MISSION: The National Jewish Outreach Program (NJOP), www.njop.org was founded in 1987, by Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald, in response to the urgent need to prevent the loss of Jews to Jewish life due to assimilation and lack of Jewish knowledge. NJOP has become one of the largest and most successful Jewish outreach organizations in the world, reaching out to Jews by offering them positive, joyous, Jewish educational opportunities and experiences. NJOP programs are presently offered at more than 3,665 locations across North America, and in 37 countries worldwide. NJOP has successfully reached close to 1,040,000 North American Jews and engaged them in Jewish life.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, NJOP has an overall
rating of two stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of NJOP based on 990 tax returns through
2007:
Overall Rating: Two Stars **
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: Two stars **
Program Expenses: 73.4%
Administrative Expenses: 12.8%
Fundraising Expenses: 13.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.13
(NJOP spends $0.13 to raise $1.)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Two stars **
Primary Revenue Growth: 5.1%
Program Expenses Growth: -0.2%
Working Capital Ratio (years): 0.35
(NJOP can sustain itself for 0.35 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Director, Ephraim Buchwald,was $128,052 which represents 6.05% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of fiscal year 2006, NJOP had total assets of $722,020. Of this figure NJOP had investments of publicly traded securities of $19,158 (in 2005, this figure was $200,174) and cash non-interest bearing investments of $100 and savings and temporary cash investments of $167,833. It had pledges receivable of $492,121. NJOP had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $18,784. Thus, in fiscal year 2006, NJOP operated at a deficit of $128,139.
As of fiscal year 2007, NJOP had total assets of $883,944. Of this figure NJOP had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $100 and savings and temporary cash investments of $406,190. It had pledges receivable of $437,253. NJOP had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $18,617. Thus, in 2007, NJOP operated at an excess of $84,059.
DISCUSSION:
On the 13th anniversary of the Shabbat Across America/Canada
event, NJOP should be acknowledges for its financial insight.
1) NJOP was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between
2005 and 2007, it completely reduced its investments in publicly
traded securities and increased its investments in its liquid savings
and temporary cash investments.
2) As NJOP moved out of risky investments in securities, it moved
from operating at a 2006 deficit to operating with an excess in 2007.
3) NJOP had no exposure to Madoff investments.
4)However, NJOP’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 49% of its 2007 total assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, NJOP should be more transparent about its finances.
NJOP should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) Since NJOP did a superb job at predicting the economic downturn, it should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
In conclusion, website visitors need to be made award of NJOP’s prescient economic forecasting.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
President Obama’s Plan to Reduce the Charitable Deduction
Once in a blue moon, Jupiter is aligned with Mars. Presently,
liberals and conservatives are in alignment over President
Obama’s recent proposal to reduce itemized charitable
deductions. Liberals, who run most of America's non-profits,
and conservatives, who oppose raising taxes, are both opposed
to the president’s proposal.
President Obama’s budget proposal for 2010 includes a
provision to raise the tax rate on the two highest income tax
brackets from 35 % to 39.6% and from 33% to 36% respectively
and to lower the tax benefit from itemized deductions for these
two brackets to 28%. This includes the benefit for charitable
deductions. The money garnered by these changes will be used
to help create a $630 billion fund to be used to fund the
envisioned new health care system.
Non-profits are concerned that this change will cause donors to
give less money to charity. The White House budget chief,
Peter Orszag, responded to this concern by offering the following
example on his blog: “If your’re a teacher making $50,000 and
decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy
a tax break of $150. If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and
you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction – more
than twice the break as the teacher.” According to the editorial
page of the Wall Street Journal (3/10/09), the administration is
turning “…philanthropy into a class issue.”
Instead of wealth redistribution by choice, wherein a donor
chooses what charity to support, this tax change is a step down a slippery slope toward forced redistribution wherein the
government chooses where to direct one's money As taxes increase and itemized deductions decrease, private citizens will become
acclimated to the notion that it is the responsibility of the state to support the less fortunate; private citizens will gradually become less inclined to support the less fortunate on their own initiative.
Government responsibility for the less fortunate is the method of
philanthropy that is prevalent in a welfare state. The nadir of this
slippery slope is best exemplified by the nations in Europe. In
Europe, very few private citizens give to charity. It is worth
noting that greater than 70% of Americans give to charity.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University just published
an analysis of how changes in the tax rate will impact itemized
charitable deductions. It estimated that had the proposed changes
been in affect in 2006, the total itemized contributions from the
4 million highest income households would have dropped off 4.8%
or $3.8 billion. At the time, these high income tax filers accounted
for $81.2 billion out of a total of $186.6 billion that was claimed by
all tax returns with itemized charitable deductions.
The proposed change in reducing the charitable deduction is not
taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place at a time that the economy, according to Warren Buffet, has fallen off a cliff. It is taking place at a time when there have been mega-changes in personal wealth and income. The changes in wealth and income play a larger role in charitable giving than changes in tax rates. The structural changes in the role played by the government in the economy, as recently engineered by the Congress, may lead to long
term changes in wealth and personal income. These structural changes may create a permanent debt for future generations with concomitant changes in the way Americans support the less fortunate.
What makes Americans give almost $200 billion to charity each year
is not pressure from government mandates, but “…a diversity of
interest, freely chosen and passionately pursued.” (Naomi Riley,
Wall Street Journal op-ed page 3/3/09) In order to prevent the
Europeanization of American philanthropy, conservatives and liberals
must work together in order to keep American philanthropy unique
and effective in supporting the least fortunate throughout the world.
liberals and conservatives are in alignment over President
Obama’s recent proposal to reduce itemized charitable
deductions. Liberals, who run most of America's non-profits,
and conservatives, who oppose raising taxes, are both opposed
to the president’s proposal.
President Obama’s budget proposal for 2010 includes a
provision to raise the tax rate on the two highest income tax
brackets from 35 % to 39.6% and from 33% to 36% respectively
and to lower the tax benefit from itemized deductions for these
two brackets to 28%. This includes the benefit for charitable
deductions. The money garnered by these changes will be used
to help create a $630 billion fund to be used to fund the
envisioned new health care system.
Non-profits are concerned that this change will cause donors to
give less money to charity. The White House budget chief,
Peter Orszag, responded to this concern by offering the following
example on his blog: “If your’re a teacher making $50,000 and
decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy
a tax break of $150. If you are Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and
you make that same donation, you get a $350 deduction – more
than twice the break as the teacher.” According to the editorial
page of the Wall Street Journal (3/10/09), the administration is
turning “…philanthropy into a class issue.”
Instead of wealth redistribution by choice, wherein a donor
chooses what charity to support, this tax change is a step down a slippery slope toward forced redistribution wherein the
government chooses where to direct one's money As taxes increase and itemized deductions decrease, private citizens will become
acclimated to the notion that it is the responsibility of the state to support the less fortunate; private citizens will gradually become less inclined to support the less fortunate on their own initiative.
Government responsibility for the less fortunate is the method of
philanthropy that is prevalent in a welfare state. The nadir of this
slippery slope is best exemplified by the nations in Europe. In
Europe, very few private citizens give to charity. It is worth
noting that greater than 70% of Americans give to charity.
The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University just published
an analysis of how changes in the tax rate will impact itemized
charitable deductions. It estimated that had the proposed changes
been in affect in 2006, the total itemized contributions from the
4 million highest income households would have dropped off 4.8%
or $3.8 billion. At the time, these high income tax filers accounted
for $81.2 billion out of a total of $186.6 billion that was claimed by
all tax returns with itemized charitable deductions.
The proposed change in reducing the charitable deduction is not
taking place in a vacuum. It is taking place at a time that the economy, according to Warren Buffet, has fallen off a cliff. It is taking place at a time when there have been mega-changes in personal wealth and income. The changes in wealth and income play a larger role in charitable giving than changes in tax rates. The structural changes in the role played by the government in the economy, as recently engineered by the Congress, may lead to long
term changes in wealth and personal income. These structural changes may create a permanent debt for future generations with concomitant changes in the way Americans support the less fortunate.
What makes Americans give almost $200 billion to charity each year
is not pressure from government mandates, but “…a diversity of
interest, freely chosen and passionately pursued.” (Naomi Riley,
Wall Street Journal op-ed page 3/3/09) In order to prevent the
Europeanization of American philanthropy, conservatives and liberals
must work together in order to keep American philanthropy unique
and effective in supporting the least fortunate throughout the world.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
OneFamily Fund
Mission:
The OneFamily Fund (OFF), www.onefamilyfund.org, provides much-needed assistance to thousands of terror victims throughout Israel on a daily basis. We collect not only money, but all human resources - bringing together people who have suffered through terror attacks, along with caring people who thankfully haven't. We connect people in Israel with people in almost every country around the world. OneFamily provides direct financial, legal, and emotional assistance to victims of terrorism in Israel. In addition, OneFamily provides the family network for world Jewry to express and actuate their natural sense of brotherhood by facilitating direct contact, relationships, and interaction between survivors and world Jewry as individuals, communities, and organizations.
Financial Efficiency Evaluation:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, OFF has an overall
rating of one star (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of OFF based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: One Star *
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 1 Star *
Program Expenses: 63.3%
Administrative Expenses: 21.6%
Fundraising Expenses: 15.0%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.16
(OFF spends $0.16 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: One Star *
Primary Revenue Growth: -13.3%
Program Expenses Growth: -17.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 0.01
(OFF can sustain itself for 0.01 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Chief Executive Officer, Gary Kenzer, was $40,000 which represents 1.28% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of 2006, OFF had net assets of $259,677. Of this figure,
OFF had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $$37,091 and savings and temporary cash investments of $71,818. OFF had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $205,970. It operated at a deficit of $250,489.
Discussion:
OFF is a financially inefficient non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) Charity Navigator has given OFF an overall rating of one star
including an efficiency rating of one star. Too much of its revenue
is spent on administrative and fundraising expenses; and too little
of its revenue is spent on its target – families victimized by terror.
2) OFF has a working capital ratio of 0.01 years. It has no margin
safety against future financial uncertainty as exists right now. OFF
has a limited ability to withstand the present economic downturn.
3) OFF had no exposure to Madoff investments.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, OFF should be more transparent about its finances.
OFF should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
Next Week’s Blog: Obama’s Plan to Reduce the Charitable Deduction
The OneFamily Fund (OFF), www.onefamilyfund.org, provides much-needed assistance to thousands of terror victims throughout Israel on a daily basis. We collect not only money, but all human resources - bringing together people who have suffered through terror attacks, along with caring people who thankfully haven't. We connect people in Israel with people in almost every country around the world. OneFamily provides direct financial, legal, and emotional assistance to victims of terrorism in Israel. In addition, OneFamily provides the family network for world Jewry to express and actuate their natural sense of brotherhood by facilitating direct contact, relationships, and interaction between survivors and world Jewry as individuals, communities, and organizations.
Financial Efficiency Evaluation:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, OFF has an overall
rating of one star (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of OFF based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: One Star *
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 1 Star *
Program Expenses: 63.3%
Administrative Expenses: 21.6%
Fundraising Expenses: 15.0%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.16
(OFF spends $0.16 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: One Star *
Primary Revenue Growth: -13.3%
Program Expenses Growth: -17.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 0.01
(OFF can sustain itself for 0.01 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its Chief Executive Officer, Gary Kenzer, was $40,000 which represents 1.28% of expenses. For comparison purposes, compensation for the President of the American Jewish World Service, Ruth Messinger, was $191,000 which represents 0.79% of expenses.
As of 2006, OFF had net assets of $259,677. Of this figure,
OFF had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $$37,091 and savings and temporary cash investments of $71,818. OFF had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $205,970. It operated at a deficit of $250,489.
Discussion:
OFF is a financially inefficient non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) Charity Navigator has given OFF an overall rating of one star
including an efficiency rating of one star. Too much of its revenue
is spent on administrative and fundraising expenses; and too little
of its revenue is spent on its target – families victimized by terror.
2) OFF has a working capital ratio of 0.01 years. It has no margin
safety against future financial uncertainty as exists right now. OFF
has a limited ability to withstand the present economic downturn.
3) OFF had no exposure to Madoff investments.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, OFF should be more transparent about its finances.
OFF should provide the following information on its web site:
1) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments on the homepage of website, especially since it had NO exposure to Madoff.
Next Week’s Blog: Obama’s Plan to Reduce the Charitable Deduction
Sunday, March 1, 2009
American Friends of the Open University of Israel
MISSION:
The American Friends of the Open University of Israel (AFOUI) www.afoui.org works to expand the curriculum and facilities for the distance learning center at the Open University in Israel, and to provide scholarships to its students. Distance teaching and the self-study method provide conditions that meet the constraints of individuals who work, raise a family, manage a household or serve in the military. The various aspects of distance education developed by the Open University, along with the University's open admission policy, aim to open the world of higher education to all, irrespective of age, sex, place of residence or occupation, in order to enable every individual to realize his or her academic ability.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, AFOUI has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of AFOUI based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 4 Stars ****
Program Expenses: 82.2%
Administrative Expenses: 9.0%
Fundraising Expenses: 8.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.03
(AFOUI spends $0.03 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four Stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 21.0%
Program Expenses Growth: 2.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 2.53
(AFOUI can sustain itself for 2.53 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its President, Ingeborg Rennert,
was $0. For comparison purposes, compensation for the
National Executive Director of the American Friends of
Hebrew University, Peter Willner, was $370,253 which
represents 0.85% of expenses - a very low figure
percentage-wise for non-profits. .
As of 2006, AFOUI had net assets of $5,778,180. Of this figure, AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $0 and savings and temporary cash investments of $398,110. It had pledges receivable of $4,327,626. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,052.
As of 2007, AFOUI had net assets of $4,632,895. Of this figure AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $48,954 and savings and temporary cash investments of $1,905,606 It had pledges receivable of $2,649,233. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,548. Thus, in 2007, AFOUI had a deficit of $1,145,285.
Discussion:
AFOUI is a financially efficient and effective non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) AFOUI was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between 2006 and 2007, it increased its investments in its liquid savings and temporary cash investments.
2) AFOUI has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. It has a working capital ratio of 2.53 years. AFOUI’s working capital ratio of 2.53 years is a measure of its reserve of liquid funds in excess of current liabilities that is available as a margin of safety against future financial uncertainty.
3) AJHS had no exposure to Madoff investments.
However, AFOUI’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 56% of its 2007 net assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, AFOUI should be more transparent about its finances.
AFOUI should provide the following information on its web site:
1) Though its website homepage states that it received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator, many donors do not know what this means. AFOUI should explain the meaning of this rating.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
4) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments; AFOUI had NO exposure to Madoff investments.
5) AFOUI should state that it does not compensate its president.
Next week’s blog: One Family Fund
The American Friends of the Open University of Israel (AFOUI) www.afoui.org works to expand the curriculum and facilities for the distance learning center at the Open University in Israel, and to provide scholarships to its students. Distance teaching and the self-study method provide conditions that meet the constraints of individuals who work, raise a family, manage a household or serve in the military. The various aspects of distance education developed by the Open University, along with the University's open admission policy, aim to open the world of higher education to all, irrespective of age, sex, place of residence or occupation, in order to enable every individual to realize his or her academic ability.
FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY EVALUATION:
According to Charity Navigator
(http://www.charitynavigator.org/),
America’s leading charity evaluator, AFOUI has an overall
rating of four stars (four stars is the highest rating.)
Charity Navigator provides the following financial
breakdown of AFOUI based on 990 tax returns through
2006:
Overall Rating: Four Stars ****
Organizational Efficiency:
Efficiency Rating: 4 Stars ****
Program Expenses: 82.2%
Administrative Expenses: 9.0%
Fundraising Expenses: 8.7%
Fundraising Efficiency: $0.03
(AFOUI spends $0.03 to raise $1)
Organizational Capacity:
Capacity Rating: Four Stars ****
Primary Revenue Growth: 21.0%
Program Expenses Growth: 2.6%
Working Capital Ratio: 2.53
(AFOUI can sustain itself for 2.53 years
without generating new revenue.)
Organizational capacity refers to an organization’s
ability to sustain itself over time. Charities that exhibit
consistent revenue and expenses growth are more
likely to sustain their programs and services over the
long haul.
Compensation for its President, Ingeborg Rennert,
was $0. For comparison purposes, compensation for the
National Executive Director of the American Friends of
Hebrew University, Peter Willner, was $370,253 which
represents 0.85% of expenses - a very low figure
percentage-wise for non-profits. .
As of 2006, AFOUI had net assets of $5,778,180. Of this figure, AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $0 and savings and temporary cash investments of $398,110. It had pledges receivable of $4,327,626. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,052.
As of 2007, AFOUI had net assets of $4,632,895. Of this figure AFOUI had investments of publicly traded securities of $0 and cash non-interest bearing investments of $48,954 and savings and temporary cash investments of $1,905,606 It had pledges receivable of $2,649,233. AFOUI had fixed assets of land, buildings and equipment less accumulated depreciation of $1,548. Thus, in 2007, AFOUI had a deficit of $1,145,285.
Discussion:
AFOUI is a financially efficient and effective non-profit institution. This conclusion is based on the following facts:
1) AFOUI was prescient about the financial crisis of 2008. Between 2006 and 2007, it increased its investments in its liquid savings and temporary cash investments.
2) AFOUI has received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator. It has a working capital ratio of 2.53 years. AFOUI’s working capital ratio of 2.53 years is a measure of its reserve of liquid funds in excess of current liabilities that is available as a margin of safety against future financial uncertainty.
3) AJHS had no exposure to Madoff investments.
However, AFOUI’s ability to withstand the present economic downturn is questionable as 56% of its 2007 net assets are based on pledges. Donors’ ability to fulfill on past commitments is uncertain due to the unknown effects of the economic downturn on individual donors.
Recommendations: The recent financial turmoil, caused by the Wall Street and Madoff scandals, has also affected the relationship between donor and non-profit. The turmoil has caused donors to become uncertain and more selective in giving to non-profits. Non-profits that are transparent about their finances will regain the lost trust of its donors sooner than those non-profits that are not transparent about their finances. In order to reach out to more selective donors, AFOUI should be more transparent about its finances.
AFOUI should provide the following information on its web site:
1) Though its website homepage states that it received an overall four star rating from Charity Navigator, many donors do not know what this means. AFOUI should explain the meaning of this rating.
2) It should provide its investment philosophy and a breakdown of its investments on a semi-annual basis.
3) It should provide its three most recently filed tax returns.
4) It should provide information about its exposure to Madoff investments; AFOUI had NO exposure to Madoff investments.
5) AFOUI should state that it does not compensate its president.
Next week’s blog: One Family Fund
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)