Pittsburgh nonprofits robust financially, report says
The biggest nonprofit groups in the Pittsburgh area are rolling in dough, according to a report released on Tuesday by a charity watchdog.
The report from Charity Navigator included 50 of the biggest nonprofits in the area. It ranked them first nationally in financial health and fifth overall when including transparency and accountability.
“Pittsburgh charities have quite a healthy rainy day fund, with roughly a year-and-a-half worth of funds on hand,” Sandra Miniutti, vice president of Charity Navigator in Glen Rock, N.J.
The report gathered data from the nonprofits' tax documents and websites.
Miniutti said Pittsburgh nonprofits received high marks for being financially efficient, with the bulk of money they raised going to their missions. Last year, Pittsburgh ranked 14th in financial health and seventh in the overall ranking.
“It looks like charities in Pittsburgh were able to bring in more revenue,” Miniutti said. “That's certainly commendable for nonprofit leaders in this tough economy.”
Pittsburgh was 26th of 30 markets surveyed in transparency and accountability. It fell behind the national average in the percentage of nonprofits listing board members and making audits and federal income tax returns available.
Among the nonprofits in the report are Carnegie Mellon University, the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust and United Way of Allegheny County.
St. Louis was first in the overall ranking. Philadelphia was 13th.
Bill Zlatos is a Trib Total Media staff writer.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.