Comments on: Summary of the GiveWell-Philanthropedia Conversation

By: this

this — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:28:45 +0000

Yo, How’s it going? Thank you for another fabulous post. I always appreciate reading them for your special spin on things. Please keep them coming and I’ll continue coming!

By: cool page

cool page — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 04:37:01 +0000

Once again I have enjoyed your most recent article. Thanks for posting it for us. It’s always a pleasure and I intend on returning for all of the new writings.

By: hello

hello — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:06:02 +0000

1 cheese

By: Magdalen Pucio

Magdalen Pucio — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:02:39 +0000

DUDE! No fn way you bought that car 3 years ago! Is it?

By: Johnette Fricker

Johnette Fricker — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:54:11 +0000

Lovely!!! Bookmarked this page that has this exclusive tips. Will come back to see if there are any updates. You, the author, are a master. Thanks

By: Blog Reaction: The Role of PhilanthroPeople and PhilanthroProcess « High Impact Philanthropy

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:25:21 +0000

[...] I find both people and process to be inextricably linked. We refer to people as experts when they have dedicated themselves to a particular skill or process for a certain period of time (approximately 10 years or 10,000 hours) and have been recognized by their peers as an example of excellence. As Lucy Bernholz pointed out in her post today that there are still many debates among experts and other professionals around various methodologies, a recent example can be found on Philanthropedia’s blog regarding how do you choose an expert? [...]

By: Executive choices and nonprofit ratings « My Blog

Executive choices and nonprofit ratings « My Blog — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:25:13 +0000

[...] Most of this type of analysis is based – loosely or not – on financial analysts reviews’ of companies and industries. They review financial information, performance metrics, measures of social return (these last two being particularly subject to dispute), and others. How to review nonprofits is an emerging specialty, full of (important) methodological disagreement and debate. [...]

By: Mazarine

Mazarine — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:15:48 +0000

As a former nonprofit employee, and person who helps nonprofits raise money, I want to add to this discussion.
>
>I do believe that the VAST MAJORITY of nonprofits are run extremely inefficiently. What makes them inefficient?
>
>1. There is a LOT of turnover. With low pay, bad management practices (aka no emotional intelligence), no organizational memory and no warning firings, it’s no wonder that nonprofits spend ridiculous amounts of money on finding and hiring and training workers. They don’t treat the ones who work for them well enough for them to stay.
>
>2. There is a LOT of ego for very little money and this needs to change. If nonprofits want to become effective, let them run like businesses, where board members and senior leadership have their compensation DIRECTLY tied to how much money they, personally, raise. So for instance, an Executive Director would get $50,000 per year if they raised nothing, $60,000 if they raised $100K, and so on.
>
>3. There is a LOT of expecting the fundraiser to do the work while the board and executive director just twiddle their thumbs. And when the fundraiser doesn’t raise that million in the first year, there’s a lot of throwing up of hands, a lot of, “We hired the wrong person, we’ll hire the RIGHT person, next time” and they hire a new fundraiser and the cycle begins again. The fact is, there is nothing the fundraiser can do to overcome what the board and senior leadership are NOT willing to do.
>
>To conclude, Nonprofits need to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for fundraising. EVERYONE in the organization needs to be a fundraiser, whether the receptionist to the Board Chair and everyone in between.
>
>Why a nonprofit is effective should be measured in
>
>0. How effective and efficient their programs are. Are they helping as many people as they say they are?
>
>1. Customer service from program participants to donors, which is stellar,
>
>2. Good management, that means emotional intelligence, communication, listening.
>
>3. Diversified streams of income, using major gifts more than events, for instance.
>
>4. Continuous process improvement, and
>
>5. Getting everyone on message to be fundraisers.
>
>http://wildwomanfundraising.com“