Estimated reading time: 17-19 minutes
Now that we have a solid foundation on the charitable sector in Canada and how to assess effectiveness, we can start exploring how to identify and select organizations to support.
Before diving in, take a moment to reflect on how you’ve chosen charities in the past. Did you donate because someone knocked on your door? Because you saw a United Way campaign flyer? Because your child’s school was holding a fundraiser?
These are all understandable reasons to give. However, donating based solely on advertising, social pressure, or convenience is a passive approach – one that may not align with your deepest priorities or make the greatest impact. When giving passively, there’s also a significant opportunity cost: the money you donate could have been used for a cause that achieves more or resonates more strongly with you.
Pete Seeger and The Weavers sang “If I had a hammer / I’d hammer in the morning / I’d hammer in the evening / all over this land”. The hammer symbolizes the power of justice to fight inequality and oppression. A hammer is not a passive tool – it represents active, purposeful action. We should approach our donations in the same way.
Taking a more intentional approach to donating opens the door to a much wider range of charities—beyond the ones we encounter through ads or fundraisers. In Canada alone, there are 86,000 registered charities, with countless more operating internationally. By being more deliberate in our choices, we can also reduce the risk of donating to fraudulent organizations, which are more commonly found through advertisements.
The best way to protect from fraudulent charities is to verify they are on the CRA’s list of registered charities. However, just because a charity is registered doesn’t mean it’s effective. Many charities, both in Canada and abroad, are not fraudulent but still fail to make a meaningful impact. Being selective about where we donate ensures that our contributions are truly making a difference.
A more intentional approach requires research. Yet, many people don’t take the time to thoroughly investigate charities before giving. Why is that?
Compare for yourself the amount of research you did for a charitable donation compared to a similarly valued other purchase. For instance, if you donated $1,000, how does that compare to the effort you’d put into buying a new iPhone. Most people would spend hours reading reviews, comparing models, and considering their options before purchasing a phone – but far less time, if any, researching the organization they’re donating to.
One reason for this lack of research may be the assumption that all charitable donations are used effectively, making the choice between organizations seem unimportant. As we’ll see, however, the differences can be significant. Another possibility is that people simply don’t know how to evaluate charities. If that’s the case, this guide aims to help. Taking a more cynical view, some may not prioritize effectiveness at all, rather donating primarily to feel good about giving or to receive the tax break. As Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan, “No man giveth but with the intention of good to himself.”
It may also stem from the belief that giving from the heart ensures effectiveness, as we trust it to be a good moral compass. While giving from the heart is surely an important aspect of giving, it can lead us astray, as our emotional biases can lead us to less-optimal resource allocation. For example, a donor might feel deeply moved by animal welfare and choose to support a local shelter, perhaps due to past personal experiences with seeing neglected pets. While this is an important cause, donors may overlook causes like malaria prevention, which – despite its potential to save more lives – doesn’t evoke the same immediate emotional response, especially if they rarely witness its effects firsthand.
If we all gave this way, it would create significant funding gaps for less-high-profile cases, ultimately leading to an ineffective system. It could even lead to a global imbalance, as the wealthy donor countries would donate only to causes in line with their wealthy-class emotional bias. We see this happening frequently today – for instance, health research attracts substantial donor funding in wealthy countries but primarily benefits high-income populations. Meanwhile, basic, but life-saving interventions in poorer countries – such as vaccinations, maternal healthcare, and tuberculosis treatments – struggle to attract funding.
With this in mind, this chapter marks the beginning of a series forming a Donation Research Guide. The goal of this guide is not to categorize charities as simply “good” or “bad,” but rather to provide the tools to evaluate them critically. By understanding both their strengths and weaknesses, we can make informed comparisons and decisions. As I’ve emphasized before, donating is a deeply personal choice – there’s no single recommendation that fits everyone. What matters most is approaching these decisions with thoughtful deliberation. If more donors take the time to do so, the charitable sector as a whole will be stronger.
When researching a charity to donate to, I recommend focusing on six key criteria: 1) Mission, 2) Type of organization, 3) Effectiveness, 4) Efficiency, 5) Finances, and 6) Reputation and reviews. We’ve already touched on some of these topics in the previous chapter, but now we’ll dive deeper into the practical details of how to conduct this research.
To help organize your research, I’ve created a table below that outlines these six criteria. You can use it as a tool to guide your evaluation. Note that these sub-criteria are suggestions and you don’t need to fill all of the information in, since it’s quite a lot.
| CHARITY NAME | |
|---|---|
| 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? |
|
| 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? |
|
| 3. Effectiveness: – Does it measure its impact and publish results? – Do they report meaningful outcomes, not only outputs? – Are there independent evaluations or studies? |
|
| 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? |
|
| 4b. Efficiency: Overheads: – Are they transparent about administrative costs? – Do they justify their overhead spending? – How do they compare to similar organizations? |
|
| 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? |
|
| 6. Reputation and Reviews: – Are there complaints or controversies? – Are beneficiaries, donors, and experts generally positive? |
|
| 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? |
|
I plan to cover these six criteria in detail over the next few chapters, share a summary of resources that can assist with this research, and then apply these methods to evaluate various types of charitable organizations as examples.
This research might seem like a lot at first, but the resources I’ll share will save you a lot of time – it should only take 30 to 60 minutes to fully evaluate an organization. And, since organizations do not often change considerably year-over-year, you may only need to do this once to feel comfortable donating to that organization for a number of years. I’ll also point out why some of the ranking websites you come across can be flawed, so it’s important to be cautious about which resources we rely on. Feel free to take the ideas that resonate with you, leave the ones that don’t, and even develop your own approach. The overall idea is to do some sort of research before donating – swing your hammer!
1. Mission
The first thing I recommend when researching a charitable organization is understanding what they aim to accomplish – their mission. An organization’s mission should clearly outline the type of work it does, the sector it operates in, its geographic focus (local, national, or international), and the people or causes it seeks to benefit. This is the fun part – finding a mission that resonates with you and aligns with the causes you want to support.
To keep things consistent throughout these chapters, I’ll use a charity as an example. One organization I’ve donated to in the past is True North Aid. As I visit their website, I quickly scroll down and find their mission statement: “To provide practical humanitarian support to northern and remote Indigenous communities in Canada.” I appreciate this mission because it clearly outlines the type of work (practical humanitarian support), the geographic focus (northern and remote areas in Canada), and the beneficiaries (Indigenous communities). Step one: done!
After reviewing the mission, the next step is to check the programs the organization is conducting to see how they plan to achieve their goals. At this stage, we should assess whether their methods are proven or speculative. For example, a charity that distributes mosquito nets for malaria prevention is using a method that has proven effective in the past. On the other hand, a charity that builds tiny homes for homeless people in urban areas may sound promising but lacks strong evidence of long-term impact. In this case, I would approach the approach with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Returning to our True North Aid example, I can easily find their “Programs” tab on their website. There, I see that they carry out various initiatives, such as purchasing and shipping essential goods to northern communities, helping former offenders find employment, leading reconciliation programs, and supporting community-led projects. After reviewing this, I note that most of these programs are proven methods that have shown success in the past, based on my knowledge.
Finally, we should assess the potential overall impact of the mission, assuming it’s successful. In Chapter 5, I outlined three key considerations for this – depth of impact, scale of response, and long-term impact. For some charities, evaluating these factors will be straightforward, while for others, you may need to conduct further research if you’re less familiar with the type of work they do.
For example, the impact of an animal shelter is quite clear – we intuitively understand the depth, scale, and long-term impact, both for the pets and their owners. But returning to my example of True North Aid, this impact is less obvious, so I need to research further. I can start by looking into secondary sources about the needs in remote Indigenous communities. From this, I learn that the needs are significant, and there are limited options for essential goods, which reinforces the high depth of impact of the organization’s work.
In terms of scale, I note from the organization’s website that they support over 25,000 people annually across approximately 50 locations. As for long-term impact, I use my intuition to assess that distributing essential goods may not be a sustainable solution in the long run. However, I also see that True North Aid is investing in more sustainable, long-term initiatives like community-led projects. While we may never feel 100% certain about the impact of certain types of work, we will certainly be more informed and better equipped to compare similar organizations.
At this point, I have assessed the mission, how the organization plans to achieve it, and its potential impact. This gives me a solid understanding of the overall organization. Let’s input these notes into our research table so we can continue following this example throughout the process.
| 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 – high depth of impact – essential items very needed – medium scale – 25,000 people, 50 locations – medium long-term impact – investing in communities but some dependency concerns – No evidence provided to back up program methods |
Some ideas on types of programs we can support
Let’s pause for a moment and consider the various types of missions we might choose to support. Most of us are familiar with causes like food banks and homelessness support, but what about the other 86,000 Canadian charities?
To help spark some ideas, I’ve created a chart below that categorizes different types of missions. It’s divided into four quadrants based on the timeframe of the mission and whether the beneficiaries are in Canada or internationally. I’m not advocating for all the below activities, but I wanted to provide a fairly comprehensive list to help you decide for yourself – though it’s not exhaustive.
Types of charitable programs you can support from Canada
In my opinion, there is a place for both short-term and long-term focused aid, while considering the risk of aid dependency. I do believe, though, that the bulk of charitable work should be short-term while leaving most long-term interventions to governments due to their stable funding and ability to create lasting policies.
I also believe Canadians should consider giving to charitable efforts both locally and internationally. While some argue that Canada’s problems should be addressed before helping the rest of the world, it’s important to also recognize the magnitude of global issues. In my view, Canadians have a moral obligation to address global inequality. Furthermore, helping those in need around the world ultimately benefits Canada, as we are all part of a connected global system.
So, when looking at the graphic above, think about the types of charities you’ve supported in the past. Are they all in the same quadrant? If so, it might be worth expanding your focus to include causes from other quadrants as well.
Here are a few final considerations when making your decision. Let’s say you choose to support Canadian charities and opt for something short-term, like food banks, which are a popular and important choice, especially given the 90% rise in food bank visits in Canada over the past five years[1]. Most people would naturally support their local food bank, which makes sense for in-kind donations. However, if you’re donating cash, why not consider supporting some of the most in-need food banks nationally? For example, food insecurity in Nunavut is 57%, more than quadruple the national average, and there are multiple food banks there which you can find online. So, even when looking with a national lens, there are reasons to consider finding an area of greatest need.
Now, if you’ve decided to give internationally, choosing where to direct your support can be even more challenging. Many people rely on the news cycle to identify global crises that need attention, but this is a flawed approach. The news often highlights events based on what grabs attention, which isn’t always proportional to the level of need. This leads to reactionary giving rather than effective giving. Instead, I encourage seeking out data-driven, independent sources to identify the crises with the greatest need. Here, there are many resources available, but two I find particularly helpful for understanding global needs are the International Rescue Committee’s annual “Top 10 crises the world can’t ignore” and Concern Worldwide’s “Crises at risk of being forgotten” list.
2. Type of organization
Now that we have a sense of the type of work we want to support and its location, the biggest challenge is identifying the specific organization to contribute to. A key factor to consider is the type of organization. In Chapter 1, we defined various types of charitable entities, including national non-profits and charities, international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), like the UN.
If you choose to donate to national or local initiatives, the key consideration is whether you’re donating to registered charities or non-profits. Registered charities must have charitable purposes while non-profits are not required to have any charitable purpose. Also, only registered charities can issue tax receipts.
When considering international work, one option is to support a Canadian charity or its international branch, like the Canadian Red Cross (CRC). Supporting Canadian organizations offers several advantages: there’s accountability due to CRA oversight, you’ll likely support Canadian workers deployed abroad, and your donations are eligible for tax credits. Additionally, Canadian charities often align their work with Canadian values, such as women’s empowerment.
On the other hand, supporting Canadian charities working internationally has some downsides. Administrative costs tend to be higher because of the need to maintain a Canadian office. Additionally, CRA “direction and control” rules create inefficiencies, as they require charities to have extensive control over international activities. This increases bureaucracy and limits local partnerships due to strict monitoring requirements.
An alternative is to donate to a local or national organization in the affected country. Advantages include deep local knowledge, culturally appropriate approaches, lower administrative costs, and supporting local salaries. As an example, an organization called SARD, an organization with a largely Syrian staff, aids displaced Syrians in Türkiye and Northwest Syria. Can an international aid organization, primarily staffed by non-locals, really support Syrians better than a local organization like SARD? However, local organizations may face challenges such as weaker project management, monitoring, and transparency, along with funding shortages, staffing issues, and higher corruption risks.
Across both national and international charitable organizations, there are a few final considerations to keep in mind. First, the size of the organization can matter: large charities often have more resources and broader reach, while smaller charities may be more nimble, grassroots, and less bureaucratic. Another consideration is whether the organization is secular or faith-based, as many faith-based groups are still active in the sector. If the organization is faith-based, it’s important to understand how religious values are integrated into their work. Finally, think about whether you prefer to support direct implementation of programs or focus on supporting functions like advocacy.
Returning to our True North Aid example, from the organization’s website, I can determine that they are a Canadian registered charity (they include their charity registration number in the website’s footer). I also notice that they have only six staff members listed, which makes them a small organization. Lastly, there is no mention of religion, indicating that they are a secular charity.
| TRUE NORTH AID | |
|---|---|
| Research Criteria | Research Notes |
| 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 |
With this, we have finished the first two research criteria – mission and type of organization. In the next chapter, we will take a look at how to practically research effectiveness and efficiency.
[1] https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/need-for-food-banks-in-canada-spiralling-out-of-control-soars-past-two-million-visits-a-month-893322848.html#:~:text=People%20in%20every%20region%20of,those%20with%20low%20incomes%20hardest.