Meanwhile this welcome development: GuideStar, BBBWiseGiving, Charity Navigator
campaign to end charity overhead myth:
http://trust.guidestar.org/2013/06/17/launching-a-campaign-to-end-the-overhead-myth/
Ingrid Srinath
On 16 Jun 2013, at 21:46, Vinayak Hegde vinay...@gmail.com wrote:
On
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.comwrote:
One via media that works is organisations who get their start-up costs,
investments funded by foundations allowing contributions from the public to
be used almost entirely for programmes.
An article relevant to
On 16 Jun 2013, at 21:46, Vinayak Hegde vinay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.comwrote:
One via media that works is organisations who get their start-up costs,
investments funded by foundations allowing contributions from the public
On 10 Apr 2013, at 10:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.net wrote:
Oh, it depends. There is a tipping point beyond which a charity does need
to focus on grassroots work rather than on management and logistics.
And before that tipping point is reached, just ramping up staff,
Ingrid Srinath
On 10 Apr 2013, at 10:19, Charles Haynes charles.hay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.comwrote:
Charity J: Spends virtually nothing on donor acquisition... Deploys
virtually the entirety of the small sums they
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.com wrote:
The only issue I have with that logic is that it prevents any organisation
from achieving sufficient scale to have significant impact. The charity
sector may be the only one I know where success in terms of
There is an entirely different and unavoidable set of overheads for policy
groups - conference travel, research for which they need to hire lawyers and
economists rather than well meaning college kids (or perhaps, in addition to
well meaning college kids..)
My comment was more on service
On 10 Apr 2013, at 12:25, Deepak Shenoy deepakshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.com wrote:
The only issue I have with that logic is that it prevents any organisation
from achieving sufficient scale to have significant impact. The
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:28 AM, ashok _ listmans...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Deepak Shenoy deepakshe...@gmail.comwrote:
appropriate comparisions. When I complained (and continue to complain)
of acquisition costs - not overhead, but just the costs of acquiring
donations
In a) I care about the cost of making hte investment. The more that's
taken by a middleman (say 2% entry load into a mutual fund or
commissions when I buy a property) the less the money that goes into
whatever I've invested in. A 2% entry and exit load or commission
means what I invest has
Oh, it depends. There is a tipping point beyond which a charity does need
to focus on grassroots work rather than on management and logistics.
And before that tipping point is reached, just ramping up staff, processes
etc to the level where they need sophisticated management and marketing in
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.comwrote:
Charity J: Spends virtually nothing on donor acquisition... Deploys
virtually the entirety of the small sums they collect to feed starving
children. Saves their lives but does nothing to expand the number of lives
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.com wrote:
Deepak,
Here are a couple of devil's advocate scenarios:
Charity J: Spends virtually nothing on donor acquisition, brand building,
policy advocacy, professional staff, technology or monitoring and evaluation.
The corporate social responsibility heads at various corporations .. well, a
lot of them just like being on the boards of dozens of charities, and spray and
pray - gives them lots more publicity, seems like a lot of time well spent.
And very similar with a certain breed of professional charity
Unfortunately, in my experience a lot of talk of charity overheads is
just a way of rationalizing tight fistedness. Quick bit of math: 10
bucks to a charity with 90% overheads has one buck worth of value more
than sitting on a 100 bucks waiting for the ideal charity.
I, for example, could
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
sur...@hserus.netwrote:
The corporate social responsibility heads at various corporations ..
well, a lot of them just like being on the boards of dozens of charities,
and spray and pray - gives them lots more publicity, seems like a lot
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Deepak Shenoy deepakshe...@gmail.comwrote:
appropriate comparisions. When I complained (and continue to complain)
of acquisition costs - not overhead, but just the costs of acquiring
donations - of around 50%, I am told this is the industry average. If
it is,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.comwrote:
On 22 Mar 2013, at 17:46, Pranesh Prakash the.solips...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ingrid SrinathThanks, Pranesh.
Tax exemption aside, the expectation that an organisation can be viable
- *OTOH, the reductionist overhead:revenue ratio as a metric of
'deservingness' . to play the
ratio game, as it is of the need for a one-size-fits-all comparator*
Sorry...but that acronym, those wordsI'm afraid this is a good example
of the kind of prose that will switch my
Ingrid,
What parts of the DTC are the worst for the NGO sector? Would like to
hear also of some alternatives, or at least to address whatever has
caused the IT department to believe that a change from current rules
was necessary?
OTOH, the reductionist overhead:revenue ratio as a metric of
On 2 Apr 2013, at 23:33, Deepak Shenoy deepakshe...@gmail.com wrote:
Ingrid,
What parts of the DTC are the worst for the NGO sector? Would like to
hear also of some alternatives, or at least to address whatever has
caused the IT department to believe that a change from current rules
was
On 2 Apr 2013, at 23:20, Deepa Mohan mohande...@gmail.com wrote:
- *OTOH, the reductionist overhead:revenue ratio as a metric of
'deservingness' . to play the
ratio game, as it is of the need for a one-size-fits-all comparator*
Sorry...but that acronym, those wordsI'm afraid
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 Apr 2013, at 23:20, Deepa Mohan mohande...@gmail.com wrote:
- *OTOH, the reductionist overhead:revenue ratio as a metric of
'deservingness' . to play the
ratio game, as it is of the need for a
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 01:31:42PM +0530, Ingrid Srinath wrote:
On 22 Mar 2013, at 17:46, Pranesh Prakash the.solips...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.com wrote:
This TED Talk touches on some of the perverse disincentives non-profits
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Ingrid Srinath
ingrid.srin...@gmail.com wrote:
This TED Talk touches on some of the perverse disincentives non-profits face
that hamper scale, innovation, sustainability and impact. They are issues
I've grappled with, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, for
This TED Talk touches on some of the perverse disincentives non-profits face
that hamper scale, innovation, sustainability and impact. They are issues I've
grappled with, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, for 15 years. Aspects
have featured on silk previously. The proposed Indian Direct
26 matches
Mail list logo
