Three Bridges from Charity Navigator to What We Have Learned

The article “The Battle for the Soul of the Nonprofit Sector” written by Berger et al is not long, but from this article, which seems an argument to prove that Charity Navigator (CN) is of significant meaning, I found several linkages from what we have learned in this course so far.

• Results – Oriented Rating. In the book Forces for Good, Crutchfield and Grant write about people in nonprofit organizations are extremely result – oriented. While this topic surprised me a lot, I found it very true in CN’s statements. In the first of the three observations in this article, Berger et al refer that much effort aimed at addressing social problems failed to produce “results” over the last few decades. In fact, the process that CN evaluate a nonprofit organization is mostly the process to evaluate the results of the organization. Through several standards, raters would be able to rate the results of effectiveness, fiscal soundness and accountability of a certain organization. From my point of view, if Crutchfield and Grant are right that nonprofits are results – oriented, then the method that CN use to measure the results should not be doubted.


• Transparency and Accessibility. One of the two critical that CN use to judge whether the organization worth donation and will provide most impact is “for the information regarding performance to be made not only available but readily accessible to the public”. In the book, The Networked Nonprofit, Kanter and Fine raise the example that many nonprofits are using social media to promote themselves, but most of them don’t have a platform for customers to leave comments and give suggestions, for fear of getting negative feedbacks and harm the organizations themselves. Kanter and Fine explained that leave a place for comments actually will do more good than harm to the organization. CN provides a transparent and interactive platform for publics to evaluate the organizations, even though they don’t have a place for comment in their own websites.


• 
  
  Crowdsourcing. It is no doubt that CN did an excellent job in crowdsourcing. By providing the information to those who have relevant background knowledge and are interested in this evaluation, CN not only meet its mission by crowdsourcing, but also improved its awareness. On the other hand, raters gained valuable experience through the process. It is a win-win situation for both the crowd and the organization.