This week and the last few...

I found the information in Forces for Good and on the blog this week interesting because in many ways it connects the information we have covered in the previous weeks and for this week. There is a great deal of debate over concentration on certain elements of “effectiveness” and how they can distort the opinions that stakeholders, and outsiders, form about an organization, whether it’s Andrea discussion of the poor rating Charity Navigator gave an organization she supports, or Matt’s debate over small versus large budgets. Interestingly, I think that this is one of the reasons that the authors of The Networked Nonprofit were arguing for transparency – because these misinterpretations can be avoided or explained.

For example, if an organization is working to combat AIDS in Africa (concept out of left field, I know, but go with me) and has been working to develop an effective distribution system to deliver medication to more people their travel expenses may look absurd. Some people may think that every employee in the nonprofit has been charging the gas they use to drive to work to the organization, when in all reality an employee has been traveling back and forth to Africa. If, as a result of these trips, tens of thousands of people will now receive medication that they could not get before, I would be more than willing to begin or continuing supporting their work. This is the type of information that is not highlighted when organizations are reviewed using only financial ratios but it is the type of information that an organization could spread to its supporters, and potential supporters, using social media.