My Nonprofit Reviews
libertyvanguard
Review for GuideStar, Williamsburg, VA, USA
Guidestar links to Great Nonprofits, which appears to be a ideological group masquerading as a dispassionate monitor of charity's. Great Nonprofit's funding reveals it a veritable Who's Who of environmental movement funders. That may explain why reviews of free market environmental groups are negative while those of command and control environmental groups are almost universally positive. Guidestar hurts its previously stellar reputation by being associated with Great Nonprofits.
More Feedback
If I had to make changes to this organization, I would...
End the relationship with Great Nonprofits.
The kinds of staff and volunteers that I met were...
None.
If this organization had 10 million bucks, it could...
Donate it to another group that might do some good with it.
Ways to make it better...
Guidestar hadn't partnered with a group that appears designed to favor one political group over another.
In my opinion, the biggest challenges facing this organization are...
Losing its hard-earned reputation because of its association with an organization that has none.
How frequently have you been involved with the organization?
About every month
When was your last experience with this nonprofit?
2010
Review for Charity Navigator, Glen Rock, NJ, USA
Another ideological left group masquerading as a charity monitor. It's evaluations are designed to favor those receiving government grants and other large gifts... principally those of the ideological left. No self-respecting conservative group would accept government funds. The group's leadership tells us something of its motives. Trent Stamp, its first president, served as congressional staff for a liberal member of Congress. Now he works for the Eisner Foundation, Michael Eisner's foundation. The former Disney CEO is about as left-wing as they come.
More Feedback
I've personally experienced the results of this organization in...
that its results are biased against groups with independent funding, favors those groups getting tax-payer support.
If I had to make changes to this organization, I would...
Diversify the board, diversify the funding, develop a review system that is equitable and provides donors information they really need... How much goes to programs. Forget the stuff that's irrelevant.
What I've enjoyed the most about my experience with this nonprofit is...
Not much.
The kinds of staff and volunteers that I met were...
None.
If this organization had 10 million bucks, it could...
...say it has its third major donor. The group currently gets most of its funding from its Chairman, philanthropist John Dugan. Additionally, three of Charity Navigator's eight board members are Dugans.
Ways to make it better...
The group's reviews weren't biased towards groups that have their hands in my pockets. Receiving government funding ought to be counted against groups, not for them.
In my opinion, the biggest challenges facing this organization are...
The groups has been running in the red for several years and has a limited funding base, harming their credibility. Its reviews useless.
One thing I'd also say is that...
Reviews aren't particularly timely. New 990s are available for some groups more than 6 months before updates are made.
How frequently have you been involved with the organization?
About every six months
When was your last experience with this nonprofit?
2010
Charity Navigator’s rating system was designed to be completely objective and unbiased. We rate all different types of charities, we employ professional staff with all different political preferences and the subjective opinions of our staff do not enter into the equation. A charity’s political leaning makes no impact on its rating. Whether or not a charity receives government funding also has no impact on a charity’s rating. That said, we do have a top 10 list that appears on our site every few months that specifically highlights those highly rated charities that receive no government funding http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten. I encourage you to check out the ‘methodology’ portion of our site to better understand how we rate charities.
Review for GreatNonprofits, Redwood Shores, CA, USA
Great nonprofits appears to be a politically-motivated group pretending to be a dispassionate, non-partisan charity monitor. The first review received by several very well run conservative groups appear to be merely hit pieces. One on Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, for example, says the group should lose its tax-exempt status just because it doesn't agree with the global warming orthodoxy. It's donors sure know already about its writings on the topic and the suggestion that the group should lose its tax-exempt status borders on libel. After reviewing Greatnonprofit's funding sources, it appears this could be by design. The funders are a veritable Who's Who of left-wing environmental funders... W.K. Kellogg, Hewlett and others. This group has no credibility whatsoever.
More Feedback
I've personally experienced the results of this organization in...
Harming the reputation of extremely well-managed, effective free market oriented groups.
If I had to make changes to this organization, I would...
End the anonymous reviews or just shut the whole thing down.
What I've enjoyed the most about my experience with this nonprofit is...
Learning about its funding sources, which gives a pretty good idea of its political leanings... and it is very much to the ideological left.
The kinds of staff and volunteers that I met were...
None.
If this organization had 10 million bucks, it could...
...Harm the reputation of other great organizations
Ways to make it better...
The reviews I saw were fair. Every nutty left-wing group receives positive reviews while all the ones that are right of center with which I'm familiar received negative ones.
In my opinion, the biggest challenges facing this organization are...
Losing credibility because of anonymous, astroturf reviews that are orchestrated from groups with axes to grind.
One thing I'd also say is that...
If greatnonprofits wants to be a credible charity monitor, it should disclose all its sources of funding and the amounts. It should also post the grant proposals sent to these funders so that the public can see what the donors thought they were getting.
How frequently have you been involved with the organization?
About once a year
When was your last experience with this nonprofit?
2010
