Efficiency ratings

[dgibson]

Ducks Unlimited recently reported an efficiency rating of 85%, meaning that $0.85 of every dollar received goes directly to their stated cause (i.e., conservation of wetlands). Having been involved with charities in the past, I know that this percentage is pretty impressive if it's true. I wonder what RMEF's rating is? How about PETA? Or is this rating just a numbers game...who says what expenditures count toward "the cause"? Do PETA's magazine ads count, even though they do nothing for animals and everything for PETA?

MY OPINION: I know this article is not directly related to dams or ATV's, so if anyone needs a clarification regarding what this has to do with hunting please say so.

 

[Oak]

Well, I looked it up. Here's what's on the RMEF's website. Looks pretty good to me.

"The American Institute of Philanthropy consistently recognizes RMEF as one of America’s most efficient conservation organizations. For 2003, RMEF was again awarded an A rating, the only species-focused, sportsman-based group to receive that honor. In a 2002 comparison of charitable conservation organizations by Charity Navigator, RMEF earned a four-star rating and ranked just ahead of Ducks Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation and Trout Unlimited. Internal Revenue Service reporting indicates that approximately 90 cents of every dollar raised by RMEF go directly to on-the-ground conservation achievement, considered exemplary performance among 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporations. The below chart, published by the “Sacramento Bee” in 2001, shows that RMEF spends just $6 to raise $100."

http://www.rmef.org/pages/foundfacts.html

Oak

 

[dgibson]

Ah, very interesting, Oak. I poked around a little looking for PETA's on their website, but of course I didn't find anything but propoganda.

Sounds like RMEF is even better. Also, on the AIP website, I found that several other conservation orgs did well...click here. The "animal protection" section didn't have nearly so many or so well-known. Fascinating.

**EDITED PART: Ah, here we go...PETA gets a 41.93 on this list, compared to RMEF's 61.60. Both of their "efficiencies" are in the 30's here, though. Hmmm.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-03-2003 09:52: Message edited by: dgibson ]</font>

 

[Oak]

I think their "efficiency rating" is different than what we think of. It's not based on dollars per 100 spent on the mission, because their highest possible score is 40 (click on the line that says "Efficiency Rating"). So RMEF's rating of 39.10 out of 40 looks pretty good.

Oak

*edited part: Duh,

I looked again, and right at the top it shows that RMEF spends 91% on programs. So that's better than RMEF claimed.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-03-2003 11:21: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey DG,

Can we change this post topic to breaching dams, Welfare Ranchers, or Fat-Assed ATV riders yet??

It looks like we have had 3-4 reples on YOUR topic, now let's get this switched over to MY topics...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MY OPINION: I know this article is not directly related to dams or ATV's, so if anyone needs a clarification regarding what this has to do with hunting please say so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you consider the expense of Bugle to be a fund raising device? I bet RMEF does not classify it as 'fundraising' but something like 'eductation outreach'. I kind of view Bugle as a FundRaising device, and if you look at the standard $35 membership, I would bet there are a few dollars of that going to the prodution of Bugle, in order to raise more funds.

 

[dgibson]

I'm not a member of the RMEF, but I know that several other organizations, when you read their fine print, tell you that x dollars of your membership fee goes toward the cost of the magazine and therefore isn't tax deductible. Even the NRA does it, and they're for-profit. So, legally speaking, I would say that Bugle isn't a fundraising device per se.

Yeah, my topics never get more than a handful of replies...it's kind of like an orchestra performance versus WWF Smackdown. One has lots of attendees, and the other...well, at least it isn't wrestling.

 

[1_pointer]

Bugle wouldn't have to use any money from memberships if they accepted ad money from ATV companies. How about that segway?

I find it pretty impressive that they have those types of efficiency ratings. I would assume that a smaller org. may better them, just do to logistics and being less cumbersome. I think anything over 50% would be needed for me to consider even giving to the org. How does one prove money is going to the 'cause' without it providing something? Each of these are habitat based orgs which is easier to see the result.

 

[dgibson]

1_p, small orgs might surprise you. HHH took some criticism early on because we spent so much of our income on business items and not much on aiding hunters. But, when your income is only $300, it's easy to see that $250 has to go to the phone bill, postage, etc., etc. and that only leaves $50 for assistance. Percentage-wise it looked like we were shafting people, but in reality we were scraping to make ends meet. Unfortunately it's still true that you have to spend money to make it.

 

[Ten Bears]

It's good to some sportsmens dollars are being well spent. Nice jab 1-P about the ATV adds in Bugle.

I don't belong toany of those groups, but that may change someday. I didn't look at the lists, was BRC on any of them???? I don't belong to them either, just curious.

 

[1_pointer]

Not a personal jab, just wanted to get the topic to ATVs for 'Gunner's sake. He likes to talk about them. Though, 'tis true that they do not accept ATV ads. However, they do use ATVs are raffle prizes.

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P, I can see it wasn't a personal jab, but one made in jest.

Hey, DG, I think I get the fewest responses per topic started, and NUT is a close second, and you rank way above us.

 

[Nut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ten Bears:
Hey, DG, I think I get the fewest responses per topic started, and NUT is a close second, and you rank way above us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are lousy thread starters arent we?

 

[Nut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ten Bears:
Hey, DG, I think I get the fewest responses per topic started, and NUT is a close second, and you rank way above us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are lousy thread starters arent we?

 

[Ten Bears]

Yes NUT,we are.