GiveForward's remarks defending why they are for-profit: http://help.giveforward.com/customer/portal/articles/757696-...
I might be misunderstanding, but this seems disingenuous. Presumably as a nonprofit, they could continue to raise money through the exact same fee structure they have now. This would not require any additional fundraising resources. Plenty of nonprofits have models that do not require fundraising.
Do they post financials online? Voluntarily disclosing the same information that nonprofits are required to disclose would certainly help their argument.
I guess it comes down to the definition of "if we can". Because, if they don't, then more people they are presuming to save might be saved.
They're simply asking for money from people who are willing to give out of pure kindness, then taking a larger-than-necessary cut (by definition of profit) of that generosity. That means that an outsized proportion of that generosity is going somewhere other than to its intended purpose, and away from sick people in need. More generous donors are then necessary, else goals may not be met and sick people may continue to suffer.
It's a little sickening, really, to have these emotional pleas made on their site and promoted by them, all the while knowing that profit is being made. Paying salaries and expenses? OK. But, going beyond that to profit? Seems a bit predatory.
Then, there's this:
Much of what he had to say resonated strongly with me. Particularly the discussions around talent/leadership hiring and the advantages of scale and reduced overhead % that can be achieved by bringing a profit-motivated higher level of skills/talent to bear on the problems faced by charitable organizations.