Author: administrator

text-align: right; Greg Thomson
November 29, 2017  
I have had enough of the “double your impact with a matching gift” mumbo-jumbo!  Yesterday, Giving Tuesday, I received three emails within half an hour all claiming that if I donate today, my impact will be doubled.  This is nonsense.
The claim is that the charity has found one donor who is willing to give them up to $10,000 (or $25,000, or whatever) on the stipulation that other donors will also donate, matching their gift.  Wait, no, I’ve got that backwards. Or do I? The claim they told ME was that if I donate today, another donor will donate the same amount (up to $10,000…or whatever), thus doubling the impact of MY donation.
This is the first problem with this mumbo-jumbo. Who is getting the doubling effect?  Are we both magically getting the doubling and it’s turning into four times the donation?  No, that wouldn’t work, but maybe it’s worth a try for some charity!
One of the emails actually mentioned the name of a business that had promised the matching gift – so I guess the offer to them was not only that others would donate too, but the business would get advertising for their donation…but I digress.
Another issue with these claims is understanding the counterfactual – what would have happened otherwise. Whenever charities report on the outcomes they achieve, it is important to know what would have happened without the charity’s involvement so that donors can understand the difference made by the charitable program.
In each of the emails sent to me, it is clear that the matching donor has set a threshold that they are willing to donate up to. It’s certainly possible that these are stretch goals – the charity may not reach the matching level; however, the initial donor is willing to donate (likely has in their giving budget) the matching level. Even if nobody donated to the matching program, it is highly likely that the original donor would donate most, if not all, of their designated funds to either the charity involved or to another charity.
So, while any individual donor’s donation appears to be “doubled”, the counterfactual is that the matching donor’s funds would, in most cases, have gone to that, or another charity.  There is very little additional funding coming in due to the claimed matching.
While each of these previous arguments are, to me at least, good reasons to not put much stock in “matching” gifts as a reason to give, the final argument is really the only one that matters. There is no increase in the impact of YOUR donation because someone else also donated to a charity.
This is like saying that you can get twice the taste sensation out of your ice cream cone because someone else also bought one. Somehow their taste sensation gets transferred to you so you get twice as much and they get…what?  If you are getting twice the impact on your dollar, what is the original donor getting?  Apparently nothing – not one sweet taste of butter pecan. Your donation dollar helps provide some change and the original donor’s donation provides the same amount. You can’t be greedy and claim their portion too.
The latest gift catalogue put out by Plan Canada is falling all over itself to double, triple, or even multiply your impact by 8 times. They’re not fooling me with this gobbledy-gook! I hope others will also see the horrible flaws in this attempt to show “impact” and we can get on with discussing the actual (no multiplier needed) impact of our donations.

text-align: left; Charity Intelligence believes that the key question donors should ask of a charity is how much impact it is having per dollar of donation. Rather than asking “For every dollar I give, what percent is going to the cause?” we should ask, “for every dollar I give, how many dollars’ worth of social value are being created?”, or simply, “how much good is my donation doing?”
This impact can be measured directly using what is known as Social Return on Investment (SROI), which is a ratio that measures the amount of value created per dollar donated. Some charities create high impact per dollar and others do not.
text-align: left; Charity Intelligence has chosen the following Top 10 Impact Charities of 2017 based on impact per dollar donated: 

 
Donors are always asking us “is this a good charity?” There is typically no simple answer to this question. However, Charity Intelligence believes that the best information to help donors with this question is an assessment of the social impact produced by charities for each dollar donated.
Charity Intelligence (Ci) produces consistent, comparable impact ratings for many charities across Canada. These ratings are conservative, evidence-based estimates of the social value that charities create for their clients and the wider community. They are based on two metrics:
1. Demonstrated Impact score based on estimates of the charities’ demonstrated social return on investment (SROI)
2. Data Quality score based on the quality and quantity of impact data
A discussion of each metric can be found below.
Using the Demonstrated Impact score and the Data Quality score, Ci generates an Impact Rating for each charity analyzed. To date we have assessed charities primarily in the social services and education sectors as well as in the international aid sector. Ratings appear only for those charities that we have assessed and we continue to add charities to this list, thus more Impact Ratings will appear on charity profiles over time. The Impact Rating appears as a red dot overlaid on a grid:


 
Components of the Impact Rating
1) Demonstrated Impact Score (Proven Impact)
We estimate and compare the amount of social good that charities generate per dollar donated. How much good, measured in dollars, do donations accomplish? Social return on investment (SROI) is the best metric we know of for this task because it attempts to measure these amounts directly.
 

We use standard program evaluation techniques to provide SROI estimates for every major activity by every charity we analyze. We track benefits to both clients and taxpayers/society by estimating the number of outcomes that each charity produces beyond what would have happened absent service. We then multiply these numbers by estimates of the dollar value of each outcome for clients and for society. Benefits to clients include improvements in income, quality of life, and health, while benefits to society consist of increases in tax revenues and public cost savings in areas such as health care, public assistance, and law enforcement.  The long-term, discounted values of these benefits are added together and divided by total expenditures to generate a social return on investment/donation (SROI) estimate.  

For each charity, we calculate a lower bound, a best estimate, and an upper bound SROI:

• The lower bound SROI is almost entirely based on evidence from the charity, with very few exceptions. It is highly unlikely that the “true” SROI is below this number.
• The best estimate SROI is based primarily on charity data and, where applicable, conservative evidence from external research and/or other charities.
• The upper bound SROI incorporates additional value that the charity could reasonably be producing but that is not yet appropriately backed by evidence.

The Demonstrated Impact score is a combination of the lower bound, best estimate, and upper bound SROI, with the lower bound and best estimate weighted more heavily than the upper bound. We emphasize benchmark SROI estimates that can be solidly supported by evidence and aim to produce estimates which measure proven impact. This decision to focus on conservative, evidence-supported estimates of results means that better information about a specific charity’s results will typically lead to higher estimates of its demonstrated social impact. This provides an incentive for charities to collect and share better data and diminishes subjectivity in our evaluation process.
To make our SROI estimates comparable across charities, and even across sectors, we regularly examine all causal factor estimates for consistency. As well, each of the inputs used in our model (including outcome values, attribution shares, drop-off rates, and baseline success rates) is based on extensive research. This includes a combination of randomized controlled studies, meta-analyses, and economic cost studies. As we receive more and better evidence, our estimates are regularly updated.
 
2) Data Quality Score
The second component of the Ci impact ratings is the Data Quality score (DQS). The Data Quality score measures the quality of a charity’s impact-related evidence. It is calculated as a percentage, using a grading that assesses each charitable program on the data it provides regarding eight main components of SROI: number of unique clients, pre-program client characteristics, program outcomes, counterfactuals, duration of program effects, duration of client engagement, external validation, and spending breakdown. The Data Quality score for each individual charity program is then weighted by the charity’s spending breakdown to determine the overall Data Quality score for the entire charity.
Ci has been measuring the quality of social results reporting for several years through our Results Reporting grade. A full explanation of the Results Reporting grading is available https://www.charityintelligence.ca/results-reporting here.
The Data Quality score and the Results Reporting grade both measure the quality of information provided by charities. Both ask charities to report a breakdown of their spending by program area, as well as quantified outputs and outcomes that are relevant and timely.
There are, however, two key differences between the Data Quality score and the Results Reporting grade: 

• Scope: The Results Reporting grade has a wider scope than the Data Quality score. It assesses the reporting of a charity’s strategy, activities, outputs, outcomes, learning, and the quality of that reporting. The Data Quality score focuses Read More

text-align: right; September 11, 2017
text-align: right; Kate Bahen, Managing Director
If you give, check out and in Cuba.

#_ftn1″ name=”_ftnref1″ style=”color: #808080; 1. In fact, between 3-4 million people were affected in the Caribbean, including those who had temporary power outages, with another 6 million affected in Florida.
Hurricanes give people warnings, providing people days to prepare. This results in significantly fewer fatalities than other natural disasters. Currently, Hurricane Irma killed 37 people compared with Hurricane Harvey’s toll of 70, and the Mexican earthquake that happened just last week that killed at least 90 #_ftn3″ name=”_ftnref3″ style=”color: #808080; 3. This is not a “life and death” situation.The material destruction is wide-spread and recovery will be costly. But human life is not at stake.
High-profile disasters present charities with the opportunity to raise donations.  16 Canadian charities have registered with Canada Helps #_ftn4″ name=”_ftnref4″ style=”color: #808080; 4. Charities with the biggest brand recognition, with the best celebrity endorsements, get the most donations.
#_ftn5″ name=”_ftnref5″ style=”color: #808080; [5]
text-align: right; WHAT are the greatest needs? In these early days, the greatest needs appear to be infrastructure recovery – clearing roads, debris removal, and restoring power. This is not typical “charity work” instead, in developed countries, it is handled by governments, military (the Dutch, French and British military have come in to help in the disaster recovery and restore law and order), and power companies (Alberta’s Fortis has deployed to Turks and Caicos) #_ftn7″ name=”_ftnref7″ style=”color: #808080; 7, for Hurricane Irma we recommend:
For disaster recovery in the British Virgin Islands, population 35,000, hit by Hurricane Irma on September 8, 2017, was on the ground on #_ftn8″ name=”_ftnref8″ style=”color: #808080; 8
Link to donate to https://www.samaritanspurse.ca/article/emergency-airlift-takes-hurricane-relief-supplies-to-the-caribbean/ Samaritan’s Purse Canada 
Canada’s #_ftn9″ name=”_ftnref9″ style=”color: #808080; 9.
Link to donate to https://www.canadahelps.org/dn/31770 Global Medic 
Barbuda, the outer island with 2,800 people is 70 miles away from St. Maarten. Disaster recovery efforts will likely be staged from St. Maarten.
For Cuba, population 11.1 million, where the North shore was affected, #_ftn10″ name=”_ftnref10″ style=”color: #808080; 10. Cuba is one country where Canadian donors may choose to focus recovery giving as Cuba is unlikely to benefit from generous American support as many American charities do not operate in Cuba.
To donate to https://secure.oxfam.ca/?project=https://secure.oxfam.ca/?&project=Emergency%20Response%20Fund Oxfam Canada’s disaster appeal
Charities doing development work in poor Caribbean countries are launching Hurricane Irma disaster response appeals. Charity Intelligence is concerned that disaster aid money will fund regular development work. Disaster response is fundamentally different from long-term development work. This disaster region had good incomes, high vaccination rates, low child mortality rates, long life expectancy, and jobs before the disaster. Recovery is getting those affected to where they were before Hurricane Irma.
The Caribbean is a tourist destination rather than an area of ongoing charity development work. Canadian charities’ Caribbean bases are in Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Panama. These countries were largely unaffected by Hurricane Irma. It will be a logistical challenge to quickly deploy to the affected outer islands over 1,000 kilometres away.
Congratulations to World Vision Canada, with its development operations in Northern Haiti (missed by Hurricane Irma) and a great track record in disaster response, for NOT being opportunistic and launching a disaster appeal fundraising.
Similarly, Doctors Without Borders is not responding but focusing on major humanitarian disaster responses in Bangladesh, Yemen, Nigeria and others.
Just reading through some of the charities’ Hurricane Irma fundraising appeals comments:
– Donors need to know where on the ground you are, your plan for getting to the disaster area, and do you have local partner agencies/church congregations to work with? What are your areas of expertise in disaster responses? Being prepared to respond is good intentions, actually responding matters more.
#_ftn11″ name=”_ftnref11″ style=”color: #808080; 11, particularly in hurricane-affected countries that get tropical rains, reiterated in Nepal earthquake disaster response. Corrugated steel roofing, rebar, cinder blocks, concrete homes are more impactful shelter relief. These people affected had houses with roofs, walls, kitchens, and furniture. Living in a tarp tent is not appropriate “recovery”.
#_ftn12″ name=”_ftnref12″ style=”color: #808080; 12. Hygiene kits include laundry powdered soap, disposable razors, shaving cream, toilet paper, toothbrushes, toothpaste, . Give .
 
http://www.charityintelligence.ca/ www.charityintelligence.ca
Twitter @CharityIntel
Charitable Registration Number: 80340 7956 RR0001
Sources:
Christopher Sherman, “Death toll now at 90 as aftershocks rattle Mexico” Chicago Tribune, September 10, British Red Cross, “You can save lives” Hurricane Irma appeal, September 7, Saundra Schimmelpfennig, “The Dirty Truth About Disaster Fund Raising”, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, March 29, Canadian News Wire, “Samaritan’s Purse to help victims of Hurricane Irma”, September 8,

#_ftnref10″ name=”_ftn10
Read More