View Poll Results: How should a non-profit be judged?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • The work they do?

    8 72.73%
  • The percentage of income they distribute to the actual charity/organization?

    9 81.82%
  • Charitable organizations only?

    3 27.27%
  • Size? (i.e.: smaller being better than bigger)

    1 9.09%
  • Disqualify any where anybody takes in more than $X in salary and/or benefits?

    6 54.55%
  • Other?

    2 18.18%
  • No changes from the current status quo?

    1 9.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

  1. #1
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    How should a "non-profit" be judged? For legal / tax status.

    1) The work they do?
    2) The percentage of income they distribute to the actual charity/organization?
    3) Charitable organizations only?
    4) Size (i.e.: smaller being better than bigger)
    5) Disqualify any where anybody takes in more than $X in salary and/or benefits?
    6) Other?
    7) No changes from the current status?

    Please note that this question is NOT regarding the current definition / standards. This question presumes that changes need to be made, but Option #7 is included for those who feel the status quo is perfect.

    You may vote for more than one.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #2
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    How should a "non-profit" be judged? For legal / tax status.

    1) The work they do?
    2) The percentage of income they distribute to the actual charity/organization?
    3) Charitable organizations only?
    4) Size (i.e.: smaller being better than bigger)
    5) Disqualify any where anybody takes in more than $X in salary and/or benefits?
    6) Other?
    7) No changes from the current status?

    Please note that this question is NOT regarding the current definition / standards. This question presumes that changes need to be made, but Option #7 is included for those who feel the status quo is perfect.

    You may vote for more than one.
    Well, certainly their mission statement enters into it -- what are they doing that's charitable? I think they should be judged ruthlessly by what percentage of their total income they use in direct support of their mission statement.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #3
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Well, certainly their mission statement enters into it -- what are they doing that's charitable? I think they should be judged ruthlessly by what percentage of their total income they use in direct support of their mission statement.
    Agreed. There are some who give something like only 10% to the actual work/charity that they claim to support.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #4
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Sports athlete charities are notorious for being inefficient at giving back. They're a.k.a. places where their idiot family members can get paid for doing very little work as they sit on the board of directors and they organize one event a year.

  5. #5
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    How should a "non-profit" be judged? For legal / tax status.

    1) The work they do?
    2) The percentage of income they distribute to the actual charity/organization?
    3) Charitable organizations only?
    4) Size (i.e.: smaller being better than bigger)
    5) Disqualify any where anybody takes in more than $X in salary and/or benefits?
    6) Other?
    7) No changes from the current status?

    Please note that this question is NOT regarding the current definition / standards. This question presumes that changes need to be made, but Option #7 is included for those who feel the status quo is perfect.

    You may vote for more than one.
    As an FYI, not all non-profit organizations are "charitable." Some are like the Red Cross, churches, homeless shelters and Habitat for Humanity. Some are not like credit unions, the NFL, college fraternities and sororities, the PTA and the American Petroleum Institute TV: Let's Put America's Oil & Natural Gas Resources to Work for Americans - YouTube .

    I prefer being neutral on judging the validity of a non-profit based on what it does, its effectiveness, budget and how they operate. As long as they're obeying the law, I'm happy. I'm for freedom and don't think its right in principle to set up special punitive rules for some just because they're they're more effective, influential or have a bigger operating budget than a soup kitchen that can't pay its bills.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  6. #6
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    As an FYI, not all non-profit organizations are "charitable." Some are like the Red Cross, churches, homeless shelters and Habitat for Humanity. Some are not like credit unions, the NFL, college fraternities and sororities, the PTA and the American Petroleum Institute TV: Let's Put America's Oil & Natural Gas Resources to Work for Americans - YouTube .

    I prefer being neutral on judging the validity of a non-profit based on what it does, its effectiveness, budget and how they operate. As long as they're obeying the law, I'm happy. I'm for freedom and don't think its right in principle to set up special punitive rules for some just because they're they're more effective, influential or have a bigger operating budget than a soup kitchen that can't pay its bills.
    I get what you're saying, but I don't think having some standards is necessarily punitive.

    For example, of the choices I listed, I chose only #2 and #3. I think a non-profit should contribute a vast majority of the money it takes in on its stated purpose. When I say "vast majority", I'm thinking 80%+/-.

    I would also prefer that non-profits be restricted to charitable-like endeavors. Helping a kid's sports league is great, but it's a societal luxury. Helping the homeless, or helping the mentally disabled, for example, are charitable endeavors that qualify in my mind.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  7. #7
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I get what you're saying, but I don't think having some standards is necessarily punitive.

    For example, of the choices I listed, I chose only #2 and #3. I think a non-profit should contribute a vast majority of the money it takes in on its stated purpose. When I say "vast majority", I'm thinking 80%+/-.

    I would also prefer that non-profits be restricted to charitable-like endeavors. Helping a kid's sports league is great, but it's a societal luxury. Helping the homeless, or helping the mentally disabled, for example, are charitable endeavors that qualify in my mind.
    If I'm not mistaken 100% of a non-profit's revenue has to be either spent on its stated purpose of donated to charity. Salaries, families, travel, etc. are considered legitimate expenses toward te goal of fulfilling it stated purposes as without qualified staff it cannot do its wrk, etc. In fact I met with a grant writer for non-profits when the White House Faith Based Initiative first started and he said unless a non-profit had a respectable payroll budget its likely NOT to get grants because it would be seen as not a serious organization.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  8. #8
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    How much church spending is charity and how much is pushing the invisible sky wizard?

  9. #9
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    If I'm not mistaken 100% of a non-profit's revenue has to be either spent on its stated purpose of donated to charity.
    That's not entirely correct. A non-profit does not have to spend all of its revenue annually. And in many ways you don't necessarily want them to do that either. They're hit with a very low tax rate (think 1~2%) on excess. Non-profit often saving money for a big capital expenditures which would result in multi-year failure to spend 100% of revenue.

    Salaries, families, travel, etc. are considered legitimate expenses toward te goal of fulfilling it stated purposes as without qualified staff it cannot do its wrk, etc.
    Sort of. The IRS will come down on you (or they should) if employee expenses become unreasonable. 990 returns have requirements to publicly name those employees making over $100,000 as a form of checks and balances against abuse. If your non-profit exists to pay your family, you will get audited and likely revoked.

    In fact I met with a grant writer for non-profits when the White House Faith Based Initiative first started and he said unless a non-profit had a respectable payroll budget its likely NOT to get grants because it would be seen as not a serious organization.
    Depends what they do. If you have a huge volunteer list and relatively small payroll, that's a way to get around that. Showing that you have a big staff, but small employee expenses but funnel most of your money towards stated purpose, you'd likely get a bigger grant.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #10
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: How should a "non-profit" be judged?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    How should a "non-profit" be judged? For legal / tax status.

    1) The work they do?
    Yes, political stuff should be grounds for revoking, as fluffy stuff that doesn't actually result in any charity. I'm not real keen on some of these "educational" charities.

    2) The percentage of income they distribute to the actual charity/organization?
    This really should be key. Any non-profit that doesn't hit 70% is a red flag to me. Some of these political ones that are now filing seem to not even get close to that. United Way tends to be in the 80%s for comparison.

    4) Size (i.e.: smaller being better than bigger)
    Depends on what they do. Some things are better with scale, somethings are not.

    5) Disqualify any where anybody takes in more than $X in salary and/or benefits?
    Not necessarily. Sometimes you need certain key people. I think it's a more relative scale factor. If every other group is paying people much less and you have this one guy being paid millions, that's a huge red flag. CEO of Non-profits tend to be around the $200k to $400k for the larger size ones. I saw the Clinton one and their CEO is underpaid, especially for the size of the organization.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •