Now it is a "scam"? I dunno, Andrew, you're on your own with that one.
I'm not sure whether the HRC is technically a charitable organization, but they have NOT hidden their financial statements!
ADMIN EXPENSE
I pulled an annual report from their website. Their 2006 Admin Expense ratio was 12.6%.
If one compares them to a set of foundations, the HRC have staff and a national effort, which are important determinants that they probably cannot do without. Looking at these figures, one could make an argument that they are, in fact, on the high side, even though they run 2-4 somewhat non-overlapping programs rather than single dimension organizations. If they were to trim that ratio to the 9-10% range, that would mean cutting $220-300K in expenses (that is one measure of the "sheer scale" of it!).
I wasn't able to compare with figures for NGLTF, who haven't posted any financial statements (that I found). Same for the ACLU.
The SLDN reports a very, very lean 5.2% for Admin Expenses and a complete set of audited statements. :-)
The NACCP reports show Admin Expesnes of 22% (they have a different organizational structure, but it's arguably a comparison organization).
The small but effective Horizon Foundations has an expense ratio of 8%, although they are primarily a grantmaking group.
Sadly, I couldn't find the total number of employees listed for any of these organizations (that might be an interesting figure to have). There are 28 staff listed on the HRC website of 'select staff and bios', but no information on whether each and every is paid or pro bono. If one takes all 28, that suggests an average salary of about $40K (althought staff salaries may not be carried in the 'management expenses' line-item - I don't know foundation accounting rules well, so...).
PROGRAM EXPENSES, FUNDRAISING EXPENSES RATIOS
Total program expenses as a percentage of all expenses runs to 64% on the 2006 figures at HRC. That is right on the borderline. It doesn't suggest the worst-of-the-worst by a long stretch, nor does it suggest super lean.
Fundraising expense per dollar of related contribution isn't so easy to calculate (I don't know what the 'capital campaign' relates to), but it is circa 30%. Believe it or not that is not extraordinarily high (more than 35% is when some watchdogs start to throw up red flags). Despite its high management exp, NAACP runs at about 25% for this same fund raising exp ratio (my figures include membership dues as related contributions ...).
WHY NOT "ACCOUNTABILITY" FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST HRC?
If the issue is "accountability", Gill is accountable to no one but himself, from what I've read, right, so ... ?
sullylink
