Today I watched the new Invisible Children video (their 11th) with great interest. It’s inspiring for sure, but the collective internet-rage-face-backlash by some over the practices of the organization has really stirred something in me.
I’m not an expert, but I do work in this sector. So I’d love to try and clear up some misconceptions about the industry, and about how non-profits actually work:
I work for a very large non-profit doing administrative analysis, so I won’t speak to the programmatic side of what Invisible Children does. These are complicated issues, in which reams of very talented people give their whole careers to find solutions. Speaking without doing your research can make you look ridiculous (cough cough, Rush).
That said, it’s safe to say that they shouldn’t be posing with armies and weapons, or using “By any Means Necessary” style phrases in their appeals. We can all agree that lasting change won’t happen by propping up some bad guys while you try to get rid of other bad guys. Here’s a good example of how that can go wrong. Fortunately, Invisible Children has a much more holistic strategy than that, but it’s hard to fit everything into a 30 minute video.
Since much of the criticism of Invisible Children has been focused on their finances, here’s some things to consider:
A common misconception about evaluating non-profits is to look only at expense ratios. For example, Charity A gets $10 in donations dropped into a bucket on the side of the highway, and only spent $1 in fundraising supplies (the bucket). That’s 90% of funds going to the cause!
Charity B gets $100,000 in donations, but spends $50,000 developing a gala event. Since this is a 50% ratio, we should look at Charity B as being less effective, right?
Probably not. Charity B could likely trim that expense ratio down for the next event, but they still raised $49,991 more than Charity A for the cause. So which one of these really had the greater impact?
A lot of the hullabaloo is that Invisible Children only spent like 37% of funds on direct African program causes. What this criticism misses is that Invisible Children, as a matter of mission, has as a main focus that they are an advocacy organization. If you included advocacy, they had 80% of their funds go to their mission, which is exactly the normal ratio for non-profit organizations.
So if you invested in Invisible Children and are now upset that they spent half of their programmatic money on advocacy, you might be guilty of what tech support guys call “user error”. This is a euphemistic way of saying you screwed up and didn’t evaluate your donation properly. Each non-profit has a different methodology, or “product mix” if you prefer. Invisible Children makes it pretty clear on their website how they seek to affect change. If you disagree with their methods, there’s plenty of other charities out there that would love to have your donation.
And it looks like they pulled off these numbers WITHOUT gifts-in-kind (these are physical donations like school supplies), corporate matching, or other revenue streams that most non-profits love because they can use them to inflate the favorability in their expense ratios. These items represent real value on their books, offset other administrative expenses, and often don’t require much overhead to manage, because companies just need to dump the product for a tax write off and some good PR. These things are a win for everyone, and it’s why you can hear organizations say things like “for every dollar you donate, a dollar forty goes out into the field.”
Another point made against Invisible Children is that these guys are “lining their pockets” with the funds. Really? Google their IRS 990 form, which most non-profits must submit annually. The three guys in charge each took home less than $90,000 for the year in 2011. This is what a larger non-profit organization pays its middle managers. Further, consider that their revenue jumped nearly 50% in one year. In a flat economy. If these guys were in it for the money, they could get snatched up by any organization or any for profit company they wanted to at any time and make a lot more.
That said, I would like info on their large travel expenses and some clarification on who audited their books. But financially, I really don’t think there is much to worry about here.
The real question is, are they making an impact? Well, if you went anywhere near the internets today, you know the answer. Your Twitter and Facebook exploded with #KONY2012 fever. Consider that two-thirds of Americans can’t name a single supreme court justice. (Rick Perry can name two, and is working on a third). Because of Invisible Children, millions of young people can now find Uganda on a map, and they now know something about the plight of people outside of their own newsfeeds.
So yes, advocacy, when combined with more mature programs run by organizations with greater resources, can all work together to do something amazing. There’s no reason Invisible Children can’t serve as a very effective marketing arm for those PhD’s in other organizations whose white papers are frankly, just not engaging and won’t capture people’s hearts, minds, and hands. We can all be on the same team.
So what if Invisible Children is the Tim Tebow of charities? Even if it basically has one move and stumbles awkwardly at times, its passion has inspired an entire industry. No one expects Tim to be the next Tom Brady, and no one expects Invisible Children to be the next World Vision. But they fill a HUGE niche, so let’s all cheer them on. Seriously, if in ten years my now three year old daughter is making YouTube videos like Invisible Children has inspired these kids to do, I’ll be the proudest dad on my block.
They’ve only been around for like 8 years. Give them a break. And don’t begrudge others for getting excited about social causes. There’s enough cynicism out there already, and we don’t have time for that anymore.