Charity Navigator review of Project Vote Smart’s financial health
(No Ratings Yet)
In light of recent documents, I became curious how efficient the Center for National Independence in Politics is, both on its own merits and compared across the sector. Charity Navigator is an organization that rates non-profits, its self described mission is to: “help charitable givers make intelligent giving decisions by providing information on over five thousand charities and by evaluating the financial health of each of these charities.” This is one of many services that large donors and foundations use to analyze the financial health of an organization (another such service is GuideStar).
The following are several different non-profit organizations, you’ll notice that PVS is on the very bottom in overall score and second to last in Efficiency as well as Capacity (figures are from 2006).
|
Charity Name |
Overall Score |
Efficiency Score |
Capacity Score |
|
63.83 |
38.83 |
25.00 |
|
|
58.13 |
38.13 |
20.00 |
|
|
56.45 |
38.95 |
17.50 |
|
|
53.47 |
29.76 |
23.71 |
|
|
44.68 |
32.00 |
12.67 |
|
|
41.90 |
32.17 |
9.73 |
|
|
41.51 |
29.79 |
11.72 |
According to the Charity Navigator, the overall financial health of the organization has been in decline since 2004 (prior numbers are not included).
|
FYE 03/2006 |
FYE 03/2005 |
FYE 03/2004 |
|
(41.51) |
(44.89) |
(48.77) |
Comparing the financial health of Project Vote Smart across Cause, Category and State reveals that it is tragically lagging behind.
|
|
Project Vote Smart |
Category Average |
State Average |
Cause Average |
|
Overall score |
41.51 |
50.97 |
49.98 |
47.99 |
|
Efficiency Score |
29.79 |
32.61 |
32.16 |
29.87 |
|
Capacity Score |
11.72 |
18.36 |
17.82 |
18.12 |
Conclusion: Why care? Non-profits, even with lofty principles, ought to be Transparent and Accountable. In order to attract the large investment necessary to run innovative programs (like the grant funded State Key Votes program) - you need to show that you can be efficient with money.
In all reality, these numbers clearly don’t consider PVS’s goals, or the impact it makes on millions of lives by providing abundant and relevant information. Nevertheless, they are an indicator of how the organization is looked at by potential donors and foundations.
One essential and often overlooked aspect of non-profits, is that they are owned by the public. The Center for National Independence in Politics was incorporated for the public (according to GuideStar) in 1989, but is the public getting it’s moneys worth? According to the data taken from Charity Nav, this is a question that the board ought to consider and I for one am curious what they think.
on July 6th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Does this mean eating popsicles while doing data entry isn’t efficient??
on July 6th, 2007 at 9:09 am
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.
on July 6th, 2007 at 9:34 am
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.
on July 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
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.
on July 6th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
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.
on November 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
3u9uhoty5i67004z