Efficiency of fund raising efforts.

[Pedro]

I found this on the rocky mtn elk foundation website. More brains may be necessary in these area for Defenders' of Wildlife and Sierra clubbers.. I think they may be illegals running those groups. I recognized some names on their boards of directors, some don't speak english I bet.

 

[pa mt man]

If you check with charity navigator the Rocky Mt Elk doesn't fair too well. In fact, it does a poorly compared to simular charities and the others on the list.

 

[Tom]

That's great information. Thanks.

I think there can be high cost projects that are important too their members' goals and they spend their money on them. Like if they wanted to get the word out on some federal bill or something coming up for a vote, they might pay a bunch of young kids to walk the streets, the malls, etc. and handout a flyer, make phone calls, etc.

 

[Erik in AK]

Maybe so but the RMEF still outspends most so-called conservation organizations in total dollars spent on things that directly benefit wildlife/habitat. On a side note I imagine Bugle and the TV shows they sponsor count as advertising and cost a lot to produce. RMEF is still a top-notch pro-wildlife group IMO.

All in all good info, thanks Pede

 

[danr55]

Looks like RMEF gets most of thier items used at fund raisers, donated. I guess that's a good thing. I would like to see a chart that explains funds raised in relation to funds used for overhead (facilities, salaries, promotions, etc.) vs. funds that are used to directly effect the intended objective. In the case of RMEF, that would be wildlife and habitat.

 

[Oak]

Looks like the elk foundation has slipped quite a bit in the last couple of years. Their primary revenue dropped from $39.5 million in 2002 to $16.8 million in 2003, while expenses went up. Six percent of expenses is administration, while 5% is fundraising.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/4406.htm

Oak

 

[JoseCuervo]

It is interesting that the Sierra Club gets a 4 Star rating 69/70 for their overall efforts, while the RMEF is a 2 Star rating with 49/70 as per Charity Navigator

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/5838.htm

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/4406.htm

 

[Tom]

Why is that?

It looks like Sierra Club raises money easier, so their efficiency is higher. They're pier organizations did worse.

RMEF, gets less money for a dollar spent fund raising and has higher admin costs.
Their pier organizations, which were bird and fish groups, did better.

That does say something, it seems like.

 

[Pedro]

Predator Conservation Alliance gets a 1-star rating...

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have always heard that the issue with RMEF was the Bugle magazine. Did it count as money spent for Fundraising or not....

 

[noharleyyet]

I'm wondering about the factors driving the primary revenue/program expenses ratio from 2001 surplus to 2002 deficit. Would like to see same ratio for last year (2004) also.

 

[Tom]

primary revenue/program expenses ratio from 2001 surplus to 2002 deficit. Would like to see same ratio for last year (2004) also.

It sounds like you're an accountant, what is that?

 

[JoseCuervo]

It sounds like you're an accountant, what is that?

An accountant is a person who keeps track of the finanical books of an organization.

 

[Tom]

Haha, so what's that ratio deal there, the deficit one that he wants to see?

 

[noharleyyet]

It's a fairly simple analysis of the charts on the rating links Tom. It's a pretty straightforward question. Did you look at them or are you just trying to be cute at my expense?

 

[Tom]

I'm hoping you'll help me decide what that means. I looked at the web pages, but I didn't see those ratios? I guess I get it, after thinking about it some, they spent a lot one year and were in the hole the next year? It just sounds like they have big projects they save up for, so that ratio goes up and down. What else does it mean?

Please dissregard the comments and questions if you feel they are at your expense. If you know the answer, that would be great though.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'm thinking your conclusions are correct and I guess that was my original question. I had the years wrong anyway...it was the 02 to 03 years that showed an inverse revenue to expense ratio...04's info would be beneficial to show existing fiduciary activity.
And no, I'm not an accountant... take a look at the bar charts on Jose's charitynavigator... RMEF...post # 7, bottom link

 

[pa mt man]

I know this is off topic, but people sure do donate a lot of money.

 

[1_pointer]

I imagine the 22ac the RMEF bought in Missoula for a new headquarters hurt their more recent figures. IMO, it's worth it though, the old place isn't much of a good showcase for what they do.