11. My charity evaluations

If you’ve been following along with the previous chapters, you’ve seen how we’ve built a Charity Research Guide – a framework to help structure your evaluation when choosing a charity to support. To bring that process to life, I used the organization True North Aid as a running example throughout. In this chapter, I’ll share additional evaluations I’ve done using the same approach.

These organizations were ones I was either considering donating to or simply curious about. I intentionally selected a variety of charity types, since organizations within the same category often share common features. For example, once you’ve researched one university, you’ll find that many others look quite similar. The same often applies to food banks, UN agencies, and other types of institutions.

Feel free to use my research to guide your own thinking, but I generally recommend doing your own evaluation as well – especially if you’re serious about understanding a particular organization.

In some cases, you’ll see that I wasn’t able to find all the information I was hoping for. As I’ve noted before, we often have to make decisions with limited data – especially when it comes to impact and outcomes, which are frequently underreported. That said, going through this process helped me get a much clearer sense of each organization, and in most cases, I came away knowing whether or not I’d feel comfortable donating.

I may come back to this list over time and add further organizations.

Canadian Foodgrains Bank

CANADIAN FOODGRAINS BANK
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– A partnership of 15 Canadian churches and church-based agencies working together to end global hunger. Work with locally-based organizations in developing countries. Note that they do not actually send Canadian grains internationally. – Programs are emergency food assistance (short-term) and agriculture/livelihoods (long-term systemic causes of hunger). – Large scale – in F2024, the charity helped 974k people in 35 countries (mainly Africa, Asia) – Impact depth is high since food needs in target countries are very high
2. Type of Organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered Canadian charity with international programs (Christian) – 59 staff – small organization
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Report results in their annual report – Report outputs (333k people assisted with emergency food aid, 523k people assisted with agriculture/livelihoods, distributed 12,479 tonnes of food) – An independent, 5 year program evaluation (2016-2021) was conducted and showed the organization effectively met outcomes
4a. Efficiency: Impact per Dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– Since costs and people served by program are transparent, I can calculate that it costs $131/person to deliver emergency food assistance and $49.5/person for agriculture/livelihoods assistance – Cannot compare to other organizations since the level of assistance is not well defined
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 16% overheads – Fundraising costs are 9% of donations
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees) – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available here – Revenue of $78m, expenses of $83m (meaning slight deficit but this balances with slight surpluses in other years) – Revenue includes $27m cash donations, $38m government funding – Cash reserves of $76m, enough for about one year of operations – 89% of program costs spent on international programs
6. Reputation and Reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Seems to be a well-respected organization – Have their own complaints and feedback page which shows they are willing to improve
Overall Evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– One of the only organizations with a reliable independent evaluation confirming their effectiveness, which is clearly high. Efficiency seems to be good without full data to calculate and compare. – Finances are in a good position, while they receive 49% of funding from government and 35% from donations. The need for funding is clear though and the organization consistently spends all its donations. – This seems to be a great option to support a Canadian organization primarily focused internationally on countries where food needs are the highest.

Canadian Red Cross

CANADIAN RED CROSS
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “To help people and communities in Canada and around the world in times of need and support them in strengthening their resilience” – Focus mainly on emergency responses which are clearly high impact; large international presence (27 countries in 2023); long-term impact varies – Programs include international humanitarian aid (earthquakes, hurricanes) and domestic responses (wildfires, pandemics)
2. Type of Organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Canadian registered charity; branch of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – 14,000 volunteers, 2,900 employees; part of a large bureaucratic system – Secular, neutral organization
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	–Releases annual reports with results – Results are mainly outputs (distributed 50,500 relief items in Canada, 13,000 relief items sent to Libya floods, 869,000 people trained in First Aid in Canada, etc.) – No independent evaluations found
4a. Efficiency: Impact per Dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – Can we calculate cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– No impact-per-dollar data provided; financials not broken down enough for calculation – Cannot assess true efficiency
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, not extremely high or low?	– 28% overhead costs (for reference, American Red Cross: 9.4%) – Fundraising costs are 24% of donations, double its 2022 rate
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does funding come from? – Is revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserve do they hold?	– Financial statements available – Revenues of $435m, expenses of $573m (Deficit of $138m) – Revenue includes $194.3m in Canadian donations, – $229.3m in government funding – Reserves of $362.8m, enough for 8.5 months operations
6. Reputation and Reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Strong international reputation – Major controversy: 1980s ‘Tainted Blood Scandal’ (2,000 Canadians infected with HIV through CRC-run programs)
Overall Evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– Overall, I think CRC does great work, but it’s large, bureaucratic, fairly inefficient (high overheads and decreasing fundraising efficiency), and volunteer-reliant – While impact is unclear, I would recommend the charity to those wanting to support international humanitarian aid through a Canadian organization – The organization is mostly government funded, which can result in government influence on the organization in addition to larger overheads due to government administrative requirements

GiveDirectly

GIVE DIRECTLY
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “Lets donors like you send money directly to the world’s poorest households. In doing so, we aim to accelerate the end of extreme poverty globally.” – Targets those in extreme poverty living on <$2.15/day so very high impact, large scale (1.6 million beneficiaries since 2009) – Provide various types of cash giving including one-time transfers, monthly transfers, and transfers specific to disaster relief, climate change or refugees – Cash transfers have lots of evidence of success – they specifically highlight hundreds of such studies on their website. Unclear over very long-term though.
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– American registered nonprofit, based in New York City – Active internationally in 11 countries, mainly in Africa – <1,000 staff members globally – secular
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Do not provide annual report, but provide 33 studies (independent, peer-reviewed) of their programs in various countries. – They report on outcomes very well (best I’ve seen any charity). For instance, showing families health, livelihoods, and income changes over time due to the aid.
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– For every $1,000 transferred, impact is 50% greater income, 32% greater savings, 61% greater consumption, 70% reduced child mortality, etc. – If other organizations had better reporting, this could more easily be compared to others
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 20-33% cash transfer efficiency depending on program/location (increased recently due to decrease in donations) but overhead breakdown is clearly provided. – Fundraising costs fluctuates between 1-5% of donations
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees)? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available – Revenue $140m (2023), decreased from $300m (2020), expenses of $130m – Revenue is 89% donations, which is about half from private/corporations and half from government grants – Reserves enough for 1.3 years
6. Reputation and reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– In the past decade, it has exploded in scale and popularity – Some social barriers in certain contexts – the mistrust of ‘free’ money, or ‘dirty’ money – It is experimental (using AI and big data) and selective (many in need are left out) – Dependency concerns, not focused on causes of poverty – Possibility to distort local markets and services – Some noted cases of fraud
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– You will not find another charity which better shows their impact and transparently explains their financials – Plans to scale 4x by 2027, so funding is in need – Direct cash transfers are clearly beneficial in short-term, but unclear in long-term – Efficiency is low in some locations (33% overhead just to select beneficiaries and transfer cash between two bank accounts seems high). Efficiency depends on total donations, since many costs are fixed. Donations are trending downwards for 4 years, so efficiency continues lower. – Country selection for programs is influenced by donor priorities. For instance, they distribute cash in the USA as well, while that money could be more effectively distributed to poorer countries. – Overall, the impact is very high compared to most other international aid interventions, in my opinion

London Food Bank

LONDON FOOD BANK
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “helping a generous community share its food resources” – Provide direct food distributions, support 25 other local groups with food distributions, and lead Community Harvest program saving produce from farms from being wasted – Medium scale – 16,000+ households receive assistance annually – Impact depth is moderate, as it addresses immediate food insecurity but don’t address underlying causes of this issue
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered local Canadian charity – 9 staff – very small – secular
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Provide some results reporting on their website – Report on outputs not outcomes (3.6 million pounds of food distributed, 65,000 emergency food hampers delivered, 750,000+ lbs of food distributed to 40+ local orgs) – No independent evaluations of their programs
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– They don’t report impact per dollar but using the pounds of food distributed, we can calculate that they distributed food at a rate of $2.2/lb. – For comparison, Edmonton Food Bank’s rate was $3.5/lb, Montreal’s Moisson Food Bank’s rate was $3.8/lb, and Hamilton Food Share’s rate was $4.5/lb.
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 6% overheads (volunteers support low overheads) – Fundraising costs are 5% of donations
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees) – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements only available by request – Revenue of $11m, expenses of $9.6m (meaning surplus of $1.4m = 40% of donations unspent) – Revenue includes $3.5m cash donations, $7.3m of food in-kind – Cash reserves of $9m, enough for almost 5 years of operations. Cash reserves generate 6% on average.
6. Reputation and reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– A well-respected organization in London – Very good reviews from clients on Google (700+ reviews, 4.5 stars)
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– This is fairly high impact work, considering the large needs in London. The Community Harvest program is especially high impact as it also has the secondary benefits of saving food from going to waste, reducing methane emissions, etc. – Great efficiency as impact per dollar is much lower than comparison food banks. – Annual surplus are recurrently high ($1.5m – $2m per year), indicating that they cannot spend this amount of donations. While they are earning 6% interest on their reserves, once inflation is factored in, their returns are not significant, so this vast $9m reserve fund is being underutilized in my opinion. – While efficiency is good, I would encourage people to explore other food banks to find ones in greater need of funding.

SickKids Foundation

SICKKIDS FOUNDATION
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “As leaders in child health, we partner locally and globally to improve the health of children through the integration of care, research and education.” – SickKids Foundation provides fundraising for SickKids Hospital (separate entities) – Clearly high-impact activities due to life-saving nature, at a fairly large scale (15,963 annual inpatients, 294k annual ambulatory visits) – Funds spent on patient care (39%), research (51%), and education (9%)
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered local charity in Toronto (note: SickKids hospital is not a charity, but a publicly funded nonprofit) – 200+ full-time staff – Secular
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Provides an annual report where they share high-level stats and facts – Mainly report outputs (12,589 operating room visits, various research breakthroughs), not outcomes, although clearly high-impact
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– Not possible to assess as costs not broken out, impact of inpatient visits not provided
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 29% (compares to Alberta’s Children’s Hospital Foundation of 19%) – Fundraising 26% of donations (FY23) but in past has been up to 42% (compared to Alberta’s Children’s Hospital Foundation of 12%)
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available – Revenue of $213m (FY24), expenses of $236m – Revenue includes 36% individual giving, 23% digital fundraising campaigns, 14% corporate sponsorship, 15% estate planning, other – Reserves of $1.5b can cover 5 years’ operations (down from 10 years) – SickKids Hospital (separate from Foundation) is 64% government funded, only 9% from Foundation – Expenses: 63% staff, 3% administration, other
6. Reputation and Reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Most influential and well-funded charity in Toronto. Very well regarded with celebrity endorsements – Have received informal criticism for over-fundraising which draws funds away from other Toronto-based charities – Common scam of fake SickKids fundraisers
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– Impact of patient care and research are clearly high, especially when considering clients are children – Fundraising costs are very high (up to 45% of donations), while their massive reserves continue growing year over year – They consistently fundraise more than is needed for annual operations (32% more over a 10-year period). These extra donations go into their funds, which they invest – Considering much of our donations may not be spent and only put into a fund, and that only 9% of the hospital’s funding comes from the Foundation (while 64%+ from government), they do not seem to be as needed as people might think. Those funds may be better spent at smaller hospitals more in need of funding

The Salvation Army (Canada)

SALVATION ARMY
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– Mission: “to share the love of Jesus Christ, meet human needs and be a transforming influence in the communities of our world” – Founded in 1865 in England, began working in Canada in 1882 – Programs are mainly addiction rehabilitation (39% of spending), health (32%), and community services including food banks and homeless shelter (14%). – Large scale impact – 400 communities in Canada, 2.7 million people reached annually – Long-term impact and depth are mixed but generally medium due to moderate needs in Canada
2. Type of Organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered national Canadian charity (Christian) – Operates under a quasi-military model with a hierarchical governance system, including divisions and territorial commands – 1,872 full-time staff
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Provide some results reporting in their annual report – Report on outputs (3.9 million meals provided, 82,000 people visited in nursing homes/hospitals, 1,100 people assisted after disasters, 359,000 people assisted with Christmas food hampers, etc.) – Impact is likely moderate, although cannot assess and compare without outcome information – No independent evaluations of their programs
4a. Efficiency: Impact per Dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– In FY23, 228 million was spent on addictions-related programs. 206 people completed addiction programs – the only metric provided. This implies a cost of $1.1m to put one person through an addiction program. – Other programs data not comprehensive enough to calculate
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 21% overheads – Fundraising costs are 11% of donations
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees) – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements provided here – Revenue of $1.2b, expenses of $1.0b (meaning surplus of $200 million) – Revenue includes $237m cash donations, $440m government funding, $181m of investment income – Cash reserves of $1.6b, enough for over 2 years of operations. – 0.9% of program costs spent on international programs (almost all Canadian programming)
6. Reputation and Reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Most reviews are generally positive but several criticisms of their programs including being anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion (SA USA), and other anecdotal criticisms
Overall Evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– There is a surprising lack of results reporting for an organization with over $1b in annual revenue. This does not provide much confidence they are aware of the impact of their programs. – Efficiency of addictions programs appear particularly poor, seeming to cost over $1m to graduate 1 person from their program – Annual surpluses are consistent, meaning they cannot spend the funding they receive. In FY24, their surplus was 86% of donations, meaning that only 14% of donations were actually spent while the remainder was put into reserves. – Their massive $1.6b cash reserves generate almost as much investment revenue as they receive from donations, while almost half of the funding comes from the government. I don’t see this organization as in need of private individual donations or able to spend them effectively.

True North Aid

TRUE NORTH AID
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– Humanitarian support to northern and remote Indigenous communities in Canada. – Programs: essential goods, employment initiatives, reconciliation programs, community-led projects. – Moderate depth of impact – essential items are very needed in Northern communities – Medium scale – 25,000 people, 50 locations – Medium long-term impact – investing in communities but some dependency and market distortion concerns – No evidence provided to back up program methods
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered Canadian charity. – Small staff of 6, but fairly large operational footprint. – Secular, no specific other affiliations.
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Yes, publishes results in annual report. – Outcomes are impressive, meeting mission goals. – Minimal evidence of outcomes, especially long-term.
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– No, impact per dollar not provided. – For supplies program, they delivered 0.26 pounds per dollar, up from 0.13 the previous year. – Cannot identify another similar organization program to compare it to.
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– Do not specify their overheads, but publish their financial statements to enable public to calculate. – Overheads are not justified with any explanation. – Overhead is 11–39% range, within reason.
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees)? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements are publicly available. – 98% funding from donations, showing heavy reliance on donors. Mix of corporate and private. – 3% annual surplus, healthy. – Reserves for 3–4 months, quite low.
6. Reputation and reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– No complaints or controversies can be found. – Generally positive engagement from the public.
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– This organization appears to use donations somewhat effectively. – They have a clear need for more funding. – Yes, I could recommend it to others but it’s not my top choice. – If the charity could improve its impact reporting, I would be willing to donate more.

UNICEF Canada

UNICEF CANADA
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “We work in over 190 countries and territories providing education, nutrition, water and health care to create a better world for every child” – UNICEF Canada is mainly a fundraising organization, as implementation is through UNICEF International. – Most work is high-impact (emergency health, nutrition, protection) and at a large scale, while long-term outcomes vary by type of program. – In FY23, $31.5m spent on international programs (UNICEF international), $4.3m on advocacy/research in Canada.
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered Canadian branch of UNICEF International. – 89 person staff – small organization focused on fundraising. – Secular.
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Publish results in their Annual Impact Report. – Report on outputs rather than outcomes (26.8m children vaccinated, 23m people provided with water, 9.8m people received mosquito nets). – No independent evaluations on their website.
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– Cannot be calculated as expenses not transparently provided.
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 36% overhead. – Fundraising costs are 30% of donations, while when using external fundraisers, costs are higher at 39%. – Additional 11% overhead is charged by UNICEF international, making 43% total overhead. If UNICEF International then hires another partner, it will keep increasing further.
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees)? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available. – Revenue of $55m, expenses of $54m. – Revenue includes donations of $52.7m, government funding of $1.3m. – Reserves of $21.5m, enough for 7 months of programs.
6. Reputation and reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Generally positive reviews. – Some do not appreciate their hired fundraisers, who can be pushy/aggressive. – Allegations of staff involvement in sexual exploitation in DRC. – 2020 audit showed issues with financial management.
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– This example highlights the benefits and downsides of donating to a UN organization. While it has the scale to reach the areas most in need globally and is trusted to act based on human rights and humanitarian principles, the bureaucracy and inefficiency is apparent. – If you donate $1 to a UNICEF door-to-door fundraiser, only $0.64 will make it to UNICEF Canada. Then, it will be given to UNICEF international, where it will reduce to $0.57. Then, if there’s a local implementing organization, it may reduce to somewhere near $0.40. – If you want to donate to UNICEF, you can donate to the international agency directly and save the 36% overhead fee, but then you will not receive a tax receipt. – While UNICEF Canada does not receive much government funding, UNICEF international’s funding is 82% from the government, which is the case for most UN organizations, meaning your individual donations are less needed.

United Way Elgin Middlesex (my local branch)

UNITED WAY ELGIN MIDDLESEX
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “We tackle issues linked to poverty and social exclusion” – 49% of program funding to poverty programs (basic needs, housing, meals, other) – 36% of funds go to strong communities programs (mental health, counselling) – 15% of funds go to kids programs (literacy, mentorship, physical activity, other) – Donations stay 100% local and are distributed through local charities – Depth of impact varies by program but the needs in London are high – 1 in 7 people, 1 in 4 children, live in poverty. Scale is large as it distributes through a charity network. Long-term impact is mixed.
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered charity, local branch of United Way Centraide Canada (United Way Worldwide network) – 26 staff – small organization – Secular
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Provides transparent annual impact report but only report outputs not outcomes (404 people supported with housing, 210,686 meals provided, 365 shelter nights provided) – No independent evaluations available
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– Cannot calculate impact per dollar since expenses are not broken out so unable to evaluate – Provided 210,000 meals compared to United Way Kingston which provided 455,000 meals and has about half the overall revenue
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 17% overheads – but this does not include overheads of the charities United Way donates to (which will likely add another 10-30% additionally) – Other United Ways have overheads from 8% – 27%, so this branch is in the mid range
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees)? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available – Revenue $10.2m, expenses $9.4m – Past 3 years, they have had surpluses of $240k-800k – Revenue includes $7.5m donations, $2.1m government funding, $444k investment income – Reserves of $6.2m, enough for 10 months of operations
6. Reputation and reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Minimal reviews online, but good from what I can see. In general for United Way, there are some criticisms about the lack of transparency in decisions on applications for grants.
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– This United Way branch has good reporting, where they transparently state their results against the needs in the community, but compared to other branches, they don’t seem to be as efficient. – The United Way model – collecting donations and distributing to local vetted programs – is generally broadly effective but only moderately efficient as this broad approach can dilute impact compared to more targeted approaches. – I would recommend this branch for people looking to broadly support local charities in the London area, but why not also explore other branches serving even higher needs areas such as Toronto or Winnipeg?

University of Toronto

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “Fostering an academic community in which the learning and scholarship of every member may flourish, with vigilant protection for individual human rights, and a resolute commitment to the principles of equal opportunity, equity and justice” – Standard university educational programs – Impact is hard to assess, but is minimal short term compared to other charities but may have moderate benefits long term
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered Canadian charity – Over 10,000 full-time staff – large organization – Became secular in 1850, originally Christian (King’s College), not politically affiliated but generally liberal-leaning
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– Provide performance indicators and facts and figures – Focus on rankings, not impact (e.g. 4th in world for scientific paper performance, top 3 in research citations, 9 Nobel laureates, 2nd in world for medical research)
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– Impact per dollar not able to be assessed – Assessing impact of education and research institutions is not practically possible
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 28% overheads (compares to 23% at Queen’s University) – Fundraising is 24% of donations (vs. 19% at Queen’s) – 60% of expenses on salaries (Avg. $163k vs. $111k at Queen’s)
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available – Revenue: $4.2b; Expenses: $3.3b (Surplus: $900m) – Revenue: 3% donations ($154m), 29% government funding ($1.2b), 53% student fees ($2.2b) – Growing small donor base (21,000 donors under $5,000 in 2021) – Reserves of $7b (excluding endowments) = 1.3 years
6. Reputation and Reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Generally well-regarded institution with various controversies in the past (1,2,3,4)
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– Revenue comes mainly from government and student fees, with large surpluses and strong reserves – With revenue primarily from government and student fees, consistent surpluses, and healthy reserves, I do not see this as a charity which needs donations from private individuals. Spending 24% of donations on fundraising is quite high considering its alternate sources of funding. – I generally would not recommend donating to academic institutions for the above reasons.

World Vision Canada

WORLD VISION CANADA
Research Criteria	Research Notes
1. Mission: – What problem do they aim to solve? – What programs do they plan to achieve it? – Are their methods evidence-based? – What is the depth, scale, and long-term impact of the mission?	– “To follow our Lord Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed” – Secondary objective of acting to encourage people to “respond to the Gospel” – Multisector aid programs focusing on aiding children – ‘child sponsorship’ model. Generally follows evidence-based methods, but limited transparency of evaluations – Humanitarian aid to children is a high impact sector and they operate at a very large scale spanning 50 countries globally. Long-term impact is unclear.
2. Type of organization: – Is it a registered charity or something else? – Is it local, national, or international? – How big and bureaucratic is it? – Is it religious or politically affiliated?	– Registered Canadian branch of international charity – Large organization, about 400 full time staff – Christian organization
3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies?	– It measures impact and publishes results in its annual report (124 pages) including outcomes of its programs – The reality is that impact will vary by program and location. There are some third party evaluations online which show mixed results 1, 2, – Concerns over power dynamic of rich giver and vulnerable receiver, which removes child’s dignity, agency, and makes them feel unable to help themselves – Research shows jealousy in sponsored communities due to unequal donor gifts/letters
4a. Efficiency: Impact per dollar: – Do they report impact per dollar figures? – If not, can we calculate the estimated cost per outcome or output? – How do they compare to similar organizations?	– Impact per dollar not provided but can be calculated. For instance, for water sanitation programs, they claim to save one life and prevent 510 disease cases per approx. $13.5k spent on programs (for reference, GiveWell’s top charities claim to save one life per $3.5k – $5.5k spent). – For health interventions, they claim to save one life per $32k spent.
4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – Are they reasonable, and not extremely high or low?	– 27% overheads, up big from 19% in 2021 – Fundraising costs are 23% of donations (up from 15% in 2022) – Fundraising efficiency is quite low, compared to U.S. counterpart which is only 7% of donations
5. Finances: – Are financial reports publicly available? – Where does their funding come from (government, donations, fees)? – Is their revenue greater than expenses? – How much financial reserves do they have?	– Financial statements available – Revenue $495m, expenses of $500m – Revenue includes 49% cash donations, 41% in-kind donations, 8% government funding – Reserves of $41.6m, covering programs for 2 months. In need of funding
6. Reputation and reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive?	– Have been accused of using ‘poverty porn’ for fundraising, which is damaging to local communities – Some negative reviews from employees in certain countries – This article shares some firsthand criticisms – Additional criticisms
Overall evaluation: – Do I trust this organization to use my donation effectively? – Do they have a clear need for more funding? – Is this charity the best option compared to alternatives? – Would I feel confident recommending this charity to others?	– While they are trustworthy and have a need for funding, I see better alternatives and would not recommend it. – Their decreasing fundraising efficiency shows fundraising strategy not working well. Overheads have significantly climbed the past years, which is concerning. – Their results reporting is thorough but impact per dollar is not provided and they do not compare themselves to other organizations. From my calculations, their cost per life saved is extremely high. – ‘Child sponsorship’ model is mainly marketing as funds do not go directly to the child but to community projects. The donor is put in contact with the child though for sharing photos, information, gifts. I share people’s concerns about the psychological impact on the child, who is vulnerable and communicating personal information with World Vision and the donor, where there is a large power imbalance. – Christian organization, but do not overtly proselytize, while it’s in their mission to bring people to Christianity and there are links on their website to learn more.