That's likely because while the American Red Cross has achieved an overall Charity Navigator rating of 85% (80% for financial organization and 93% for accountability & transparency), Charity Navigator maintains no rating for the Clinton Foundation at all. Most news outlets turn to Charity Navigator when seeking out figures for any one charity organization's effectiveness, but no such claim was proffered about the comparative rankings of the American Red Cross and the Clinton Foundation by Charity Navigator. However, the comparison arguably constitutes cherry picking, in that CharityWatch is a far smaller, atypical arbiter of charity ratings. 88%, the Red Cross was less efficient because they spent more money to raise money ($30 per $100) than the Clinton Foundation ($3 per $100) did, according to CharityWatch. While the Red Cross achieved a higher "Program Percentage" (share of monies allocated to services) than the Clinton Foundation at 90% percent vs. With respect to the original tweet, it was true that CharityWatch gave the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation an " A" rating by CharityWatch in April 2016, while by contrast they assigned an " A-" grade to the American Red Cross of August 2016. CharityWatch’s work is supported by individual donations. Lists of top-rated charities can be viewed free, but the group’s full thrice-yearly reports - which feature updates and investigations into wrongdoing in the industry - require a $3 payment for the first sample and then a $40 to $200 yearly membership fee after that. Questions addressed include possible fraudulent valuation of donations, inappropriate categorizations of program expenses and legitimate reasons for seeming financial inefficiency. The site is supported through charitable donations from large donors and individual users.ĬharityWatch (): Formerly called the American Institute of Philanthropy, this 20-year-old organization performs in-depth analysis of about 550 charities. Some aspects of the site are free to all users, while others require registration. People interested in specific categories can find several Top 10 lists of the best and worst charities. In coming years, Charity Navigator aims to add information on charitable program results. Reports are based largely on self-reported data. Charity Navigator is the much larger and more highly regarded site, while the smaller CharityWatch's Wikipedia entry shows that organization to employ a ranking methodology that has generated a large "Criticism" section.Ī 2011 ranking of charity watchdogs contrasted the two sites:Ĭharity Navigator (): Evaluates about 5,500 nonprofits with starred reviews and helpful, graphic-heavy reports that now include evaluations of transparency and links to similar charities. How much credence one should afford these rankings is debatable, however. The former ranked the Clinton Foundation (A) slightly higher than the Red Cross (A-), while the latter doesn't rank the Clinton Foundation at all. That phenomenon likely stemmed from confusion " CharityWatch" and " Charity Navigator," two similarly-named charity evaluation services. #discussĪs seen in the example field above, the claim caused some skepticism among social media among users who were unable to independently corroborate the claim. Today's fun fact: CharityWatch gives the Clinton Foundation a higher rating (A) than it gives the Red Cross (A-). On 28 August 2016, a popular tweet initiated a rumor that as a charity, the Clinton Foundation scored higher in efficiency than the well-known aid-providing Red Cross organization: The larger and more highly regarded Charity Navigator stopped evaluating the Clinton Foundation after an early 2015 dispute over bad press and allegations of a lack of transparency, then on 1 September 2016 reinstated the Foundation's rating.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |