Financial Ratings Of Charitable Organizations

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 11:44am

Hello.  Every once in a while, I've been curious about charitable organizations and their financial ratings.  I looked up the leading theatrical charitable group and see what came up.  They perform a great service and benefit many individuals and organizations.  Food for thought.   https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3389

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 12:06pm

My guess is the 3-star/81% rating is due to the high costs of producing their 4 biggest annual fundraising events (Bway Bares, Easter Bonnet, Gypsy of the Year, Flea Market).

[oncemorewithfeeling2]

Posted: 12/29/18 at 10:50pm

BCEFA does great work. No one doubts that. Their accountability and transparency is laid out and visible for anyone who wants to see it, hence the 100% 4 star rating in that area. Their financials are a bit more difficult, partly because of the type of organization they run. They exist to raise money and then distribute the funds. Their revenue and expenditure are seperated, according to the most recent information, by less then $200,000. To outsiders, that makes them a less attractive and riskier option, leading to the 2 star financial rating.

Domi still support them and what they do? Absolutely.

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 1/1/19 at 12:32am

Charity Navigator is a horrible company. In theory, I am all for transparency in nonprofit accounting. The issue is that CN uses a very simplistic measuring tool, a one-size-fits-all, despite measuring all types of nonprofits. So a small nonprofit with an all-volunteer staff (i.e., no paid staff) doing one small efficient program with a $100,000 budget is rated the same as a major university with huge and realistic expenses and serving thousands of students, nationwide health affiliates performing expensive research, etc. That's not fair. Also, CN does not permit any opportunity to explain to donors why their ratings are such. You just get a star rating and deal with it. My current organization has a very legitimate reason for our expenses -- one that our annual audit affirms -- but we have two stars. We have been fighting with CN for a couple years trying to get things changed. When they do care to respond it is a canned response. 

I also worked for a hospital foundation that had very up and down revenue and expenses from one year to the next, based on major equipment purchases and building renovations. CN did not like this up and down graph. They said it made us look inconsistent. Really? It is a major charity in the San Francisco Bay Area that has unbelievable corporate and private philanthropic support. 

Sorry to rant but CN is a major thorn in the sides of many nonprofit officers. Like I said, a good theory, but not a good model and not a well run organization itself. 

[SeanD2]

Posted: 1/1/19 at 11:16am

PatrickDC said: "Charity Navigator is a horrible company. In theory, I am all for transparency in nonprofit accounting. The issue is that CN uses a very simplistic measuring tool, a one-size-fits-all, despite measuring all types of nonprofits. So a small nonprofit with an all-volunteer staff (i.e., no paid staff) doing one small efficient program with a $100,000 budget is rated the same as a major university with huge and realistic expenses and serving thousands of students, nationwide health affiliates performing expensive research, etc. That's not fair. Also, CN does not permit any opportunity to explain to donors why their ratings are such. You just get a star rating and deal with it. My current organization has a very legitimate reason for our expenses -- one that our annual audit affirms -- but we have two stars. We have been fighting with CN for a couple years trying to get things changed. When they do care to respond it is a canned response.

I also worked for a hospital foundation that had very up and down revenue and expenses from one year to the next, based on major equipment purchases and building renovations. CN did not like this up and down graph. They said it made us look inconsistent. Really? It is a major charity in the San Francisco Bay Area that has unbelievable corporate and private philanthropic support.

Sorry to rant but CN is a major thorn in the sides of many nonprofit officers. Like I said, a good theory, but not a good model and not a well run organization itself."

This! SO. MUCH. THIS.

[Niles Silvers]

Posted: 1/1/19 at 5:43pm

I sometimes wonder if these stage productions actually make money for their causes.  The overhead must be huge.  

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 1/1/19 at 6:15pm

Net revenue likely depends on how many expenses are donated and volunteered.

Im not into donor premiums. People should donate to a cause because they believe in the mission, not because of a benefit or perk. Im mainly referring to things like coffee cups, tote bags, little things like that. No one needs another coffee mug and we dont need to expend the resources to produce all these items. If I have $100 to give Id prefer to give directly to the organization where possibly $75 will go to services, versus $25 or so after production expenses.

Shows are a different kind of premium I suppose. They are a way to attract new donors to a cause. It depends on how the organization cultivated the guests. If the organization doesnt reach out to attendees its a lost opportunity.

The organization puts a lot of effort into attracting people. Why not try to keep them as long term donors well after the curtain drops?

[Kitsune]

Posted: 1/1/19 at 7:09pm

PatrickDC said: "Charity Navigator is a horrible company. In theory, I am all for transparency in nonprofit accounting. The issue is that CN uses a very simplistic measuring tool, a one-size-fits-all, despite measuring all types of nonprofits. So a small nonprofit with an all-volunteer staff (i.e., no paid staff) doing one small efficient program with a $100,000 budget is rated the same as a major university with huge and realistic expenses and serving thousands of students, nationwide health affiliates performing expensive research, etc. That's not fair. Also, CN does not permit any opportunity to explain to donors why their ratings are such. You just get a star rating and deal with it. My current organization has a very legitimate reason for our expenses -- one that our annual audit affirms -- but we have two stars. We have been fighting with CN for a couple years trying to get things changed. When they do care to respond it is a canned response.

I also worked for a hospital foundation that had very up and down revenue and expenses from one year to the next, based on major equipment purchases and building renovations. CN did not like this up and down graph. They said it made us look inconsistent. Really? It is a major charity in the San Francisco Bay Area that has unbelievable corporate and private philanthropic support.

Sorry to rant but CN is a major thorn in the sides of many nonprofit officers. Like I said, a good theory, but not a good model and not a well run organization itself."

As someone who also works in the helping sector, I'll add a bit +1 to this!! I recently discovered a really, really funny video that illustrates what it would be like if pizza shops were funded like non-profits.

I've had less experience with arts organizations, but I would imagine the issues are very similar.