2009/10/8 Gregory Kohs <thekoh...@gmail.com>: > "Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least > 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And > 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a > third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their > missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero > points for their overall organizational efficiency score." > > While the WMF seemed to be narrowly meeting these guidelines (according to > the site's "Revenue/Expenses Trend" histogram) in perhaps 2007, it appears > that in 2008, the trend got decidedly worse. Perhaps I am misinterpreting > the criteria and/or the graphic. But, the 2-out-of-4 stars rating is > decidedly clear.
As far as I can see, the "...at least 75% ... at least 65% ... less than a third" relates to the proportion of program expenses to overall expenditure, which as the table and pie-chart shows is ~66% for the WMF. The histogram doesn't seem to directly relate to those numbers or that criteria; it shows absolute program expenses against absolute overall *income*, not expenditure. I think interpreting the proportions of the histogram using the rules applied to a different ratio is going to get confusing. (The reason it seems to have got "substantially worse" is a $4.3m increase in income against a $800k increase in expenses, compared to an increase of $1m in income versus $800k in expenses from 2006-2007. I do not know to what extent this will continue in 09.) WMF could no doubt spend a lot more in program expenses, though defining exactly what those are is a pretty fun game. But it's certainly not spending as inefficiently as the histogram might seem to suggest. > For comparison, witness an organization cited by Charity Navigator as > "similar" to the WMF -- the Reason Foundation -- and see how their Expenses > are a much larger portion of revenue for them, and thus obtain a 3-star > rating: > http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7481 Again, expenses/revenue isn't where the rating comes from; it's program expenses/total expenses. Reason are indeed doing better at this than WMF - 87% versus 65% - but it's important to distinguish between the two ratios. It's interesting to note that Reason show the same expenses pattern as WMF; they have program expenses increasing at a fairly linear $1m/year, but unlike WMF their income is plateauing - they'll be exceeding their income this year at that rate! -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
