Quote Originally Posted by mrmustang View Post
Without taking things off topic and down the rabbit hole I'll respond:

Yes, they still give away $400,000,000 which gives them the rating they have, but that still does not wash with me as it cost $1,600,000,000 for them to be able to do so. Just imagine if you will what just half that administrative money could have done for their target assistance audience.

Bill S.
As you say, "Without taking things off topic and down the rabbit hole I'll respond:"
The Charity Watch writeup is confusing unless you read and understand the entire article, and then check their tables of efficiencies. Because they are not required to file the same paperwork as the "normal" non-profits (Salvation Army is classified as a "church") their numbers were communicated in their format, and your math doesn't wash. Their "expense" of $1.6B is actually their distribution to their programs, and being out of $2B collected that gives them an efficiency rating of 80% that year. More recent figures have the SA as high as 84%. They "...rank high on finance, but low on governance" (Charity Watch's words), which is policies. I have no idea what their efficiency rating is for NZ, and with that I am done. You can lead a horse to water.....