Ken Berger's slides from his debate with William Schambra (Director of the Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal at The Hudson Institute) at the Grants Managers Network Annual Conference. The debate centered on the realities of ranking charities.

1. Your Guide Where the
to Heart
Intelligent Meets the
Giving Mind

2. DEFINING OUR TERMS – THE SIZE OF CHARITIES

3. OUR DEFINITIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY &
TRANSPARENCY (per Prof. Brackman Reiser)
ACCOUNTABILITY - is an obligation or willingness by
a charity to explain its actions to its stakeholders.
1) FINANCIAL - to safeguard and manage the
charities financial resources.
2) ORGANIZATIONAL – to consistently follow rules of
governance and operational process.
3) MISSION – to set goals and then measure and
manage performance to assure the charity is
achieving meaningful results.
TRANSPARENCY - an obligation or willingness by a
charity to publish and make available critical
3
accountability data about the organization.

4. FROM ACCOUNTABILITY IN ONE
DIMENSION TO THREE AND BEYOND
CN 1.0 CN 2.0 CN 3.0
2002 - 2011 - 2013 -
Financial Organizational Mission
Financial Accountability Results A scalable, in
Health (Governance) Reporting depth, multi-
& dimensional
Transparency charity rating
system.
THE FUTURE (CN 4.0?):
OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

5. QUALITIES OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN N.P. ORGS.
Organizational: Governance (A&T)
Mission: Results (RR)
High
• Strategy/Theory of Change
• Passion
Performance • Positive, sustainable
• Experience • Data management discipline change
• Persistence • Constituent feedback • Independently
HIGHER RISK • Creativity evaluated LOWER RISK
• Outcome focused intent
INVESTMENT • Ability to get other s to follow • Relate efforts to outcomes INVESTMENT
• Learn and adjust approach
• Continuous improvement
Capable
Impact
Leadership
Financial: Financial Health Health
Financial
* Inspired by the Alliance for Effective Social Investing

6. THE DONOR PROBLEM
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Org's Effectiveness 90%
How the Org will Use my Donation 87%
Quality of Leadership 78%
Percent of Costs to Overhead 76%
Ease of Donation 62%
Not Being Asked for Money Too Often 59%
Ability to Direct Donation's Use 46%
Regular Progress Reports 41%
Endorsements by Person I Trust 34%
Prompt and Sincere Thank You 31%
Ability to Get Involved 30%
Org Approach - Novel / Innovative 28%
Contact with the End Beneficiaries 24%
* Based on the Money for Good donor research of Hope Consulting
6

7. The Nonprofit Sector Problem*
“… there is virtually no credible evidence
that most nonprofit organizations actually
produce any social value.”
*“The End of Charity” by David Hunter – Philadelphia Social Innovations Journal

8. THE BENEFICIARY PROBLEM
8

9. THE PROBLEM SOLVED
(The Nonprofit
Marketplace
Hewlett Foundation,
2008)

10. HOW WE ARE HELPING SOLVE THE PROBLEM