out what social justice projects are in the works and join in.

3. Get to know the janitors at your school or work. Ask them questions about their lives.

4. Loan money, interest free, to someone in an impoverished country to start their own small business through an organization like Kiva.
 
5. Visit a worship service of a tradition or religion that is not your own. Ask lots of questions.

6. Think about those whom you dislike/hate the most. Say a prayer for God’s blessing on their lives. If you can, send them a card or do something nice for them.

7. Get some friends together and take a grill downtown and have a cookout with some homeless folks and make some new mortgage-free friends.

8. Rather than simply donating some toys to a needy family during Christmas time, invite a family to join you at your house for a good meal and exchange gifts that you each have made.

9. Find out what different foreign/ethnic populations there are in your area. Put up flyers in the appropriate languages offering free English classes. (In my experience, this one may have a fringe benefit of getting some great, authentic food.)

10.  Go door knocking and find out if your neighbors need any odd jobs done around their houses.

11. Tell the janitorial staff or other manual laborers at your school/workplace how much you appreciate them. 

12. Go without food for a day. When your tummy starts growling take time to pray for those whose stomachs feel this everyday. Take the money you would have spent on food for that day and donate it, plus some more, to a local food bank or organization that supplies food internationally to those in need. 

13. Help a barefoot kid get shoes by donating to Soles for Souls or by buying a pair for you from Tom’s Shoes.

14. Learn how to cook. Make a meal for someone, anyone.

15. Learn to love yourself better so that you can learn to love others better.

16. Ask hard questions to those in power. (Why are people hungry when there is a surplus of food in this country? What can be done to better educate our children? Etc.)  Don’t stop asking until you get answers. Act upon the answers you receive.

17.  Go to a gay pride parade. Hand out cold water. Ask for forgiveness on behalf of the church for our typically unloving behavior.

18. Invite a gay couple over for dinner. Get to know them. Love them. 

19. Have a yard sale with some friends. Use the money you make to help someone in need. 

20. Move to another country for a year. Teach English, dig wells, teach basic hygiene, be a human shield on a battlefield, or do something else that will help the locals. While you are at it, learn as much as you can from the nationals and bring what you learn about/from them back to your community.

21. Learn a useful skill like sewing, carpentry, welding, first aid, or fixing cars and share this skill with others, free of charge.

22. Get some friends together and spend a night with the homeless. When you all get up in the morning take your new homeless friends to Waffle House or IHOP for breakfast.

23. Learn how to use coupons etc and save a ton of money on things you use everyday. Use the money you save to help others and while your at it give some of the cheap/free stuff you get to a homeless shelter. For help getting started go here. 

24. If you are not at a place where you can adopt or foster a child find someone who has and encourage them or help them out.

25. Volunteer at your local library to lead children’s story time.

26. Find a local volunteer organization, like the Hands On Network, and join in.

27. Make a big pot of soup our chili for local firefighters.

28. Smile at people.

29. Be a real life Patch Adams, and dress up like a clown and visit a local hospital to spread some joy and laughter. (You should probably call first)

30. Ask your waiter/waitress if you can pray for them when you pray for your meal. (Really, this has almost always gotten a good reaction when I have tried it, but make sure to leave a good tip.)

31. Offer to house a foreign exchange student.

32. Head over to a local nursing home with some friends and sing old hymns (even if you cant sing well, cause odds are that they will still love it or not be able to hear how bad you really sing).

33.  Buy a bunch of basketballs, footballs and Frisbees and give them to your local children’s home, and while your at it see if you can stay and play for a little while.

34. Get basic medications to sick people around the world through organizations like Hope Light Foundation, and Gospel Medical Mission International.

35. Buy some gift cards for your favorite grocery store then give one to the cashier after you pay for your groceries and ask them to use it for the person behind you. Do this every time you shop there. 

36. Donate your used professional attire, suits etc., to an organization like Career Gear, or Dress for Success, that helps disadvantaged men and women get and keep good jobs.

37. Likewise girls you can donate your prom dress or brides maids gowns to Donate My Dress so that another girl can enjoy her prom night.

38. Research the financial situation of your favorite Christian ministries or other non-profits at sites like Ministry Watch and Charity Navigator. Hold them accountable for how they use the money you donate, and if they aren’t being responsible (pay special attention to the donor alerts list, primarily “health and wealth” ministries) with the money then find another organization to support. Or if the need arises, learn how to start your own non-profit and go for it.

39. Visit Voice of the Martyrs and find out about Christians suffering persecution around the world. Devote time in prayer everyday for a person or group who is being tortured and imprisoned, or even killed, for their faith in Jesus. Also, you can find info on the site about writing to Christian prisoners and even governments who are keeping them in prison. 

40. Start composting, even if you don’t have a garden, and use it for your own flowers and veggies or give it to someone else for their garden. 

41. If you are married do something to strengthen your own marriage, and another couples’, like going to a marriage retreat or seminar and paying for the other couple to attend.

42. Buy beautiful handmade gifts from Ten Thousand Villages; all the products on the site are guaranteed “fair trade.” This means the folks who make the beautiful creations get a fair price for their labor. 

43. Turn your air down, tv and computer off, and unplug other small appliances every now and then. This will save electricity and save you money. Then, of course, you can use the money you save and donate it to Habitat for Humanity or another worthy organization. 

44. Invite one neighbor over every week for dinner until you have met everyone on your block.

45. Fill bags with supplies like bottled water, restaurant gift cards, socks, trash bags, bandages etc. and carry them around in your car to give to folks asking for help on the streets. Leave a little note of encouragement in each one as well, and perhaps information about your congregation.

46. Find someone in need of a reliable ride to work or doctor’s appointments and give them a lift.

47. Send Christmas gifts to kids who would otherwise go without gifts, through Operation Christmas Child. If you have kids, make sure you involve them in the process and teach them about helping others.

48. Give money or time to help out at your local animal shelter. Hopefully the pets you help will bless a family looking for an animal companion. 

49. Cry with those who are crying. Laugh with those who are laughing. Pray with those who are praying.

50. Try to do one thing on these lists every week until you can cross each one off. Then start your own list and share it with others. In fact, post some ideas here.

1. Avoid middlemen. Numerous for-profit intermediary organizations advertise aggressively on TV, billboards and elsewhere, offering to help you donate your vehicle to charity. Here’s the catch: These organizations typically keep about 50 percent to 90 percent of the vehicle’s value for themselves, and the charities don’t get what they could have gotten. To prevent this, check directly with charities you admire and find out whether they accept car or boat donations.

2. Find a worthy charity. If the charities you normally support aren’t equipped to accept such donations, do some homework until you find a reputable charity that is. You can research charities’ track records online at this Better Business Bureau site and through Charity Navigator. 

3. Check the math. If you still feel compelled to use an intermediary organization – possibly because you’re busy – at least ask the organization how much of the car or boat’s value will go to charity. If the organization simply gives charities flat fees — say, $100 for a used vehicle regardless of its value, or $2,000 a month — your donation may not be eligible for a tax deduction.

4. Know the status of your recipient. In order for you to qualify for a deduction, the charity that gets your donation must be an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. Your church, synagogue, mosque or temple likely qualifies. (Check first just to make sure.) You also can visit the Internal Revenue Service’s Web site and search for Publication 78 to find other qualifying non-profit organizations. (Just type “78” into the search field on the IRS home page and you’ll be directed to the right publication.)

5. Do the delivery yourself. Once you’ve identified a worthy charity, recognize that it will have to pay someone to pick up your car or boat for you. To help the charity maximize the benefit of your donation, drop the car or boat off yourself.

6. Transfer the vehicle with care. Want to eliminate all risk of running up parking tickets and other violations after you’ve said goodbye to your donated vehicle? Then formally re-title the vehicle to the charity, and report the transfer to your state’s department of motor vehicles or licensing. Never agree to leave the ownership space on the charity donation papers blank.

7. Your estimate of the donation’s value probably won’t cut it. If your car or boat is worth more than $500, the IRS is going to want to see evidence of how much the charity got for it. (Most charities that accept these donations turn around and sell them for cash.) You’ll need to get a receipt from the charity revealing exactly how much money it made.

8. now when you can report the fair market value. You won’t need evidence of the sales price if the charity keeps the vehicle or vessel and uses it in its charitable work, or if your donation is worth less than $500. Then you can report its fair market value based on listings from Kelley Blue Book and similar sources.

9. Keep a thorough paper trail. If your donation is worth more than $500, you’ll have to attach IRS Form 8283 to your tax return. If it’s worth more than $5,000, your documentation must include an outside appraisal. You’ll also need proof of the donation, such as a receipt from the charity and a copy of the title change.

10. Be detail-oriented. This paper trail may seem cumbersome, but think about it: This may be one of the biggest charitable donations you ever make. By taking the time to dot the i’s, you can make sure that the charity gets the most benefit and you get the biggest possible deduction.

Charity Navigator CEO, Ken Berger talked with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about Obama’s plan to cut the charitable tax deduction.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy hosted a very interesting on-line roundtable this week about what donors need to know when they’re making giving decisions.  I hope that some South Asian donors followed the discussion and will benefit from the coverage here at SAPP - let us know in the comments what you think, and what matters to you when you donate money…

Participants included Ken Berger of Charity Navigator, H. Art Taylor of the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, and Steven DiSalvo of the Hopewell Group (a philanthropic consulting firm).

All the participants returned to the importance of looking at a nonprofit’s effectiveness – are they achieving what they set out to do? Are they doing it in an efficient way? Are they making a difference? One of my pet peeves about Charity Navigator has been that they haven’t perfected a rating for the outcomes of nonprofits, so they rely too heavily on the IRS Form 990 figures. This ends up penalizing nonprofits that count a huge amount of in-kind services as income, for example. I was glad to read that CN is fine-tuning some measures on that front.

And speaking of the Form 990, all of you donors out there should know that the tax returns of all registered charities are available at Guidestar. The participants of the roundtable each stated what you should look for when reading one of these tax returns:

Steven DiSalvo: Most people look at income right away. It is a clear indicator of the financial health of the organization. I scroll down to the Board list and five highest paid employees. It gives me a sense of the quality of the team that has been assembled. After all, the long term health is really driven by the people around the table.

H. Art Taylor: First, I try to gather the seriousness of the organization from the quality of its mission statement. If the mission is vague and does not clearly articulate the programs of the organization, I lose patience. Secondly, I look to see if there are conflicts of interest among the board and staff. That’s another turn off for me. Third, I am interested in knowing how long they have been in business. Given the number of organizations already in existence, a newer organization has to sell me that it’s better positioned than one that’s been around for a while.

Another interesting Q&A from the roundtable addressed a question that many of you smaller donors out there might have thought about. Ken of CN recommends that donors give a small number of larger gifts (rather than a larger number of smaller gifts) because it’s more efficient for the charity processing the checks. I’m not sure I agree since I think it’s also good to spread the wealth around, and lots of smaller gifts demonstrates to bigger donors that there is a broad base of support for any one charity.

What about you?  What matters to you?  Do you use Guidestar or Charity Navigator?

Do you know of people who would love to donate to good causes, but hesitate to do so out of fear that their money might be squandered?  With countless charities to donate to, it’s important to find ones that you can trust to deliver impact with every dollar you give.  That’s why with Charity CHAMPs, we’ll do the research for you, so that you know your money is going to be put to good use.

But until Charity CHAMPs is live, there are still plenty of resources at your disposal. The CRA publishes a list of charities whose status has been revoked (see http://www.globalphilanthropy.ca/index.php/blog/canada_revenue_agency_deregistering_record_number_of_questionable_canadian_/). Then there’s the well known www.charitynavigator.com, which has a comprehensive review of many US based charities.  Unfortunately it doesn’t look like CharityNavigator will expand to Canada anytime soon; Trent Stamp seems to question the need for Canadian charity information, which baffles me.  Check out the discussion here: http://www.trentstampstake.org/2007/01/oh-canada.html. For a while I thought www.nporesearch.com would become the Canadian CharityNavigator but the site doesn’t seem to be up anymore.

Some other sites that offer non-profit information:

• www.charityrank.ca
• www.charitywatch.org
• www.charityguide.org
• www.give.org
• www.guidestar.org

We all have places where we can go either figuratively or literally to feel safe.  For some of us it is a place that’s easily accessible and we live our day primarily in a safe place whereas for others it’s only a state of mind or a brief moment that is not easy to get to.  For many of us, food provides a sense of safety and security.  That is what comfort food is all about.  It is food that reminds us of a time or place, usually in our childhood, where we felt safe without knowing there was any other way to feel.

I am writing from a place of privilege.  I’m a minority only by being a woman.  I have shelter, a healthy family, a supportive and thriving extended family, and the means to provide well for them.  However, I still feel like the world I present to my kids and my family isn’t the right one.  It’s safe, but it is hectic.

We’re living in a time and a culture of frenzy.  I often feel like I was born in the wrong era.  I think the hard hands-on work of being a pioneer woman is more “me”.  Yes, I wouldn’t have modern medicine, a car and all the “luxuries” of my life.  However, when I really look at those luxuries (except maybe modern medicine) I would happily trade them to be able to feel that I’m living my life.   Instead I feel that my family has been tied to a horse and we’re being dragged through our life.  One luxury of pioneer times was their built in slow food movement.

With the recent Safe Haven law in Nebraska catching everyone off guard, a spotlight has been placed on families who have abandoned children that they have raised for up to 17 years.  On the news you hear how shocked and horrified people are that children (not infants) are being given up.  But if you think about the personal cost of medical care in this country, the lack of support for families of children with special needs in many parts of the country, and the pressures of every day life, I don’t think it would be too hard to imagine.  Take your life and start stripping away some of the privileges you may have (health, a job, health insurance, a home, family/friends to support you, a car or public transportation, food for your family, self confidence, dignity)add a child or several children and perhaps one tragedy (loss, mental health problems, addiction, medical problem, ailing family members) and you can quickly see that a difficult life could become unbearable and one could conceivably want more for one’s children.

This article is about creating your own safe havens.  For many part of that process involves helping others.  Just be sure not to hide behind charity in an attempt to avoid addressing your needs and your families.  I don’t mean this to be selfish, but I think often we forget ourselves.  Share what you have to share and give what you have to give.  Some opportunities for giving this year can be found here:  The Greater Boston Food Bank, Feeding America , Grassroots International, Better Business Bureau Charities, Charity Navigator.

As I said before, I am writing from a place of privilege.  My state allows me to be married to my husband.  I have all I need, and more, for a good life, but still I don’t think I provide a safe haven or the kind of safe haven I would like for my family to have.  My needs and wants for my family are about balance and calm.  This time of year, especially everyone gets into a frenzy with the holidays.  I don’t like that my children see their parents over-tired and worn out more often than not.  It’s ironic because it’s their lack of sleep at the moment that is pushing the envelope on that front.  I think we have to slow down and adjust our priorities a little bit.  It’s hard when the rest of the city and the rest of the country, and more and more the rest of the world is moving at hurricane speed around you, but I think it’s important for me and for us to find a way to spend at least a good portion of our time in the eye of the storm.  My goal this “holiday season” is to start trudging toward that calm still place.  I’m going to try to bring as many people with me as I can, but I won’t be able to do it alone.  A meal is a good place to start.  Sit down with someone, family, friend, daughter, son, neighbour and have a meal.  Turn off your cell phone and set aside an hour (or if you must half an hour) to just be with the person you are with, enjoying food; feeding your self in the safe haven of uninterrupted time, nourishing food, conversation, and good company.

For more info: On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Safe Havens in Massachusetts, Charity Navigator, Grassroots International