Author: administrator

Doctors Without Borders: Lean, Focused and Effective

by Peter Cavelti, December 17, 2017
For most of us, the practice of charitable giving is not something that follows a defined set of rules, but rather something that continuously evolves. I’d like to share my journey with you—how I was first taught to give, how my perceptions and attitudes changed, why I eventually ended up with a very small number of causes I support, and why one of them, Doctors Without Borders, continuously inspires me.
Do you ever wonder what charity is? A few years ago I asked my grandchildren just that. “That’s easy, Papa,” Alexandra, the eldest, led the way. “It’s being kind.” Cameron and Abigail agreed, adding that being charitable means to help someone in need.
A bit later in our discussion, we talked about different ways of giving and concluded that actively engaging with others was the highest form of compassion. To the girls, these others were animals—adopting lots of dogs and cats seemed the right thing to do. Cameron, meanwhile, wanted to help people, especially the sick, disabled and hungry.
Then, as the children explored how they might implement their plans, the conversation took a turn. They realized there were limitations to what was possible. There were school and family obligations, and some of their ideas were hopelessly impractical. Maybe it was easier to collect money and send it to people who were there, in the right places, with the time and knowledge to do what was needed.
Ever since that first talk about charity, I’ve tried to teach my grandchildren how to best support the work we don’t have the time, opportunity, training or inclination to do ourselves. They’re in their teens now and skim through data like any skilled adult would, and every now and then they join me on a fact-finding mission, where they can observe, ask questions, or help out. And still, finding the most worthy organizations is far from easy.
 
The Two Faces of Charity
When I grew up in post-war Europe the meaning of charitable giving was quite different from what it is today. Where there was need, people helped each other. The universe of charitable organizations was far smaller than it is today. My father, who was a young dentist, often came home with a crate of apples or a couple of hams—things he’d been given by farmers who couldn’t pay their bills. My mom didn’t like that and sometimes called him a bad businessman, but then quickly revised her narrative when she noticed we children were listening. Looking after the less fortunate, we were told, was an imperative.
At Christmas time, our mother sat down at the kitchen table and wrote notes to those she felt needed help: the Franciscan monks, the Dominican nuns, the Red Cross, the Institute for the Blind and the Salvation Army. She placed a ten-franc bill in each envelope and a postage stamp on the outside. As economic conditions improved and my father achieved unexpected success with his practice, the pile of Christmas envelopes grew. The causes my parents now supported included a bird sanctuary, cancer research, programs for disabled children, political activists andnumerous others.
In my early twenties, when backpacking around the world on something like ten dollars a day, I experienced a completely different face of charity. Here is a page from my battered travel journal:
“The refugee camp outside the city accommodates 800,000 people and is serviced by a staff of 400. I join the short line-up of visitors wanting to get in, present my credentials, and get a piece of paper showing my name and passport number in Western characters, alongside numerous other notations in Hindi. As I enter, I’m intimidated by the vast ocean of canvas and cloth I see, most of it in shades of beige, brown, grey or green, suspended by a variety of ropes and wooden stakes. I first conclude that a huge logistical effort must have made this possible. Then I change my mind: more likely, this all started with a thousand tents, probably supplied by the Indian army, and when by day three or so tents were no longer available, every thinkable substitute was brought in, in a chaotic effort to give the desperate masses streaming in each day some token form of shelter.
The front line of tent city is relatively uncrowded, taken up mostly by processing desks and medical examination facilities. Some of the staff here are Westerners; I hear English and a few Scandinavian sounding exchanges. I walk by the food distribution centre. A couple of trucks filled with high stacks of bags of rice are backed up here, and the line-up of people waiting to receive their allocated ration snakes deep into the thicket of shelters. I ask one of the staff how much each person gets. It depends on what type of voucher they have, the young woman hollers back: adults 400 grams per day, children 150 grams. Some of the people lining up have vouchers for a whole family, she explains. The line-up is between six and eight hours long.
Apparently free to go wherever I want to, I walk past the outer periphery, into the next layer, and it’s here that I encounter unimaginable scenes. The deeper I get into this miserable community, the worse it gets. Starving children lie around, bellies badly extended, some with parts of their faces covered with thick clusters of flies. Many of the adults look emaciated too, some uncontrollably crying, others laughing hysterically, then breaking down. There are mothers holding babies to their withered breasts, the babies too exhausted to suck. I see one mother collapsed on the ground, next to her dead toddler, hysterically sobbing.
I can’t take it for long, this wretched display of human suffering. After an hour or so, I turn around, making my way back to the perimeter tents and chat up a young nurse. She’s leaning against the side of a fencepost, smoking a cigarette. She’s from Hungary, a member of a Soviet relief delegation, and she works at the processing desk. The stories of abuse and cruelty are unbelievable, she tells me—babies randomly bayonetted, women raped by whole groups of Pakistani soldiers, men loaded onto trucks to be taken to the nearest field and executed. She’s convinced India will soon enter the war and it’ll get even worse.”
What I saw outside Calcutta that day in 1971 was a small part of the disaster that is now referred to as either the Bangladesh Genocide or the Bangladesh Liberation War, depending on perspective. Doctors Without Borders was not in existence then (it was founded later that year), but the idealism and unreserved humanity of the exhausted camp volunteers I met that day left me stunned and imprinted me forever.
I travelled on afterwards, eastward through Asia at first, where I soon found myself amidst the chaos unleashed by the Vietnam War. Eventually, I crossed the ocean to settle in one of the world’s most blessed places, Canada. It was as if the universe was rewarding me for my efforts to open my eyes and explore.
 
Finding the Right Approach
Then I became like my father. I struggled to make a living at first, but soon succeeded on a scale I could not have imagined. Within a few years, I earned what seemed to me enormous sums of money and, once a year at Christmas, gave a percentage of it away. I knew little about the organizations I supported, nor was I in touch with them or understood how exactly my donations were used. What mattered was that I could write an ever greater number of cheques. It made me feel incredibly good; I felt that the long hours I worked generated benefits not just for myself, but also the world outside. Giving money was even better than earning it—I was making a difference.
Twenty or so years into my career, a remarkable thing happened. A lady from Doctors Without Borders called me. She said they’d noticed my steadily growing annual donations and were thankful for them. Would I like to come and visit, so that they could show me what my grants had accomplished? We agreed that a late-afternoon meeting would work best for everyone. It was a Friday when I arrived at the charity’s offices; I know that because I remember feeling terribly sorry for myself. I’d had a rough week at work, one of the worst ever, with administrative entanglements and a lousy market leaving me exhausted.
Then, after being introduced to some key people, I met the logistics expert who directed the relief operations of which Canada’s section was in charge. Sitting down in his tiny and heavily cluttered office, I casually asked how things were going. “Well,” I was told, “it’s been a difficult day.” He vaguely pointed at the white-board on the wall behind him, where column headings referred to some of the most challenged places I could think of: Chechnya, the Nigerian Delta, Haiti, Somalia and half a dozen others—civil war theatres, refugee sanctuaries, hotbeds of disease, places where malnutrition and famine reigned. I asked my host to tell me more.
Sometimes, he explained, Doctors Without Borders staff can move without constraint and help on a massive scale. But just as often, there is a population group, a military faction or a government that intervenes, blocking the mission’s work or tyrannizing the victims seeking help. “There are moments when you come to accept abuse, beatings, and even loss of life as almost commonplace,” he said. Then he told me about the abduction of a friend he’d been in the field with not long ago. 
There are times in life when we need perspective and context, and this is what my first visit to Doctors Without Borders brought me. I was back where I’d been when, seemingly a lifetime ago, I visited the refugee camp. Not only did my work-related problems seem utterly trivial, but there was so much more. The man I’d met with had stayed long past his office hours taking time to explain, to open himself to me, to tell me about his ongoing struggle to come to terms with what he routinely experienced.
I felt humbled, yet so grateful. I’d just been taught how comparatively insignificant my contributions to society, humanity, the universe, were.
I made it my business to regularly visit Doctors Without Borders, soon referring to it by its international name, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF. Each time I stopped by I learned more. Before long, my new friends became my heroines and heroes. Their work inspired me on a personal level, teaching me about commitment and focus, and what can be done when all seems hopeless. I also became intrigued with how well they managed an extremely complex operation. Having held executive positions in the financial industry and being overly familiar with financial analysis, I found myself baffled by how Doctors Without Borders could achieve unrivalled social impact while being run on an insanely disciplined budget.
Some of my newly gained insights came with regrets. As I studied the efficiencies in Doctors Without Borders’ operations, the weaknesses at other charities became woefully apparent. Some of the organizations I’d given money to turned out to be cash-hoarding machines, banking vast amounts of money and channeling only a small portion of donations to what their literature portrayed as causes in desperate need. Others had unacceptably high administrative costs, often aggravated by excessive management compensation. Then there was the issue of fundraising: did I want my donations to make a difference now, or would I prefer that my money be spent on pamphlets, advertisements and call centres? To be sure, soliciting donations can be an important component of running a charitable enterprise, but the scale has to be justifiable. Of the causes I had supported, a disturbingly large number were spending between 35% and 40% of donations on fundraising!
Clearly, I’d given a lot of money to undeserving organizations, and thus deprived the best-run charities of funds they could have used far more effectively. Doctors Without Borders was one of them. Gradually, I learned to give better—to give in a more targeted and intelligent way, to give where I could make the biggest difference.
 
Disciplined, engaged and impactful—and woefully under-supported
I’d like to give you two sets of facts:
 The first is, that among globally active relief organizations, Doctors Without Borders stands unrivalled in terms of its operating efficiencies and its humanitarian impact. Last year, the organization was active in over 90 countries and staffed by close to 40,000, of which more than 35,000 operated in the field. 83% of financial resources were spent on the charity’s social mission; fundraising and administration costs amounted to only 17%.
 The second fact is that out of some C$16 billion in charitable aid extended by Canadians in 2016, only 0.35% found its way to Doctors Without Borders.
What this tells me is that Canadians are indisputably generous––16 billion dollars is a lot of money. On the other hand, when I consider the vast sums of money given to charities that spend lavish sums on things other than the actual cause they champion, it seems clear that Canadians could do a far better job in directing their donations.
I don’t believe that different kinds of suffering can neatly be categorized in a spreadsheet, but nonetheless, it’s worth contemplating what Doctors Without Borders accomplished in the space of one year. Here is a summary of its 2016 activities:

• The charity provided relief operations in many of the world’s most besieged places, including Yemen, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria and Syria. It treated tens of thousands of victims, while its facilities repeatedly came under siege. Field hospitals in Syria and Yemen alone endured 74 military attacks, in which dozens of medical personnel, patients and their caretakers were killed.
• Doctors Without Borders provided assistance to people on the move, fleeing repression, poverty or violence. Over 21,000 people were rescued while fleeing to safe havens, many of them from cheap rubber boats crossing the Mediterranean.
• Other teams responded to emergencies caused by epidemics and natural disasters, and provided care and improved treatment for patients with contagious diseases. Vaccinations were administered on an unprecedented scale, with 2.2 million people immunized in response to disease outbreaks and nearly half a million more undergoing routine vaccinations.

There are other things that profoundly impress. While increasingly many human relief organizations focus on fundraising and subcontract field operations to third parties, Doctors Without Borders insists on doing the work itself. In many crisis situations that means that Doctors Without Borders is there first. To do so consistently requires enormous commitment and courage, but also brings ample rewards, including a body of cumulative experience no other group can match.
Then there are the salaries paid to Doctors Without Borders’ executives and head office staff, which are consistently at the low end of the scale. It’s the same for the more than 35,000 doctors, nurses, logisticians and support people who work in the field—they earn considerably less than their professional peers back home, while wilfully exposing themselves to extremely difficult and dangerous conditions, risking their health and, in many cases, their life. This must surely be the highest form of charitable giving.
Another curiosity is that the maximum tenure for directors and executive staff is six years. This policy engenders a culture of mentorship and encourages a vibrant and forward-looking mind-set. It also inhibits the kind of entrenched thinking and inertia that dominates far too many sizeable organizations. In getting to know Doctors Without Borders operatives at all levels of seniority, I’ve come to learn that they are infectiously enthusiastic and self-critical. They consistently want to be the best.
Perhaps it’s the organization’s top leadership that inspires that. Amidst running a global organization of immense size and complexity, president Dr. Joanne Liu has regularly found the time to publicly castigate not only the world’s most offensive dictatorial regimes, but also the major powers (some of which are our closest allies) for their equally callous interventions. It’s good to see that the spirit of defiance and tenacity which led to the founding of Doctors Without Borders nearly five decades ago is alive and well today.
 
Balancing Intention with Thought
What else is there to say? In sharing my experience and presenting my conclusions I hope to have made only one major point: if the intention behind your charitable giving is to help in the most effective way, carefully consider where your donations should go. I’d like to emphasize that Doctors Without Borders is not the only organization whose work is admirable and whose social impact is impressive. There are numerous others, in many areas of charitable activity.
Some tools can greatly facilitate your search for worthy candidates. Charity Intelligence, a service that ranks organizations by accountability, financial transparency, engagement, cost efficiency and other benchmarks, is one of the best. Its data and editorial comments can be invaluable when it comes to balancing your willingness to give with incisive, up-to-date information.
Once you take a closer look, you’ll be perplexed by what a small percentage of Canada’s 170,000 charities and non-profits deserve your support. You’ll be even more surprised how much the most worthy organizations can accomplish!   
 
Peter Cavelti is a financial executive and author. His books and articles on investment, geopolitical and social topics have been internationally published.  http://www.cavelti.com/moreabout.html For more information about Peter
Charity Intelligence has independently analysed  https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/81-doctors-without-borders Doctors Without Borders Canada and finds it one of the 2017 Top 10 Impact charities.
 

 
If you find Charity Intelligence’s research useful in your giving, please consider donating to support our work. Being entirely funded by donors like you maintains our independence and objectivity to help Canadians be informed in their giving. Canadians donate over $17 billion each year. This giving could achieve tremendous results. We hope Charity Intelligence’s research helps Canadians give better.
Legal disclaimer:
The information in this report was prepared by Charity Intelligence Canada and its independent analysts from publicly-available information. Charity Intelligence and its analysts have made endeavours to ensure that the data in this report is accurate and complete but accepts no liability.
The views and opinions expressed are to inform donors in matters of public interest. Views and opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, organization, individual or anyone or anything. Any dispute arising from your use of this website or viewing the material hereon shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, without regard to any conflict of law provisions. 

In February 2006, The Economist heralded a new era of giving it called philanthrocapitalism[1]. This new way mirrors business. Entrepreneurs are more than cheque writers supporting charities. Instead they are hands-on, engaged, bringing their business skills and innovative ideas to scale by investing their time and energy[2]. Baby Boomers do good giving differently. Their way is a stark contrast to rich donors of the traditional Silent Generation. The Silent Generation typically defers to authority and gives by the established rules[3]. This week, Canadian philanthrocapitalists were dealt a hard blow by Justice Morgan’s decision.
Morgan’s decision in Faas vs CAMH addressed donors’ rights. Donors, or anybody, can ask the courts to ask the Ontario’s Public Guardian and Trustee to investigate a charity[4]. A judge hears the reasons and decides if it merits an investigation. In denying Faas’ case to proceed, Morgan writes:
“the heart of the issue is whether a donor is like an investor in a business who can require detailed report[s] and can expect to be consulted on the implementation of a funded program”[5].
In short, no. Like good children, donors should be seen – hold the big cheque, smile at the camera – but not heard.
At the centre of this case was one donor’s request for meaningful financial transparency. Like many donors, he was seeking more information about how a restricted gift was spent by the charity. Faas v. CAMH highlights a wide gap between professional standards of transparency and existing charity practices.
Transparency and accountability have always been the largest challenges to social investors[6]. Transparency is the cornerstone of investing. It requires clear and meaningful financial disclosure. In vying for Baby Boomer dollars, charities bandy around business terms like ‘return on investment’ and ‘impact’. Yet charities rarely report the meaningful information an investor needs to assess such impact or returns.
It comes down to defining “meaningful transparency”. Professionals across broad industries, like lawyers, mechanics, counsellors, and engineers, provide spending breakdowns. For example, legal bills show costs like billable hours, those of partners, associates and clerks, and other costs. This is common practice. Charities are not held to this professional standard. Unless there is fraud, Morgan finds such “granular” details excessive.
“Absent evidence of financial misdeeds, [the donor] has no particular right to a detailed accounting of [the charity’s] program and its use of funds”[7].
Without an itemized bill, can a donor assess financial management? Donor cases rest on money matters. The public trustee has no mandate to oversee administrative or management wrongdoings, only financial mismanagement[8].
 
Raising more questions about misappropriated donations
Beyond financial transparency, it is unclear how Morgan’s ruling affects restricted donations. Restricted donations are very popular. Donors like giving to a particular purpose – a scholarship, a new building, even goats. Charities are keen to woo donors. Fundraisers offer specific purposes and programs as a powerful incentive to get donations[9]. Programs promise to be “new”, “transformative”, and “innovative”.
What if a donor gave millions to fund a new scholarship for women in engineering and all, or part, of the donation simply paid for a charity’s existing programs and staff? So long as a) the charity uses the money for its charitable purposes (general operations), and b) there is no evidence of financial mismanagement, are there no grounds to investigate?
Misappropriation is when donations, given for a specific purpose, are diverted and spent on other charity programs. Misappropriation carries serious penalties. If a court finds misappropriation, the charity directors are found in breach of duty, could be fined, and face up to a year in jail[10]. Given these severe penalties, charities must have stringent internal controls to handle restricted donations.
According to experienced philanthropic advisor, Doug White, donations for special purposes are often misappropriated. He urges donors to “be far more diligent in tracking how their money is used. They need to hold the charity to account”[11].
Yet Morgan’s decision effectively prevents donors from tracking how charities use their money. Furthermore, fighting for this right is expensive. This donor, who tried to hold a charity to account, pays his own and an additional $130,000 in legal costs.
 
In the Public Interest
The provincial trustee is only called on to investigate financial mismanagement at a charity when it serves the public interest[12]. Ontario’s Charities Accountability Act does not explicitly define this “public interest”. This is up to a judge’s discretion. Morgan refers to case law to suss out what the public interest is – and what it is not. One donor’s appeal for transparency does not merit an investigation. Public interest must be more than news headlines[13]. As a public investigation is paid for by the public, it is “to be taken very seriously”[14]: it “should not be initiated lightly. Charities …should not quickly be subjected to the disruption and expense of such an inquiry”[15]. Morgan’s decision is that further investigation of Faas v. CAMH is not in the public interest.
Consider these public interest facts:

• In 2016 (the most up-to-date information), 5,397,060 Canadians donated $8.9 billion to charity[16]. In Ontario, where the Charities Accounting Act applies, 2,135,570 donors gave $3.9 billion to charity in 2016[17]. 

• 30% of Canadian donors (1.6 million donors) report not giving more to charities because they believe their money will not be used efficiently or effectively[18]. They have unanswered questions about how charities spend money.

Uncertainty around charity spending is undermining public confidence and support. This harms charities too. Perhaps addressing this is in the public interest.
Donors with a “bad gut-feel” about how their donation was actually spent rarely seek justice. Most stick to the upper-class code of silence about all things unpleasant[19]. Morgan’s decision sends a chilling message to donors: charities do not have to account for spending using standard professional practices, and donors’ concerns, without evidence of fraud, have no recourse.
Little wonder Canadian donors are paying pledges in installments. Pledges are not legally enforceable. Intelligent social investors give slowly. If clear answers to basic questions are not forthcoming, donors walk away.  
Ironically, this legal case highlights how similar giving and investing are. As with investments, some grants exceed donors’ expectations, some fall short. Just like investors, donors will naturally experience many “learning opportunities”. Philanthrocapitalism lives on.
#DonorsToo
 
Read more:

• https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research-and-news/ci-views/33-donor-giving/589-lessons-learnt-the-hard-way-doug-white-s-recommendations-for-donors-in-making-restricted-gift Lessons learnt the hard way: Doug White’s recommendations for donors in making restricted gift
• https://www.charityintelligence.ca/seasons-greetings?view=article&id=590&catid=35 Uncharted waters: Donor rights in Canada
• https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research-and-news/ci-views/33-donor-giving/266-abusing-donor-intent-the-robertson-s-epic-lawsuit-against-princeton-university-by-doug-white Abusing Donor Intent: Doug White’s book about the epic Robertson v. Princeton University lawsuit and other American legal cases

 
Sources:
1. The Economist, “The birth of philanthrocapitalism – The leading new philanthropists see themselves as social investors”, February 23, 2006 
2. Matthew Bishop, Michael Green, Philanthrocapitalism – How the Rich Can Save The World, Bloomsbury Press, 2008
3.  http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,856950,00.html Time, November 5, 1951
4.  https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c10 Charities Accounting Act, RSO 1990, C.10. Section 6 (1)
5. Faas v. CAMH, 2018 ONSC 3386, June 6, 2018
6. Wikipedia, “ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthrocapitalism Philanthrocapitalism”
7. Faas v. CAMH, 2018 ONSC 3386, Section 63
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/news-and-views/ci-articles#_ednref8″ name=”_edn8 8. Boldrini v. Hamilton Naturalist Club, 1995 Carswell Ont 3756 paragraph 8
9. Ellis Carter, “ http://charitylawyerblog.com/2014/04/14/managing-donor-restricted-gifts/ Managing Donor Restricted Gifts”, Charity Lawyer, April 14, 2014
10. Ontario Charities Accounting Act “If a charity director does not apply property, fund, or money in the manner directed by the will or instrument (donor giving agreement), and if the court finds spending misallocations then,

1. in addition to the directors of the charity being found in breach of trust,
2. the directors could be fined, and
3. face a maximum of 12 months in jail.

Terrance S. Carter, http://carters.ca/pub/article/charity/2006/tsc0421.pdf Donor-Restricted Charitable Gifts: A Practical Overview Revisited II (originally published The Philanthropist Fall 2003), 2006 Canadian Association of Gift Planners Annual National Conference, p.43
11. Doug White, Abusing Donor Intent: The Epic Lawsuit between the Robertson Family and Princeton University, Paragon House, 2014
12. Boldrini, supra paragraph 5
13. Ruffolo v. Sun Life, 2008, OJ No 599, at paragraph 72.
14. Faas v. CAMH 2018 paragraph 56
15. Stahl, supra paragraph 11
16. This conservative figure is reported by Statistics Canada. The Charities Directorate, a division of Revenue Canada, reports a far larger figure of $17.5 billion that includes money paid in fundraising events (not tax receipted) and foundation donations in 2016.
17. Statistics Canada Cansim Table 111-0001 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180214/t001a-eng.htm Charitable donations – Canada, provinces and territories 
18. Stats Canada, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2015008-eng.htm Spotlight on Canadians: Charitable giving by individuals, 2016, February 14, 2018 
19. Sammy Hudes, “ https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/16/camh-donor-says-more-transparency-needed-about-money.html CAMH donor says more transparency needed about money”, Toronto Star, October 16, 2016
Image credit: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/16/camh-donor-says-more-transparency-needed-about-money.html Brian B. Bettencourt / Toronto Star

 
If you find Charity Intelligence’s research useful in your giving, please consider donating to support our work. Being entirely funded by donors like you maintains our independence and objectivity to help Canadians be informed in their giving. Canadians donate over $17 billion each year. This giving could achieve tremendous results. We hope Charity Intelligence’s research helps Canadians give better.
Legal disclaimer:
The information in this report was prepared by Charity Intelligence Canada and its independent analysts from publicly-available information. Charity Intelligence and its analysts have made endeavours to ensure that the data in this report is accurate and complete but accepts no liability.
The views and opinions expressed are to inform donors in matters of public interest. Views and opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, organization, individual or anyone or anything. Any dispute arising from your use of this website or viewing the material hereon shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, without regard to any conflict of law provisions. 

For Canadians moved by the horrific separation and detention of children in Texas, Charity Intelligence recommends Texas Civil Rights and Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley.
Texas Civil Rights to is a leading charity that is on the ground in McAllen, Texas, working in the largest migrant detention centre. It represents migrants and tries to https://texascivilrightsproject.org/civil-rights-groups-family-separations/ stop the practice of separating families. It is a lead advocator for policies inside detention centres so detained migrants can talk with their children and know where they are. It will also focus on bringing children back to be with their families. To donate to Texas Civil Rights,  https://texascivilrightsproject.org/donate/ click here. 
This is a local and mid-sized charity that likely has the scale and capacity to be highly effective. Texas Civil Rights has been working on this issue for years, it is not jumping on the bandwagon of charities seeking national attention and donations. It is professional with a track record, donor reports, and financial transparency. These signal organizational strength. In 2017, its operations cost $2.3 million, not including the value of 17 partnerships with law firms providing pro bono services.
It has the professional status to speak loudly to the Trump Administration. It has, and is, representing immigrants in detention.
Local small charities and non-profit groups are also playing a critical role in visiting immigrants in detention and supporting migrants.
RAICES (Refugee and Immigration Centre for Education and Legal Services) is a US charity that promotes justice by providing free and low-cost legal services to migrants. A Facebook fundraiser has raised over $15 million to RAICES. RAICES is likely overwhelmingly “fully-funded”.
Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley supports migrants with a respite centre in McAllen, Texas. This charity is recommended by the Texas Tribune newspaper, along  https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18/heres-list-organizations-are-mobilizing-help-separated-immigrant-child/ with other charities. For Latinos, who are mostly Catholic, arriving in the US with little, the network of Catholic charities can provide humanitarian aid and meet basic needs. To donate to Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley,  https://www.catholiccharitiesrgv.org/Donations.aspx click here. 
Another fundraising group is  https://secure.actblue.com/donate/kidsattheborder ActBlue’s Support Kids at the Border where donations will be divided evenly between 14 groups, including the ACLU, migrant rights in Arizona and California, and charities working throughout the US for migrant and immigrant rights. 
 
Giving tips 
Sadly, with the media attention and emotional outrage, some charities may use this as an opportunity to raise donations. Before giving, do some homework.
What to look for in groups fundraising for migrant rights in Texas:   

• Based in Texas, and operating in Texas. Supporting refugees is a world-wide issue that many charities work on. Texas is a special situation since it is in the US, not in foreign countries with refugees.  
• Expertise and track records in meeting the needs of the situation: working with immigrates in detention and government immigration services. The most immediate need is for legal human rights. Sending teddy bears will not console children separated from their parents.
• Championing reunification: Children need to be with their parents. Following family re-unification, there may be a need for psycho-social support. But not before. 

Before donating, go to the organization’s website. Look especially for recent posts about migrant work in Texas dated before June 2018. This asylum crisis began long before the recent media attention. Are there actions and people on the ground in Texas, or just statements of support? Assess how many staff, volunteers and the organization’s area of focus.
As a Canadian, you will not get a tax-donation receipt for supporting a US organization. And, as such, you can support any organization or non-profit and are not restricted to supporting only registered charities. Give because this matters to you.
Charity Intelligence will not be evaluating these American charities, nor providing updates on how donations were spent and results achieved.
 
Additional resources:
This is a typical, brilliant article on the complexity of the Texas migrant issue perhaps overlooked, and provides excellent background on this complex issue: David Frum “ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/need-for-immigration-control/563261/ Enforce the Border – Humanely: Countering Trump’s extremism with still more extremism will do no good for any principle of freedom.” The Atlantic, June 20, 2018
Texas Tribune’s list of organizations mobilizing to help migrant children separated from their families: Alex Samuels, “ https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/18/heres-list-organizations-are-mobilizing-help-separated-immigrant-child/ Here’s a list of organizations that are mobilizing to help immigrant children separated from their families”, The Texas Tribune, June 18, 2018 
Charity Navigator’s http://blog.charitynavigator.org/2018/06/7-highly-rated-charities-working-for.html#at_pco=smlwn-1.0&at_si=5b2ba6351b602fef&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=1 7 Highly Rated Charities Working For Refugees – these are mostly international charities working in countries other than the US on the worldwide issue of refugees. 
Lomi Kriel “ https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Explainer-Is-the-government-required-to-separate-13005122.php Explainer: Must immigrant parents, children be separated at the border?”, Houston Chronicle, June 19, 2018
 
Image credit: John B. Moore, Getty Images
 

 
If you find Charity Intelligence’s research useful in your giving, please consider donating to support our work. Being entirely funded by donors like you maintains our independence and objectivity to help Canadians be informed in their giving. Canadians donate over $17 billion each year. This giving could achieve tremendous results. We hope Charity Intelligence’s research helps Canadians give better.
Legal disclaimer:
The information in this report was prepared by Charity Intelligence Canada and its independent analysts from publicly-available information. Charity Intelligence and its analysts have made endeavours to ensure that the data in this report is accurate and complete but accepts no liability.
The views and opinions expressed are to inform donors in matters of public interest. Views and opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, organization, individual or anyone or anything. Any dispute arising from your use of this website or viewing the material hereon shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, without regard to any conflict of law provisions. 

Canadian Cancer Society cuts $67 million in costs following merger with Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation

In October 2016, the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation announced a mega-merger. Management set the goal to cut administrative costs by $15 million.  research-and-news/ci-views/43-charity-news/554-canadian-breast-cancer-foundation-merges-into-canadian-cancer-society Charity Intelligence was sceptical.  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[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  charity-details/242-canadian-cancer-society Charity Intelligence’s report on Canadian Cancer Society.
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[2]. Yes, this is factually correct, both in 2018 as it was in 2011. In F2018, the 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.
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, the 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 in line with other comparable health charities, but “ahead of the pack”[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 sceptics who doubt this will happen, CCS’s management may just prove us wrong, again.
 
This report focuses on financial overhead costs, not social results or impact. The news is about the cuts in overhead costs at Canadian Cancer Society with the release of its financial statements. Canadian Cancer Society expects to release its all-important operating results in October 2018. From CCS’s management statements, Charity Intelligence does not expect program results to be materially affected by cuts. We will see.
Figures for Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Research Society and Terry Fox Foundation are already released. Charities with a March year end (Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, BC Cancer Foundation, Alberta Cancer Foundation) are based on F2017 figures.
 
Read more Charity Intelligence reports:
charity-details/242-canadian-cancer-society Canadian Cancer Society – rating and review updated July 2018
news-and-views/ci-articles?id=213 Mega Cancer Charity Merger: Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation to merge with Canadian Cancer Society, October 28, 2016
 
Sources: 
Sheryl Ubelacker,  https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canadian-cancer-society-turns-around-finances-after-cutting-excesses-post-merger-1.3999076 “Canadian Cancer Society turns around finances after cutting excesses post-merger”, Canadian Press, July 4, 2018 
Jason Kirby, https://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/buy-sell-donate/  “Buy, sell, donate: A new breed of analysts is using investing techniques to better scrutinize the booming charity business”, Macleans Business, July 28, 2011 
Erica Johnson, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cancer-society-spends-more-on-fundraising-than-research-1.1080909  “Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research”, CBC News, July 6, 2011
 

 
If you find Charity Intelligence’s research useful in your giving, please consider donating to support our work. Being entirely funded by donors like you maintains our independence and objectivity to help Canadians be informed in their giving. Canadians donate over $17 billion each year. This giving could achieve tremendous results. We hope Charity Intelligence’s research helps Canadians give better.
Legal disclaimer:
The information in this report was prepared by Charity Intelligence Canada and its independent analysts from publicly-available information. Charity Intelligence and its analysts have made endeavours to ensure that the data in this report is accurate and complete but accepts no liability.
The views and opinions expressed are to inform donors in matters of public interest. Views and opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, organization, individual or anyone or anything. Any dispute arising from your use of this website or viewing the material hereon shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, without regard to any conflict of law provisions. 

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. The few donors who care about their giving may have read Canadian Red Cross’ 2-year donor report on Fort McMurray released in May 2018.
More will likely be reassured by  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/red-cross-still-helping-people-in-need-2-years-after-fort-mcmurray-wildfire-1.4643954 news headlines like CBC’s: “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 https://www.charityintelligence.ca/images/Not-so-fast-_-Ci-1-year-donor-report-on-Fort-McMurray.pdf  twist of “spent and committed” in May 2017.
$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.  http://www.redcross.ca/how-we-help/current-emergency-responses/alberta-fires/alberta-wildfires-community-organization-partnership-program/current-partnerships Canadian Red Cross names the local groups receiving money, 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 https://www.charityintelligence.ca/news-and-views/ci-articles?id=236  local frontline charities needed funding 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, “ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/red-cross-still-helping-people-in-need-2-years-after-fort-mcmurray-wildfire-1.4643954 Red Cross still helping people in need 2 years after Fort McMurray wildfire: 89.5% of the $325 million Canadians and government donated has been spent, says Red Cross”, CBC Edmonton, May 2, 2018 
Canadian Red Cross  http://www.redcross.ca/crc/documents/About%20us/About-the-Canadian-Red-Cross/CRC-statement-alberta-fires-fund-2018-03-31-EN.pdf Alberta Fires Fund Audited Financial Statements, March 2018 
Canadian Red Cross, 2016 Alberta Fires  http://www.redcross.ca/crc/documents/Where-We-%20Work/Canada/Alberta/AlbertaFiresInfo/ABFires_2Years_en.pdf Two Year Donor Update
Food bank again, not shelters – https://www.charityintelligence.ca/news-and-views/ci-articles?id=251  List of Fort McMurray local organizations supported in Year 2
Dana Woodworth’s comments reported by Cullen Bird,  http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2017/04/05/spring-rebuild-will-be-tough-recovery-committee-told “Spring rebuild will be tough, Recovery Committee told”, 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.
 
More background from Charity Intelligence
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/images/Not-so-fast-_-Ci-1-year-donor-report-on-Fort-McMurray.pdf Not so fast: Fort McMurray recovery (May 2017)
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research/charity-profiles?id=251 2 year update on Fort McMurray recovery (May 2018)
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/news-and-views/ci-articles?id=206 Canadian Red Cross promises $40 million to Fort Mac local charities (June 2016)
 

 
If you find Charity Intelligence’s research useful in your giving, please consider donating to support our work. Being entirely funded by donors like you maintains our independence and objectivity to help Canadians be informed in their giving. Canadians donate over $17 billion each year. This giving could achieve tremendous results. We hope Charity Intelligence’s research helps Canadians give better.
Legal disclaimer:
The information in this report was prepared by Charity Intelligence Canada and its independent analysts from publicly-available information. Charity Intelligence and its analysts have made endeavours to ensure that the data in this report is accurate and complete but accepts no liability.
The views and opinions expressed are to inform donors in matters of public interest. Views and opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, organization, individual or anyone or anything. Any dispute arising from your use of this website or viewing the material hereon shall be governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario, without regard to any conflict of law provisions.