’Tis the season to open our hearts and wallets (hopefully, we don’t need a crowbar) to benefit the pet charities of our choice.
But before we yield to heart-wrenching videos of shivering hounds and snow-encrusted kittens stacked up in metal cages like cordwood, it helps to know exactly where our money is going.
Bigger may not always mean better in terms of cost-benefit ratio. Some household names in the pet advocacy world maintain hefty operating budgets and apparently utilize their funds more efficiently than others.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is widely known for taking on puppy mills, factory farms, trophy hunts and cruelty-ridden industries. But while the high-profile group gets top marks for accountability and transparency from the watchdog, Charity Navigator (CN), it is rated low for its financials.
Per data reported by CN, HSUS spent an average of 27.4% of its overall budget on fundraising and 2.9% on administrative expenses over three years ending in FY 2017. About 69.5% was spent on the programs and services it delivers. Dividing the charity’s average fundraising, administrative and program expenses individually by its average total functional expenses yielded the above percentages. HSUS received a score of 5 out of 10 for fundraising efficiency and an overall score of 75.49 out of 100.
At 5% for administrative expenses and about 20% for fundraising expenses over the same three-year period, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is rated fair for its financials. This left almost 75% of its overall budget for programs and services. ASPCA also scored 5 out of 10 for fundraising efficiency, but garnered an overall score of 84.48 out of 100.
The flagship humane organization in the Americas is recognized for local and national leadership in humane education, legislative services and shelter outreach, among other services. Additionally, ASPCA was awarded “Leader” status by GlobalGiving (GG), a trusted “Impact Information” provider for CN. GG acknowledges nonprofits that “demonstrate listening to the people they serve, learning and improving their impact.”
The Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) had a higher administrative budget (8.9%), but its fundraising expenses were the lowest of the three groups (17.9%). About 73.1% of the BFAS’s overall budget was dedicated to programs and services. BFAS scored 7.5 out of 10 for fundraising efficiency and an overall score of 88.75, higher than ASPCA and HSUS.
BFAS has spearheaded the movement to end euthanasia in America’s shelters and to end pet homelessness by building a nationwide network of community programs and partnerships. They also operate the world’s largest companion animal sanctuary in Kanab, Utah. GG also assigned “Leader” status to BFAS.
Hard numbers for financial performance metrics calculations were provided by HSUS, ASPCA and BFAS on Form 990 filed with the IRS.
Every organization that does good needs to sustain itself. Every one of the organizations listed above does good work and deserves the donations it receives. There’s no argument here.
What we must determine is our degree of comfort with how our gift will be allocated. Larger infrastructure requires greater overhead and promotional costs and incentives at the administrative level to retain skilled personnel. Therefore, a greater proportion of our gift will go toward “sustaining” the organization.
We may not always know an organization’s true value at the administrative level and what exactly could be done to boost financial efficiency. Based on CN data, some organizations are striving to do better.
Bigger budgets can fund a broader reach which can mean more bang for the buck in terms of the number of animals ultimately served. Those of us who want greater assurance that our gift will have an immediate and direct impact on the lives of abused and/or abandoned pets may consider donating to a local, grass-roots nonprofit. The executives of these groups are more likely to get their boots dirty daily.
And, they “pay” themselves last.