In chapter 8 of Forces for Good, several high-impact nonprofits received a poor rating from GuideStar. Despite the low ratings, Leslie Crutchfield and Heather McLeod Grant (2008) noted that these nonprofits tend to not spend too much time worrying about the metrics. Furthermore, the high-impact nonprofits continue to “spend what they need to sustain their impact” (pg203). In other words, Share Our Strength’s two-star rating from GuideStar and Charity Navigator does not deter the organization’s functional operations.
Chapter 8 best examines the strength of high-impact nonprofit organizations. GuideStar and Charity Navigator are trustworthy and widely adopted rating systems. Clearly, low ratings by GuideStar have little to no affect on the high-impact nonprofit organizations. Low rated, high-impact nonprofit organizations like Share Our Strength are still able to have multiple funders, providers, and beneficiaries whom actively participate. Are high-impact nonprofit organizations’ “movements” so strong that they can triumph over poor ratings?
I thought the Guidestar ratings were interesting as well. After all of the work we have done with the Charity Navigator project, I still wonder what all goes into a person's decision to donate to an organization. Does a person only consult one of these rating websites? Do they gather other information about the organization through other websites or the organization itself? And, how much do these ratings matter when matched against a personal tie to the organization, such as a volunteer experience or story of a family member or friend who has been involved with the organization? While I do understand and appreciate what Charity Navigator and Guidestar attempt to do, I am not sure I am convinced that poor ratings can really overshadow personal connections to an organization.
ReplyDelete