I’d want to know more about the organization’s history—especially funding history—before deciding what weight to assign to a lack of evidence of “specific actions taken by SPI (besides insubstantial actions such as posting on instagram).” It’s a young organization—the IRS approval letter was issued in April 2024. The rest of this comment takes at face value the absence of specific actions; I have no basis to weigh in on that either way.
For instance, if this were an all-volunteer organization that had raised minimal sums, then I’d be inclined to assess more softly—more along the lines of too young / not enough information yet than a straight do-not-recommend. I would be more inclined toward a more categorical non-recommendation if the organization had raised significant funds long enough ago that it should should be able to identify some specific activities with a plausible theory of impact by now. Making serious fundraising attempts without a plausible public action plan might also trigger a straight do-not-recommend from me, but merely asking for donations on an organization website would not.[1]
From an end-user perspective, the difference between the two evaluations is that the former is a short-term rating with a reasonable probability of being stale in 6-12 months, and it doesn’t signal a lack of efficient utilization of donor resources.
I’d want to know more about the organization’s history—especially funding history—before deciding what weight to assign to a lack of evidence of “specific actions taken by SPI (besides insubstantial actions such as posting on instagram).” It’s a young organization—the IRS approval letter was issued in April 2024. The rest of this comment takes at face value the absence of specific actions; I have no basis to weigh in on that either way.
For instance, if this were an all-volunteer organization that had raised minimal sums, then I’d be inclined to assess more softly—more along the lines of too young / not enough information yet than a straight do-not-recommend. I would be more inclined toward a more categorical non-recommendation if the organization had raised significant funds long enough ago that it should should be able to identify some specific activities with a plausible theory of impact by now. Making serious fundraising attempts without a plausible public action plan might also trigger a straight do-not-recommend from me, but merely asking for donations on an organization website would not.[1]
From an end-user perspective, the difference between the two evaluations is that the former is a short-term rating with a reasonable probability of being stale in 6-12 months, and it doesn’t signal a lack of efficient utilization of donor resources.
There are tax-law reasons that a small US non-profit with few donors should generally solicit donations on its website and undertake similar actions.