Running a 'Good Apple' Charity

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) may be correct that there are some "bad apples" posing as charitable organizations and flouting federal tax rules, and, if so, those groups should be sanctioned ["OPM Chief Defends Charity Campaign," Federal Diary, March 13]. But trying to rate the efficiency of the vast majority of responsible nonprofits by using an arbitrary standard for administrative costs doesn't really provide a credible measure for potential donors.

The Office of Personnel Management's decision to drop its rule that a charity spend no more than 25 percent of its revenue on fundraising and other administrative expenses makes sense to my organization. The 25 percent rule creates a misperception that administrative costs are simply waste. Successful and efficiently run organizations need lights and heat (or air conditioning), qualified staff members, well-thought-out work plans, board training and other tools to succeed. No uniform guidelines exist on how to evaluate administrative costs. In a sector that comprises more than 1 million groups, comparing the administrative costs of one organization to another can be like comparing apples to oranges. One size does not fit all.

There is no question that charitable funds should -- and must -- be used to further an organization's mission. But donors should not be given a false standard of program efficiency and effectiveness. Donors already have access to the tools necessary to investigate and ensure the efficiency and quality of the services their chosen charities provide without giving cover to Mr. Grassley's "bad apples."

LIZ TOWNE

Director of Advocacy Programs

Alliance for Justice

Washington