Welcome!

I'm using this space to think about how nonprofits need to reinvent themselves going forward. Why? Because it's too hard to do all the good work that they are doing now within the current "paradigm" of how a nonprofit is defined, how it is "supposed" to be done.



If you care about the fate of nonprofits - if you donate, if you are a member, if you work for one, or if you need their services - I hope that you'll let me know what you think. Share some of your own ideas, too.



Some of what you read may be quite different. But I think that it's time we all thought a little differently.



Thanks so much for stopping by!



Janet



Thursday, December 9, 2010

Gold Medal charities


Givewell.org has new ratings, with its mission “to find outstanding charities and publish the full details of our analysis to help donors decide where to give.”  As of December 2010, they’ve identified two “Gold Medal” and eight “Silver Medal” nonprofits.  Their rating are defined as follows:

We have confidence that a Gold Medal charity is having significant and cost-effective impact on the issues it works to address.  A Gold Medal charity provides compelling answers on most of the issues we consider, for the bulk of its programming.

What characteristics do they look for?  They provide a list!

  • Basic transparency: including an “on the record conversation” with staff and public disclosure of any “failed” programs
  • Full transparency: with regard to fiscal issues, by country and program
  • Monitoring: ongoing and systematic
  • Evaluation: “rigorous” including public assessment
  • Success: as defined by their evaluation process
  • Promising approach: being both cost-effective and “low burden of proof”
  • Funding gap: if an organization needs more funding it has made this need clear

One may choose to agree with Givewell’s approach – or not. What is impressive is the degree of thought that has gone into it.  Their “Criteria for evaluating programs” goes on for three pages (single spaced) when printed covering the above in detail, with another two pages of their cited sources.

They’ve also been clear about staking their territory and their priorities.  “Priority” programs are “for international aid: proven health interventions.”  “All of the programs we have identified as priority program (sic) are in the area of health.”  My hat is off to them for deciding health is the world’s #1 issue.  We can all argue for or against now as we like.  Do you think health is the world’s #1 issue?  

No comments:

Post a Comment