Do the discrepancies between the Charity Navigator ratings, the GuideStar ratings, and Crutchfield & McLeod Grant’s understanding of a high-impact nonprofit provide yet another example of the subjectivity of evaluating or determining effectiveness? Different metrics or conceptions consider different considerations based upon divergent perspectives. What is your opinion of such dichotomies? Perhaps the focus on effectiveness or impact is a futile effort if different parties reach wholly different conclusions.
Many suggest doing away with these rating systems as they compare the incomparable. [Instead, nonprofit administrators should focus on making practical suggestions to improve their agencies’ effect, rather than participating in the vain effort of hashing out their agencies’ attained level of effectiveness. Many administrators do this, so why fuddle this up by adding the effectiveness debate to the mix? Hmm? It makes you think, doesn’t it? And are we really comfortable with placing effectiveness or impact on a simple spectrum? Is there such thing as complete/perfect effectiveness? And what does two stars or 30% mean? Two stars or 30% of what? Well, I suppose five stars is too much for the human brain to contemplate. I suggest that assessing effectiveness or impact requires too many considerations or perspectives for simplification. ] Coupled with the vast complexity of society and the deeply intertwined nature of social issues (blah blah blah, you’ve heard this before), what is the point in creating a subjective standard by which to compare organizations that resemble each other merely based upon a tax designation? Perhaps the point is to create conventions, or widely accepted and often-arbitrary social standards by which we are coerced to follow (ex. professional attire, many laws, religious and cultural traditions, popular culture, etc.). However, these norms, standards, and conventions often leave something to be desired, namely critical thinking. If we do not think for ourselves, we contribute to the mess and we become suspect perpetuators. We bestow greater authority upon outdated norms. Though it is easier to fall in line, it may not be the right or the best progressive approach. After all, if we are not striving to advance, are we doing anything at all?
So I ask, are these rating systems (e.g. GuideStar and Charity Navigator) truly trustworthy? Statistics reveal their wide adoption rates and broad usage. Nonetheless, are we honestly able to hold these systems (or authors’ suggestions) in such high regard as to warrant our trust? Is there a happy medium between trust and scrutiny? Is it a personal determination? Should we set yet another standard? Is this the best we can do as a whole and individually?
I think everyone needs a higher dosage of thinking. I want to be first in line, as you know I do not like to share.
Alright Andrew, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I do agree with you that these "standards" DO require closer scrutiny and critical thinking. However, I do not accept that standards are inherently 'suspect' or are the machinations of a devious entity wishing to impose their own subjective concepts upon others.
I sincerely believe that people seek to generalize and categorize in order to offer a broader understanding on a given problem or idea. Hence, many academics have sought to conceptualize an objective system to explain nonprofit effectiveness. Like you Andrew, I do not think that the objective standards that exist for nonprofit effectiveness (especially financial ratios) are all that useful or comprehensive. BUT, I do believe that they are a component of what constitutes effectiveness, and further, that these standards serve as a starting point for a deeper critical thinking in the future.
The intent of those creating and sustaining standards may be honest and of good faith. However, the actual effect and unintended (though logically foreseeable) consequences are often controversial. Suspect (used here as "harmful") is a strong word meant to draw attention to the gravity of this dilemma, since objective standards are an oxymoron. This is why much prudent contemplation is needed when addressing these issues. Thus, I question the approach (rather than the intention) associated with generalization/standardization.
ReplyDelete