Author: administrator

text-align: right; September 18, 2018
Are you looking for a list of the best of the best charities? The following is a list of the Top 100 Charities as rated by Charity Intelligence. These charities are all 4-Star rated and have the highest point totals based on our https://charityintelligence.ca/ratings/rating-methodology rating methodology, excluding charities with an Impact rating of Fair or Low.
All of these charities are transparent, accountable to donors, have a need for funding, and are not wasteful when it comes to overhead costs. As well, 30 of these 100 charities have been rated for impact and have been found to be either Good or High impact charities. These are the charities donors can give to with confidence.

Teaching elephants to dance
Canadian Cancer Society cuts $67 million in costs following merger with Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.
text-align: right; Kate Bahen
In October 2016, Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) and Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation announced a mega-merger. Management set the goal to cut administrative costs by $15 million.   Here were two of Canada’s “lumbering elephants” in the charity sector. Both were large, among Canada’s 100 Major charities. Both had overhead costs far above the reasonable range. For every dollar donated 53 cents and 51 cents went to “the cause”, respectively. Neither had a track record for frugality, efficiency or nimble innovation. Yet on July 4, Canadian Cancer Society’s new management reported its results. It had axed administrative costs by $22.9 million, far more than $15 million goal.
The cost cutting did not stop with administrative costs. Across the board, Canadian Cancer Society trimmed and consolidated, reducing total operating costs by a whopping $67 million. Canadian Cancer Society shed 29% of its costs from its 2016 operations. 
“We really pushed ourselves to look at the organization differently and really re-examine every type of cost”, said Sara Oates, executive vice-president, finance and operations on behalf of CCS’s management team. #_edn1″ name=”_ednref1 [1]
Donors should cheer. Loudly. This is an unprecedented, bold shakeup at one of Canada’s largest charities to be more cost efficient. Other large Canadian charities ought to look around and push themselves as well.
For donors this means that, for every dollar donated, $0.61 goes to the cause in 2018. This is still less than the Canadian average of $0.75, but close to the average of $0.65 at Canada’s large cancer charities, see .
These cuts will have a full year effect in F2019. This will likely improve ratios further, if donations remain at current levels.
That is a big ‘if’. Donations are down. Over the last two years, donations to cancer charities have declined 7% across Canada. In the most recent year, Canadians donated $471 million to Canada’s 26 largest cancer charities compared with $504 million two years ago.  Canadian Cancer Society has been particularly hard hit, with donations declining 15%. On a pro-forma basis, donations fell from $168.1 million in 2016 to $146.4 million in 2018.
Charities comment that donations are down due to donor fatigue. Yes, donors are tired. Tired of waste. Giving is a scarce resource. Giving is static at 1.7% of GDP, a constant level since the 1970s. There is a finite pool of disposable income to support charities. More cost-efficient and productive charities may rejuvenate donor support for Canadian Cancer Society.
 
Setting the record straight
News headlines in 2011 unfairly criticized Canadian Cancer Society for spending more on fundraising than on cancer research. #_edn2″ name=”_ednref2 [2] Yes, this is factually correct, both in 2018 as it was in 2011. In F2018, Canadian Cancer Society spent $52.8 million on fundraising compared to $48.9 million spent on cancer research grants. And yes, Canadian Cancer Society does have huge fundraising costs to raise money for its operations. link to fundraising costs.
However, unlike most large cancer charities, Canadian Cancer Society has two core programs, not just one.  It runs cancer programs for people with cancer and it funds cancer research. Canada’s other large cancer charities fundraise and only grant money to cancer research. Think a United Way model, or a mutual fund. This fundraising/granting/investing work is very different from being on the frontline, working with people with cancer. Few charities provide hands on help to people living with cancer. Canadian Cancer Society is an exception.
In its cancer programs, across Canada, CCS convenes support groups, provides online resources, organizes rides to cancer treatment, operates lodges (Ronald McDonald-type housing for adult cancer patients undergoing treatment), and loans wigs to people with cancer. At every cancer treatment centre across Canada, Canadian Cancer Society volunteers provide refreshments to patients waiting for cancer treatments.
In 2018, in addition to its research grants of $48.9 million, Canadian Cancer Society spent $51.4 million on cancer support programs. Cancer programs, research grants, and advocacy totaled $103.6 million in 2018. When undertaking a fair assessment of fundraising costs, spending on cancer research and cancer programs must also be considered.

 
Getting ahead of the pack
CCS made a tremendous improvement in a very short time. Management says it wants to be, not just inline with other comparable health charities, but “ahead of the pack”. #_edn3″ name=”_ednref3 [3] This will require significant further effort. Average overhead costs are 35% at Canada’s largest cancer charities. Canadian Cancer Society is currently at 39%.
To get to average, Canadian Cancer Society will need to trim fundraising costs by $7-$8 million, assuming donations hold at current levels of $146 million.
Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation and Terry Fox Foundation lead Canada’s large cancer charities with low overhead costs. Their overhead costs are 21% and 24% respectively. To get “ahead of the pack” Canadian Cancer Society will need to get fundraising costs to $31 million. That will require a $21 million cut in fundraising costs.
This can be done. Currently, Canadian Cancer Society spends $52 million on fundraising. This is more than the combined fundraising costs at other large cancer charities. Cancer is a cause near and dear to Canadians. Fundraising should be easy – and cheaper.

To the skeptics who doubt this will happen, CCS’s management may just prove us wrong, again.

Read more Charity Intelligence reports:
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/242-canadian-cancer-society  
Sources: 
Sheryl Ubelacker, , Canadian Press, July 4, 2018 
Jason Kirby,, Macleans Business, July 28, 2011 
Erica Johnson,, CBC News, July 6, 2011
 

text-align: right; Kate Bahen
David Common asked today why I rant on about financial transparency and audited statements. It is food for thought. My colleagues tease me about this obsession. Who takes the time to read audited financial statements? And does it really matter? With gaps between headlines and facts, audited financial statements matter.
Audited financial statements are the fine print. Financial statements show a charity’s “ingredients”. Like the current fuss over “ginger” “ale”, while the label says one thing, the list of ingredients shows how much ginger is in the can.
Here’s a good example. Donors were likely reassured by: “89.5 per cent of the $325 million Canadians and governments donated has been spent, says Red Cross.” 

Canadian Red Cross’s audited financial statement report that $254 million was spent – 78% of total funds received. The difference is in the fine print. Canadian Red Cross reported it had spent and committed $291 million. Charity Intelligence highlighted the.
$291 million vs. $254 million. Is 12% material? Does $37 million matter? That’s a decision a donor needs to personally assess. It matters to me. It likely matters to the people and charities in Fort McMurray. This was why Canadians gave in the first place. And $37 million is a lot of money, especially in the charity sector.
Maybe it also matters to Canadian Red Cross and that is why it headlined with the bigger number. Donors want fast disaster responses. Those affected by disasters also want fast support. Speed matters in disaster responses.
“Another $50 million went to community groups such as shelters and food banks”, CBC reports.  Wrong. In June 2016 Canadian Red Cross promised to share $50 million with Fort McMurray’s local charities and organizations. The audited statements show that in Year 1 Canadian Red Cross shared $8.2 million and, in Year 2, $12.2 million. So far, $20.4 million in support for community groups – only 40% of the promised $50 million.
As to shelters and food banks getting support? Wood Buffalo Food Bank has received three significant grants of more than $1.4 million. In contrast, Fort McMurray’s shelters have received chump change. , not the dollar amounts as United Ways report. 
This is sad. Many of Fort Mac’s local charities are still hurting and struggling after the fire. These over the last two years, not three years from now. 
CBC goes on to report “Our team is still very busy in Fort McMurray,” McManus said. “We are meeting one on one with families and individuals in the community. And what we are seeing is that people’s needs are emerging over time.
Total spending on helping individuals and families was $12.2 million over the entire year ending March 2018. From the donor report released earlier, Charity Intelligence reported $30 million was spent and committed to help individuals and families. Again, it turns out that most of this $30 million is commitments for future periods rather than actual cash spent in the last year.
Only spending $12.2 million over Year 2 is unsettling. At the start of Year 2, Dana Woodworth, team leader of Wood Buffalo Recovery Committee said, “We are in for the toughest period of the recovery so far.” Year 2 should have been a year of larger spending.
Canadian Red Cross is seeing and monitoring needs. It has a hard decision. Does it spend now in Year 3 to meet needs, or hold back to meet future emerging needs? Evidence-based research funded by the Gates Foundation shows that meeting needs within the first two years is more effective in getting people back on their feet after a disaster. Left neglected, needs compound into other issues like mental health, domestic abuse, and foreclosure. Does a dollar spent in the first two years have greater impact than a dollar spent in Year 5? Most likely.
Canadian Red Cross has $71.4 million in funds remaining. It has signed contracts and commitments to spend $37.9 million over Year 3 through Year 5. It holds $33.5 million in “uncommitted” funds.
Canadian Red Cross’ audited financial statements show it plans to spend $53.7 million in Year 3. For comparison, it budgeted to spend $55.0 million in Year 2. It missed this estimate by a wide mark, only actually spending $31.3 million. Let’s hope Year 3 gets back on track. 
Journalists are not at fault. Journalists can only go by what the charity reports. The audited financial statements are not posted until months after the disaster anniversary, and without fanfare. It takes time and expertise to crunch the numbers. Charity Intelligence’s analysts focus on financials and charity results. We troll websites. It’s all we do.
If donor reports and the audited financial statements both showed the same numbers, one wouldn’t need to read audited financial statements. Yet when donor reports lack full disclosure or only highlight stories and snippets, the audited financial statements are essential to see the full picture.
Until we get to that glorious age of “reconciliation” with full and frank disclosure, I’ll keep campaigning for financial transparency and audited financial statements. Sorry, David.
 
Sources:
David Thurton, “, CBC Edmonton, May 2, 2018 
Canadian Red Cross – March 2018 
Canadian Red Cross, 2016 Alberta Fires
Food bank again, not shelters –
Dana Woodworth’s comments reported by Cullen Bird, , Fort McMurray Today, April 5, 2017 
Canadian Red Cross http://www.redcross.ca/crc/documents/About%20us/About-the-Canadian-Red-Cross/CRC-audited-statement-signed-2018-03-31-EN.pdf 2018 audited financial statements, Financial Note 8: Deferred contributions for Alberta fires fund. In accounting, “current” is distinct from “long-term”. Current refers to the next 12 months from the balance sheet date. CRC’s balance sheet date is March 31.
Read More

text-align: right; Angela Wang 
text-align: right; February 11, 2018
In November 2017, Charity Intelligence posted its Top 10 Impact charities that included, for the first time, an international aid charity, Doctors Without Borders. For once, a household name Canadian donors are familiar with. Some donors have asked us to share our analysis of Doctors Without Borders. We have. Our spreadsheets are huge. If you would like more detail on the analysis, please contact Angela Wang or Greg Thomson at Charity Intelligence.
From our analysis, 3 programs are the key drivers for the high impact found at Doctors Without Borders.
 
Doctors Without Borders (MSF International)
Many people in the world do not have access to doctors and health care professionals during the time of their greatest need. Doctors Without Borders (MSF) is an international humanitarian aid organization delivering life saving medical assistance in countries torn apart by war, disease, and natural disasters.  
MSF believes that people who need aid come first in humanitarian aid situations. This means that MSF is largely funded by donors rather than governments to avoid interference of politics and religion. MSF has also established its own supply chain of personnel and materials to remain independent and to respond quickly.
In 2016, MSF spent $2B helping over 9 million people through life saving surgeries, vaccinations, treatments, and more. On average, MSF’s outcomes cost only $227 per person.
In Ci’s assessment, MSF’s high impact comes from these three drivers:
1. 44% from vaccinations. MSF reached more than 4 million people with life saving vaccinations in 2016. These include both routine vaccinations for children and major vaccination campaigns to control disease outbreaks. 
2. 28% from medical interventions. MSF set up field hospitals, conducted surgeries and assisted with local hospital operations. MSF doctors perform surgeries, neonatal consultations, and assist with child births.
3. 24% from medical treatments. MSF provides treatment for cancers, communicable diseases, and malnutrition in locations where people do not have adequate medical services.
 

 
 
In measuring impact, there is typically a lack of data reported by charities. MSF’s annual reports provide donors, and analysts, with detailed outcomes achieved in the previous year. It is, by far, the best reporting we have seen within the international charity sector. 
Vaccinations
Vaccines are relatively cheap and easy way to save lives in developing countries. Vaccines are preventative, which means people are protected against the economic cost and suffering of becoming ill. Children who receive vaccination against common diseases will avoid costs and risk of death every year that the vaccinate is effective. For most vaccinations, this means people are protected against diseases for the rest of their lives. 71% of MSF vaccinations are good for life, meaning that people are protected for up to 50 years. 29% of MSF vaccines lasts only a few years, like cholera and tetanus, it offers protection for the immediate future. For children, it often means that they are protected during their most vulnerable years.  
During disease outbreaks, those who are not vaccinated are at higher risk than usual. If outbreaks are not controlled, it means a whole region are at greater risk. In 2016, MSF responded to 10 cases of disease outbreaks with large vaccination campaigns, reaching over 2 million people. The largest campaign vaccinated over a million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo against a yellow fever outbreak. Yellow fever is spread by mosquitos and can pass from person to person quickly in dense areas. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that a small percentage of people with yellow fever will enter a toxic phase, where 50% die within 7-10 days. For 99% of people vaccinated, they become immune to yellow fever within 30 days and will remain immune for the rest of their lives.
MSF reached almost 1 million people with routine vaccinations. Routine vaccinations target common diseases and prevent some rare diseases from becoming common again. MSF often combine routine vaccinations with other interventions in an area.
The rest of the people who received MSF vaccinations, over a million individuals, lives in disease endemic countries. Disease endemic countries are countries where disease levels are relatively high and stable. Increasing the number of people vaccinated in these areas is a major way of decreasing disease levels.
 
Medical Interventions
The second driver of MSF’s value is the life saving interventions for people who would have otherwise suffered more or died from their injuries. These activities have high social value because without timely medical intervention, their situation could get much worse. The first major type of intervention is surgery or supported surgery. In 2016, MSF performed surgeries on 92,000 patients and supported surgeries for another 225,000 patients.
For neonatal consultation and assisted births, MSF help to save both the mother and the babies. Having a healthcare professional present during birth can drastically decrease the mortality rate of both mother and child. MSF provided neonatal consultation to 170,000 mothers, assisted in 180,000 births, and assisted hospitals with further 43,000 births. 
MSF treat injuries and provide medication and vaccination for women who have recently experience sexual violence. In addition to the trauma, women who have been raped are also exposed to risk of HIV/AIDS, tetanus, and HPV. MSF provides post-exposure HIV/AIDS treatment medication to prevent women becoming infected. Tetanus and HPV vaccine are also given to decrease risk of tetanus and HPV.
 
Medical Treatments
The final major driver of MSF’s value comes from medical treatment for people who are already ill. MSF covers treatment of a range of health problems including post Ebola complications, HPV, measles, meningitis, HIV, tuberculosis, cholera, yellow fever, and child malnutrition.  In 2016, MSF treated 2.8M people for transferrable disease. The largest value comes from tuberculosis treatment because of the high mortality rates, and malaria treatments due to large number of people treated.
MSF admitted over 290,000 children to hospitals and feeding centres for treatment of severe acute malnutrition. While it does not address the underlying causes of malnutrition, MSF targets children who need immediate help to survive.
 
Downside Risk
In light of Oxfam events of Feb 2018, we have greater awareness of safeguarding in international aid organizations. Safeguarding is the protection of vulnerable adults and children from harm done by the charity itself. This is currently inadequately monitored and reported. This introduces downside risk that may be material and significant to donors.  MSF has shown leadership in releasing its serious incident report on 21 staff dismissed for sexual exploitation and abuse.