How Long Does It Take Great Nonprofits to Post a Review

'Not So' GreatNonprofits

April 01, 2012

On its website, GreatNonprofits bills itself as "a identify to find trustworthy nonprofits." The site allows people—from donors to clients, volunteers to employees—to submit reviews of nonprofits. These reviews are prominently featured on websites like GuideStar, Charity Navigator, and JustGive. At starting time, this may seem like a good idea. After all, consumers commonly apply reviews on sites similar Yelp and Trip Advisor to assist them choose restaurants and hotels. What is incorrect with using crowdsourced reviews to help donors pick nonprofits?

One problem is that reviewing nonprofits is far more complex than reviewing consumer products and services. When a customer at a restaurant pays for a repast, he can odor, taste, and experience it. In contrast, when a donor gives to a clemency, he pays for goods or services that someone else receives. His review is often not based on any firsthand knowledge of the quality or efficiency of the charity'south programs.

Another problem is the lack of consistency in what is being measured. Half dozen positive reviews most a clemency's polite phone operators might exist averaged together with one negative review alleging its consistent racial discrimination against grant recipients. It is difficult to imagine that about potential donors or clients of such a charity would consider it to be a "trustworthy nonprofit," even though this is what its loftier average star rating would portend to reflect. A donor also might requite a positive review to a clemency because he likes its cause, not based on whatsoever knowledge about how efficiently or effectively that specific charity works to forward that cause.

As with any review site, it is also of import to consider the reviewers' backgrounds and qualifications. Even someone who receives services from a charity or volunteers with 1 oftentimes has only a narrow understanding of the organization, not a articulate picture of how well it operates on the whole. A clemency may provide grants to a handful of needy veterans, sick kids, etc., while wasting most of its resource on overhead. The recipients of the assistance may be quite happy and mail service positive reviews even though the clemency could have helped many more people with the donations information technology received had it been operating more efficiently.

For example, one reviewer of the Childhood Leukemia Foundation, which receives a about perfect score from GreatNonprofits but is F rated by CharityWatch, praises the charity for distributing "Promise Binders" that help families of cancer patients organize bills and insurance information. While these binders may be useful, they correspond simply i tiny aspect of the charity'southward operations. This reviewer did non weigh more substantial factors that are representative of how well the charity operates overall. For case, a note in the grouping'southward 2010 audit describes the charity'south promise to pay 75% to 85% of future revenues to outside fundraisers. This leaves a paltry portion of donations available to assist children with leukemia.

An outstanding clemency that is unlucky enough to get a few bad reviews tin can receive a mediocre rating from GreatNonprofits. The highly regarded Doctors Without Borders, which receives an A rating from CharityWatch, receives just 3.5 out of 5 stars from GreatNonprofits equally of February 2012. Why? Largely because two of simply half-dozen reviewers downgraded the clemency––1 for a billing error that was non immediately resolved, and one for a misunderstanding that the charity's low toll of raising funds was too high.

On sites like Yelp or Trip Advisor, there are oftentimes enough reviews of a item restaurant or hotel to get a full general idea of how happy people are with the quality of the food or accommodations they received. But most people know that if any business organisation has only a handful of reviews, these are far less reliable since the unreasonable opinions of but one or ii people, either as well positive or too negative, can greatly skew the rating. GreatNonprofits, founded in 2007, boasts that information technology lists 1.eight million nonprofits on its site, but merely about 12,000 of these have been reviewed. Of those, many have been reviewed past just one or two people. For instance, the Parkinson Research Foundation, which is F rated by CharityWatch, gets a perfect 5-star rating on GreatNonprofits. This rating is based on a single review written by an employee of the charity––not exactly an objective or contained source.

GreatNonprofits encourages reviews past biased or interested parties, like the one above. On its website it states that groups that are not happy with a negative review can "rally people…and ask them to provide alternate perspectives to this critical review." Past encouraging groups to drum up glowing reviews from their supporters, GreatNonprofits is letting charities know how easily they can drown out their critics and receive high ratings. This may be expert for charities, merely it is not helpful for donors who desire an honest and objective view.

The Internet offers a bounty of information well-nigh charities, but this can be a double-edged sword for donors. On the ane paw, it is now easier than ever for donors to research charities. On the other hand, donors must sift through mountains of information that is ofttimes superficial, biased, or simply incorrect. As a resource for donors, CharityWatch analysts scrutinize clemency financials to provide the donating public with independent, meaningful information about how charities spend their coin. This kind of data just comes from a rigorous analysis of a clemency'south finances; it cannot be gleaned from a few brusque reviews posted by donors and volunteers, or by self-interested charity employees and their hired public relations agents.

whiteheadprucestras.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/39not-so39-greatnonprofits

Share this post