Comments on: Charity Navigator review of Project Vote Smart’s financial health

By: Moses Brewer

Moses Brewer — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:06:56 +0000

3u9uhoty5i67004z

By: Josh

Josh — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:39:45 +0000

The impact Charity Rating organizations have on the behaviors of donors and foundations is debatable. With foundations and major donors I think it is negligible. The application process for foundation grants is rather intense and involved with numerous written correspondences, meetings and site visits. The bigger the grant, the more they prod in order to gain an understanding of the organization that no third-party rater can gain from numbers crunching or fill-in-the-blank forms. Major Donors are similar, especially at PVS where they can, and do, come get a first hand look at the place in all its glory and gloom.

PVS does face some daunting fiscal pressures, but so do nearly all other organizations. The Tulleynator hits on a good point. So called baby-boomers are retiring and their parents are dieing. Organizations now have to find a way to tap into younger generations that both interact with and expect different things from the world. PVS seems to be taking steps to do this; blogging, RSS, Wikis, undertaking a publicity campaign and other additions/improvements are coming along. Too slowly for many people, but they are happening none-the-less.

It is nice to see a number of PVS Alums still caring about the Project. Perhaps those of you concerned and interested could get together and request a short update from the National Director, Senior Adviser or even President, detailing some of the additions/changes to PVS. I can’t speak for the organization, but maybe they would be open to it. Maybe a certain blog reader with a gorgeous Wall Street Journal reporter as a sister could whisper sweet nothings into the leadership’s ears to help you along.

By: The_Actual_Greyson_Ruback

The_Actual_Greyson_Ruback — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:49:16 +0000

In the end PVS’ mission can be run on a shoestring budget, it has been for quite some time. What these numbers illustrate to me is a lack of leadership and efficiency, which is caused by the ignorance of the people at the top and the fact that they don’t pay anyone (with an opinion of their own) outside of that close-knit group enough to keep them around.

Personally, I think more popsicles and calisthetronics are needed, and less Kimball… but I’ve said this before… and no one else seems to back me up on that.

By: Tulley

Tulley — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:34:57 +0000

To me, this makes clearer the fact that PVS needs to broaden their fundraising and outreach, specifically to younger people. I know this is something you are definitely for Andrew but I think these numbers show that relying on the Baby Boomer generation is not going to work in the long run for the financial health of the organization. PVS needs to find a way to tap into our generation’s resources in order to survive. Ignoring them is what makes them apathetic. If we can actively engage them then I think PVS would be able to sustain itself for years to come.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:09:27 +0000

Honestly Sam, I don’t know what this says about the specifics of “how the organizations operates”, but I think this does speak to a broader question than pop cycle breaks. The bottom line is that foundations and major donors look at these numbers in deciding whether or not to give, and being on the bottom does not make it easy.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:29:30 +0000

Does this mean eating popsicles while doing data entry isn’t efficient??