Some suggested changes:
- The form should ask the organization for the number of full-time staff members and the number of part-time or part-year staff members. There is now no information on staff size (only payroll size).
- Direct and indirect public support (Part I, items 1a and 1b) should be broken down to indicate support from (1) individuals; (2) businesses; and (3) foundations. This is very basic information that is important for understanding a charitable organization. And do we really need to distinquish "direct" and "indirect" public support?
- When program spending (Parts II & III) occurs in more than one nation, there should be a breakdown by nation or grouping of nations. This is particularly important for NGOs that have programs in developed countries as well as LDCs. If a US-based NGO does domestic and international work, one wants to know what the proportions are.
- NGOs that have multiple programs, as most large ones do, should provide a breakdown of
program spending by program. This is requested in Part III, but not required. Some organizations
describe various programs without indicating spending allocations. This is the case, for example, with
The Nature Conservancy, which gives a lump figure of $453m for program spending for FY 2003. This
information is of key importance - much more important that knowing the amounts spent on
telephone, postage and so on.
Integrating this point with the preceding one, programs should be delineated by geographic scope, where appropriate. Thus you might have a "South Pacific corral reef conservation program", an "Indian Ocean corral reef conservation program", and a "North America educational program".
- Information on the organization's Board members should include a mini-bio of a couple of
sentences that includes name, citizenship, location, occupation and employer. Some NGOs include
such information; other supply simply a list of names.
Home | Financial info | NGOs | Projects | Forum | Your input | Glossary