Category: uncategorized

Charities reaping billions of dollars each year from well-meaning Canadians aren’t legally bound to make public their full audited financial statements. But, surely, they have an ethical obligation to do so. Transparency should be paramount when capitalizing on other people’s generosity. 
As reported by the Star’s Raveena Aukahh and Amy Dempsey, these are some of the biggest players in the charitable sector, with the (Major 100) charities receiving $3.6 billion of the $9.7 billion donated each year. Yet several in this group didn’t want their full financial statements posted publicly. Getting that data required a special request to the Canada Revenue Agency.
What is there to hide? Well, fully one-quarter of the (Major 100) had so much money already in hand they could run their programs for three or more years with no additional fundraising at all. Yet they’re still asking for people’s money. Others continue to spend in excess of 40 per cent of their donations, or more, on fundraising instead of the cause they’re supposed to be serving.
As far as donors are concerned, that’s useful information. All charities should be required to post their full audited financial statements on line. It’s the best way to inspire public confidence in giving. ”
text-align: right; https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2011/11/16/charitable_sector_needs_transparency.html Toronto Star Editorial, November 16, 2011 
Update November 2018: Since 2011, 96 of Canada’s Major 100 charities post audited financial statements online. This is a significant improvement from 70 in 2011.
Charity Intelligence hopes all Canadian charities that receive donations over $1 million will be financially transparent with donors. We will continue to measure financial transparency for donors. 
February 22, 2016: Charities Directorate issues new guidance. For smaller charities, with income over $250,000, the https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/charities-giving/charities/operating-a-registered-charity/financial-statements.html Charities Directorate guidance is that audited financial statements be prepared.
 

 
 I’ve just had another person send me a link to the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) article by Mary Kay Gugerty & Dean Karlan titled https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ten_reasons_not_to_measure_impact_and_what_to_do_instead Ten Reasons Not to Measure Impact – and What to Do Instead. I thoroughly enjoyed the article, but as the comments below it state, the title is misleading. Had it, instead, been called Ten Reasons Many Organizations Should Not do Strict Randomized Controlled Studies, I would have no issue with anything in the article at all. But as it is, I hate the title.
Full-blown impact studies using controls can take months and many, many thousands of dollars. I believe that it would be wasteful for most charities in Canada to undertake such studies. As the article points out, money spent on research that doesn’t help is money wasted.
The key difference between their title and the title of this article is the definition of “measuring impact”. If we were to use their wording, “collect good monitoring data that informs progress”, as the definition of measuring impact, then my title would have been more appropriate for their article. Each of their ten reasons has to do with what I believe are mostly wasteful, overblown studies that are not required in the vast majority of cases.
It is often said that Good is the enemy of Great. In the world of charity program evaluation and reporting, I would argue that Great is the enemy of Good. Charity leaders believe that to get great data, it would cost too much time and money that they don’t have, that they would rather spend on helping their clients.
However, the crux of it, to me, is that good data is exactly what will help clients the most. Those charities that we have found to have the most impact on their clients collect good data. It may not be randomized controlled data (almost never is, nor should it be) but it is good enough that they can understand what is happening because of their programs and what happens when they change things in an attempt to improve their programs. That’s the main reason to collect data – to continually improve program outcomes and to make sure that you are using donor dollars to create as much impact as possible.
It could be argued that we are simplifying things too much, that you cannot adequately understand the impact of a charity without some sort of strict control group evaluation. But I do not believe that, and I worry that this is one of the key reasons that charities are NOT collecting the right data. It is too intimidating to get Great data.
Good data would let you see how much you spend to help someone. And Good data would then allow you to compare that to what happens to that person. Do they improve their health? How much? Do they become employed? How much more money are they making? Are they housed in a better situation than they would have been in? Did you provide them food? How much? Answers to relatively simple questions will allow the charity to understand how much difference they are making with the dollars they spend and if changes in programs are improving the outcomes. And, as Kate Ruff and Sara Olsen argue in another SSIR article, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/next_frontier_in_social_impact_measurement The Next Frontier in Social Impact Measurement Isn’t Measurement at All, this data will also allow analysts to determine how much change the programs are creating.
We have analyzed over 200 charities, looking to determine if they are creating a lot of value with the money given to them, or if they are creating a little value. We are not splitting hairs, wondering if, for a $100 donation, the charity has produced $210 or $230 of value. That is immaterial, and it is not cost-effective to be able to understand that difference. But if you can compare two charity programs, A & B, where program A is creating between $150 and $250 worth of value per $100, and program B is creating between $300 and $400 worth of value, it’s an easy decision.
Most charities do not currently have the data to do this. Some are focused on hair-splitting, which can paralyze a charity, and most are just counting bodies. They could calculate that it cost them $1,345 to help each of their clients, but they have no idea about the associated value created by helping this client. Is it close to $1,300?  Could it be more – $2,000, perhaps?  Or are you really making change and it’s more like $5,000? With a bit of relatively inexpensive data on clients, most charities could provide data that would allow for such necessary calculations.
I applaud Gugerty & Karlan’s article, but I frown on their title. At least for those people who have, likely blindly, sent it on to me, it perpetuates the notion that there are so many reasons not to do impact evaluation that we may as well just forget it. We don’t need any more reasons not to measure impact.
Just my thoughts,
Greg
 
Greg Thomson
Ci Director of Research

 
Tuesday, November 27 is the international day of giving. But where to give? At Charity Intelligence, we believe donors should do a little research before giving. And we have a few ideas of where to look:
2018-top-picks
charity-profiles/top-10-impact-charities-of-2018 2018 Top Impact Charities
 
 
top-100-rated-charities
charity-profiles/top-100-rated-charities 100 Top-Rated Charities
 
 
four-star-charities
four-star-charities 4-Star Charities
 
Giving Tuesday began in 2012. This is its 7th year. Giving Tuesday is the kick-off to the final 35 days of the Giving Season. The Giving Season is as important to charities as Christmas shopping is to stores. It’s not uncommon for charities to receive 40%-50% of their annual donations in December.
Giving Tuesday will be about Instagram and hashtags, but we hope Giving Tuesday is more. Let’s make Giving Tuesday a day to reflect on our giving and the change each of us hopes to see in the world.
Key trends in giving: A fundamental shift in donors being more informed and looking into charities.

Read More

text-align: right; Kate Bahen
text-align: right; December 28, 2018
Different this time
Indonesia’s recent tsunami is different from past disasters. With a far smaller toll than previous disasters, Indonesia is going alone without international help. Donors should understand these differences. If Canadians choose to donate, give differently this time.

text-align: right;
text-align: right;
text-align: right; (Palang Merah Indonesia) Give directly to Indonesian Red Cross rather than through partner agencies.
 
Caveat: Charity Intelligence has not analysed these Indonesian charities, nor undertaken any due diligence. These charities are simply recommended by seasoned professionals we see as experts, and by local Indonesian news agencies.
Please note, these are not registered Canadian charities and donors will not receive a tax receipt.
Charity Intelligence will monitor Canadian charities that launch fundraising appeals and their relief and recovery results in Indonesia.
 
Sources:


”, December 25, 2018
”, The Guardian, October 9, 2018
”, reported by CTV, August 21, 2018
d, February 16, 2017

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.
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.