| Environmental Protection and Conservation |
Sector Average |
|
Efficiency Score |
32.92 |
|
Capacity Score |
18.49 |
|
Overall Score |
51.41 |
|
Total Revenue |
$8,268,175 |
|
Total Expenses |
$7,109,564 |
|
Excess/Deficit |
$1,158,610 |
|
Net Assets |
$26,862,991 |
|
CEO Salary |
$104,703 |
|
Fundraising Efficiency |
$0.12 |
|
Fundraising Expenses |
9.9% |
|
Program Expenses |
78.0% |
|
Administrative Expenses |
12.1% |
|
Primary Revenue Growth |
5.7% |
|
Program Expense Growth |
6.1% |
|
Working Capital (years) |
1.33 |
If you work for or give money to an NGO, you should take a good look at its financials. In the U.S. Charity Navigator does an excellent job. The numbers above are taken from Charity Navigator and give the average performance of 265 charities working in environmental protection and conservation. The financial ratios and performance categories are explained here.
So, if an NGO or charity you work with is not in Charity Navigator’s database, get its annual reports for the past few years, and do the math.
Charity Navigator states that “We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive zero points for their overall organizational efficiency score.”
In my opinion, that should be changed to 50%. Any charity that spends less than 50% on program expenses is just not doing what it is supposed to do with its money.
