PETA jumps the shark

FYI, I knew PETA doesn't squander money and is operated in a thrifty way, so I was curious about that link someone posted to the BBB charitable giving website. The BBB's citing PETA has to do with some requirements they have about how the board of directors of a charity has to be structured. PETA has a three-member board, instead of five, for example, and the board chair also serves as the treasurer. That got them cited twice. The third "failure" is that they don't put their IRS Form 990 on their website, but that is a filing that is freely available to anyone. If those things bother you, then you certainly shouldn't give money to PETA (if you were otherwise sympathetic to their cause). But it's kind of silly.

PETA is independently audited and makes the info available to anyone, so they are an open book. They are rated highly by charitynavigator.org, which is an independent organization that rates charities based on a host of criteria and goes into much greater detail in scrutinizing charities than that BBB site. PETA is also really an advocacy group, not a charity, but as long as they accept people's money, people should scrutinize how they are run.

To put the post with that BBB link I am referring to into perspective, though, and to give an idea about the attitudes of people running PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA accepts only a $34,000 salary per year (which in fairness, is undoubtedly supplemented with the perks of the travel, etc. she does, but still she has never used this to enrich herself). Edwin J. Sayres, the President of the ASPCA accepts a salary of $421,514. He is also not the founder of the ASPCA and he does not run the organization with anything near the passion for the cause that she brings to her cause.

In terms of organization efficiency -- fundraising efficiency, fundraising expenses, program expenses, and administrative expenses -- The ASPCA earns two stars from charitynavigator.org (i.e. needs improvement--Meets or nearly meets industry standards but underperforms most charities in its Cause.). Their methodology and the actual numbers are spelled out on the site. PETA earns three stars for organization efficiency (i.e. Good--Exceeds or meets industry standards and performs as well as or better than most charities in its Cause.)

Both the ASPCA and PETA are fine organizations that are fairly well run as far as non-profit organizations go. I don't care if PETA doesn't meet three silly BBB standards, whatever they are. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that PETA is not a thrifty organization that doesn't squander the money people give them, pays the people working for the organization low salaries and keeps fundraising and administrative expenses reasonable, by non-profit standards. That is really what matters, isn't it?

 

Peyton, Their mission is to raise awareness about animal suffering. Not to run pet shelters. They are not focused on pets or domesticated animals, by and large, because dozens of other organizations do that. They don't do adoptions or run shelters, so if you are holding them to a "saving animals," standard, yeah, they fail. It's not part of their mission, though.

They do however focus on areas they believe the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely and for the longest periods of times: in factory farms, in labs, in the clothing trade and in the entertainment industry.

I realize that a lot of people don't agree with their agenda (let alone the lengths they will go to for publicity), or only partially agree with it, but that is their agenda. If they work through public education or cruelty investigations or lobbying or through publicity campaigns to shed light on how animals are treated in factory farms, they may not realistically "save" any animals, but I am not sure that is a reasonable standard to hold an organization to when it's goal is to raise awareness to animal cruelty, and they are focused on the animals that in their view other organizations ignore.

I am fairly sympathetic to a lot of what they do, which is why I am so active on this thread. Even if I wasn't, I'd still have an appreciation for how they have taken a once underresourced organization and made it relevant. I also realize this is a cause that many others don't agree with--I don't eat meat, for example, and I will never be able to convince 90 percent of my friends that they shouldn't. If your objection is that you don't agree with their cause it's one thing, but as far as living up to their principles and spending the money they collect well -- and accounting for it with independent audits that anyone can look at -- PETA has nothing to apologize for. The ASPCA is only superior to PETA because you are on board with the ASPCA's mission and you aren't on board with PETA's.