I’m planning our media partnership recommendations (at my job) for next year (even though this list is from last year) and I’m definitely taking this information into consideration.

Also, a while back, there was a plan to have their main head office designed to look like their symbol; the equal sign, so when a plan flew by, those looking down would say; “Hey looksie there…and large equal sign…that must mean that gays are equal to everyone else..”

Um….that is when I stopped giving them money and stopped keeping their little equal sign anywhere in my sight because its such a disappointment to think that my money is being used for decorative buildings and anti-gay politicians.

There ARE metrics one can use to measure non-profit effectiveness, and percentage of funds spent on administration is not the first one I would use.

I gave my biggest donations this year to The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Equality California (everyone should give to their local statewide LGBT group) and The Center for Health Justice.

specifically what services each group provides seems to be an afterthought.
How much money each group keeps in operating expenses as a reserve seems to be the main factor at whether or not the group is highly ranked.

HRC was fifth on the list and quoted primarily because of thier 2 year cash reserves.
yes, thier new programs are growing too, but what programs?
HRC is notoriosly anti-genderqueer, (enda anyone?) and the idea that they are a good investment seems silly.
Yes, they handle thier accounting well, but that does not mean that one’s dollar is going towards what one wants it to when donated.

It simply means they know how to grow and stay in the black.
Basic business management.
Not exactly what I would call qualifications for a “best gay charaties” list.

“best business management for gay charaties” maybe; but for me, the qualification of “best” has to be proven on the moral and ethical ground as well as financial management.
My thoughts,
-Sara

http://www.lgbtmap.org

PS – It is deceptive to analyze the HRC Foundation’s financials and not the HRC’s main organization as well. The Foundation is a FRACTION of the size of HRC. Since HRC is a 501(c)(4) and not a 501(c)(3) like other LGBT organizations, its financials are much less public and less transparent.

Let me raise another issue, and that is the issue of charities that do nothing themselves (i.e., no direct programs) but rather make grants to other charities who are supposed to then do the work. This kind of financial ratio study seems skewed to favor that kind of grant-making organization. But in reality, to truly measure their effectiveness, you would need to know the “efficiency ratios” of the recipients of their grants, wouldn’t you? I mean, if I give a dollar to one of these top-rated charities, they spend 8 cents on fundraising and administration, but the programmatic charities they give to then spend another 15 cents of each dollar on fundraising and administration, how is giving to them more “efficient” than giving directly to those programmatic charities that only spend 15 cents on the dollar on F&A? On the surface these “middlemen” charities look extremely efficient, but you’re not reflecting the full picture.

This is why I agree with other comments that say this post does a larger disservice than it helps at all.

If no one in the professional philanthropic world thinks Charity Navigator is worth a damn for making funding decisions, it’s a pretty good sign that individuals shouldn’t rely on them either.

How should you decide? Look at the RESULTS the CBO gets. That takes some time and effort, can’t be turned into a math problem, or described in a facile blog post.

People give money to charities in order to accomplish some social good that they support. Therefore, the issue of “spending a dollar wisely” is SOLELY a function of whether or not the charity is able to affect the change for which they sought and received your donation.

THAT is measured by whether or not the charity delivers on its promises: its mission and its programming objectives.

Whether or not a charity has a “good” or “bad” working capital ratio, an endowment, or any other financial ratio has NOTHING to do with whether or not the chairty is meeting its mission, and therefore has NOTHING to do with the stated objective of this article.

Furthermore, I have said absoultely NOTHING in these posts as to which charities I like or don’t like. I pointed out that HRC does NOT deliver on its stated goals, and therefore it is assinine to rank them a “good charity” simply because they have their financial house in order.

Try reading with your eyes and not your mouth next time before you try jumping ugly on me.

The problem here is that while accusing Mr. Japhy of missing the point, YOU’VE missed the point.

This article is about which charities do best with your hard earned dollar, not which is the best cause. You say: “However, you are not, actually, assessing management by using financial ratios. You are assessing financial managment [sic].” THAT’S THE POINT! THAT’S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!

Im a sustaining member of Equality California, who has the post positive track record of any LGBT organization at actually SHOWING me what happens with my donation. And a little known fact – unlike HRC’s sprawling newly built mansion like buildings, I have been to EQCA’s headquarters, and it accommodates about 12 people in the space of my living room. They would rather spend my money on making CA more equal instead of fancy furniture. Now tell me that doesnt get you bang for your buck!!

This self-image is zealously guarded and maintained…it seems a psychological necessity–in the face of cold hard facts that belie it–namely that the “poor” are generally quite conservative…especially when it comes to religion. Few things irk the liberal soul more than this glaring truth. They deal with it in a variety of ways. The emphasis on “awareness” and “sensitivity training” among liberals is, I think, one outgrowth of this concern. The problem, they persuade themselves, is not that liberalism/revisionism is bankrupt and unworkable (and therefore unpopular), it is just that people are “uneducated”…they have yet to be enlightened…they still are too ignorant to “get it” but once they do we can take our proper roles as the people’s vanguard.

The thrust of this particular vanity tends to run headlong into just the sort of paternalism, racial and otherwise, that they claim to despise and oppose…bearing in many ways a quite distinct similarity with the infamous “white man’s burden”…

But what happens when those who “stoop low” to help the “uneducated” find that the “ignorant” masses reject the lessons of their betters? What happens when, say, the minority vote makes up a large percentage of the voting electorate that defeated Proposition 8 in California?

Rage. Blinding, ugly, disgusting rage.

Omigod, so grumpy! It is very nice to see a focus on accountability and wise use of funds by nonprofits.

Our priorities? Different.

HRC is composed of its PAC (HRC) and its foundation (HRCF). HRCF does things like the religion and faith program, workplace project, etc. You will see in the article that HRCF is mentioned, not HRC. Next time, get your stuff right.

Just for clarity, the Foundation, mentioned in this article, is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charity. It does the corporate equality index, etc. and provides a ton of research and other information used by any number of GLBT groups.

HRC proper, as someone else noted, is a Political Action Committee and is supposed to lobby and work to get pro-GLBT legislation passed and try to stop anti-GLBT legislation. They were ranked recently as one of the most effective PACs (particularly considering HRC’s funding levels which are dwarfed by other PACs).

Finally, all the bitching about the dinners. Folks, those are put on by local communities and are fundraisers for the PAC – not just some self-congratulating expense. Don’t you think maybe Joe S. get a little sick of doing one after another and all the public appearances? It’s not that glamorous a life. I really tire of people taking potshots as someone who works very hard to advance GLBT rights.

How about we remember the saying “Better to light a candle than curse the darkness”??!!

http://www.aliforneycenter.org/

“HRC, really… I’ve honestly become fed up with hearing about them, what exactly do they do besides send me an email every week.”

And a request for yet another donation, as well, Robert. No wonder they have such a big bank balance. What good does that do us? All it “guarantees” is that Joe will have at least a dozen more balls to attend in his penguin suit and black tie before HRC closes shop.

I agree with Joe Moag. Comparing the efficacy of any gay charity based on the effectiveness of fund-raising ability and how much money they have in the bank is ridiculous.

King Midas amassed impressive amounts of gold too. So what?

The “dividend” we are seeking for our “investment”, if we are going to look at these charities as profit-making entities, should be their effectiveness at bringing about needed change, not how well they run their fund-raising campaigns.

Personally, I find 25 cents on the dollar, just to raise funds objectionable, ineffective and just downright disgusting. Add to that cost, rent, insurance, electric, telephone, salaries, paper/postage/shipping, advertising and the normal operating costs associated with running a charity (oh and I forgot to add in the cost of throwing balls and galas), exactly how much of that “profit” is actually reaching and
addressing the pressing issues of the LGBT community?

This seems to be a common problem with so many charities. The bigger and more “successful” they become, the more top-heavy they become as their expenses balloon out of sight, like a prenant woman. No offense to the gals, just a comparison to make a point. ;-)

Like Robert, I too am fed-up with HRC and how Queerty can back such a top-heavy, ineffectual organiaation that has failed us so badly, makes me shake my head in wonderment.

Everytime I see a picture of Joe Salmonese with one of those big smiles on his face that blatantly says, “Wow, I am having such a wonderful time dancing my balls off here at this gala, benefit, fund-raiser, inaugural ball, whatever, wish you were here.”, I could just smack him the the chops.

So, maybe he only gets $35K a year for his “services” at HRC, as some poster stated earlier? Whatever the amount actually is, it’s too much!

I for one, am sick and tired of sending my annual membership fee, so Joe can dance his ass off with the pretty ladies.

I’m out of HRC and they can just fuck off as far as this tired, old queen, is concerned.

How “well” and how “wisely” an organization spends the money it raises is very subjective. Saying that another organization made an “independent analysis” based on metrics they felt matter doesn’t make it objective, and it definitely doesn’t mean these organizations don’t deserve our support for the work they do.

It sounds like you’re saying you’re just reporting the facts, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Again, let me stress that this is an assessment of how well these organizations spend your money. It is not based on Queerty’s personal opinion, but an independent analysis of the groups publicly available finances.

We’re not telling you how innovative the charity is. We’re not telling you if we like its program. We’re telling you how wisely it spends the money it raises.

If you have questions about how these rankings were determined, click on the ‘methodology’ link on the Wost Gay Charities article.

But again, it doesn’t make sense to me to read that GMHC is among the best in the nation at fulfilling their mission and then be discouraged from donating to them.

Articles like this one are dangerous, as they provide such a limited and subjective view on this topic. None of these organizations can afford to lose a single donor based on faulty information, especially during a financial climate as perilous as this one, and unfortunately, that seems inevitable here.

It would have been far more fair to actually interview reps from these orgs before publishing this, as opposed to leveling charges and waiting for the accused to defend themselves (and take time away from their jobs providing important services to the community in order to respond to something as skewed as this “study”).

Overall, I just think this is a poorly thought-out and tragically executed disservice.

http://insidesource.q-notes.co.....charities/

There are numerous reasons why some orgs have outstanding balance sheets and others don’t, and these can often have nothing whatsoever to do with how they are (or are not) effectively managing themselves vis-a-vis delivering on their mission and organizational objectives.

For instance – and this is just one for instance: In-Kind contributions can be significant in the area of programming and will not show up as a cash value of investment in programming. I used to run a national non-profit that operated in all 50 states and had minimal cash expenditures to our 50 state teams. However, we had tens – and even hundreds – of thousands (depending on the state) of dollars in volunteer work being done at the state level to effectively deliver the programming and mission of the organization.

I have worked in non-profit management for over 20 years. A quick look at financials is about the least relevant indicator of organizational effectiveness. Out of the hundreds – and I mean hundreds – of meetings that I have had to review grant proposals for programming with foundations, I have never once had a foundation ask any substantive question about the financial ratios of my organizations. They want to see metrics for evaluating program delivery effectiveness. They understand that financial indicators that have been adopted from a for-profit model to a non-for-profit model leave a lot to be desired. NFPs operate on a double bottom line – effectiveness of program delivery/mission acheivement AND cost effectiveness. Financial ratios may – may – give a little insight into cost structure and investment allocations, but say nothing about mission delivery.

ROFLMAO.

You mean the two organizations whose leaders are best adept at losing elections (LAGLC) and not getting lesiglation passed (HRC)? I guess we have a different metric for “effective” here than in the rest of America.

Are the Charity Navigator ratings the last word on the value of non-profit? Hardly. As many of you have pointed out, we’re not assessing the quality or value of a charity’s intentions, but rather how effective they are at managing themselves, because even if you have the best intentions in the world, if you don’t have the organizational capacity and efficiency to carry them out, you will not be successful.

We feel that Charity Navigator is a good, independent and impartial assessment of the many factors that indicate financial stability and health in an organization. It’s been named one of Time Magazines 50 Websites of the year and receives no money from corporate sponsors as it is, itself, a non-profit.

I hope this clarify things a little.