Talk:Charity assessment

Untitled

This article has a great amount of reliable source. Could use some grammer and sentence structure.Jenise79 (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC) jenise79

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Livski1996, BrianJohnNIU, Elliotdavis, HJMeier10, JEB2018, Noah Baker. Peer reviewers: Yasmine.Gali, Greatmargaret, Sirhighsmith, Nataliesarby, Jenise79.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

USA Charity Assessment

I think there could be more added to the USA portion of this paper. Maybe go into detail about how they report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliesarby (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

18 months later, this whole article is almost entirely USA, with several snippets of Canada and the UK. What about other countries with English-speaking populations? Also, there are zero links to analogous articles in other-language Wikipedias. Are there any? (I cannot take this on myself. For one thing, I know almost nothing about the topic.) Acwilson9 (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Edit request

Information to be added: Recent empirical research suggests overhead ratios may be a poor measure of nonprofit performance. For instance, studies have failed to find any correlation between overhead ratio and cost-effectiveness (how much good is achieved per dollar). Empirical evidence also suggests a focus on nonprofit overhead rates has resulted in a phenomenon described in the research literature as the "nonprofit starvation cycle". For instance, Lecy and Searing analyzed 25 years of nonprofit data and found a general downward trend in reported overhead expenditures over time. Concerns about a fixation on overhead ratios led GuideStar, BBB Wise Giving Alliance and Charity Navigator to write open letters in 2013 and 2014 urging nonprofits and donors to end the use of the overhead ratio as the sole or main indicator of a nonprofit's performance. Explanation of issue: Currently, the article's critique of the overhead ratio is limited to paraphrasing the opinions of GiveWell's founders, Karnofsky and Hassenfeld. I think the article would be improved by citing the growing body of published empirical research as well as grey literature that suggests the overhead ratio is a flawed measure of nonprofit performance. Doing so would also provide more context as to why the article shifts from discussing overhead to impact-based evaluation. I would suggest adding this new text right after "The United States of America has numerous...", before the subsection on Impact-based evaluation. I'm a fairly new user, so any feedback would be much welcome! Thanks for your patience with any rookie mistakes; I'm learning as I go. References supporting change: title: Anatomy of the Nonprofit Starvation Cycle: An Analysis of Falling Overhead Ratios in the Nonprofit Sector. authors: Jesse D. Lecy, Elizabeth A. M. Searing date: March 30, 2014 journal: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly url: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0899764014527175 title: The Relationship of Nonprofits' Financial Health to Program Outcomes: Empirical Evidence from Nonprofit Arts Organizations author: Mirae Kim date: August 11, 2016 journal: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly url: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0899764016662914 title: Nonprofit Overhead Costs: Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Misleading Reporting, Unrealistic Expectations, and Pressure to Conform authors: William Bedsworth, Ann Goggins Gregory, Don Howard date: April 1, 2008 published: The Bridgespan Group url: https://bridgespan.org/insights/library/pay-what-it-takes/nonprofit-overhead-costs-break-the-vicious-cycle title: Getting What We Pay For: Low Overhead Limits Nonprofit Effectiveness authors: Kennard Wing, Mark A. Hager date: August 1, 2004 publisher: The Urban Institute url: https://urban.org/research/publication/getting-what-we-pay

Dlewis73 (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply 02-MAY-2020

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Prisha Harinath (2020). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  17:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

References