Category: uncategorized

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. 

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. 

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. 

 
THIS IS A PLACE HOLDER DUMMY PAGE – need to go into GoDaddy, Webhosting, Manage, CPanel admin, File Manage, public html >ci_new > components . com_charities > fourstarcharities > tmpl 
default.php right click edit edit
 
 
Charity Intelligence has rated over 720 charities on a scale of 0 to 4 stars. Below is a list of the 4-star charities that we have found to date, based on our metrics. To see how the star ratings are calculated, please see our  https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charities-rating-methodologyid=176 methodology page.
If you would like to see all of the ratings that we have completed, including all 3,2,1 and 0-star charities, please  https://www.charityintelligence.ca/component/osmembership/?Itemid=101n&Itemid=84″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer register for a subscription with Charity Intelligence and for an annual fee of $20, you can view and compare all ratings.
If you would like to see a charity that is not yet rated, please # send us the name of the charity and those charities receiving the most donor votes will be rated.
 
CUSTOM 4-STAR CHARITIES MODULE HERE

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 – a Demonstrated Impact Score based on estimates of the charities’ social return on investment (SROI) and a Data Quality Score (DQS). A discussion of each metric can be found below.
Using the Demonstrated Impact Score and the DQS, the Ci team 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 a number 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. See the example below:
 

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-profiles/top-10-impact-charities-of-2019 Charity Intelligence’s Top impact charities 
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/giving-with-impact Giving with Impact
 

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 DQS 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 DQS for each individual charity program is then weighted by the charity’s spending breakdown to determine the overall DQS for the entire charity.
Ci has been measuring the quality of social results reporting for several years through our Donor Accountability Score (previously Social Results Reporting Score). A full explanation of the Donor Accountability rating methodology is available  https://www.charityintelligence.ca/results-reporting here.
The DQS and the Donor Accountability 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 Donor Accountability and the DQS: 

• Scope: The Donor Accountability has a wider scope than the DQS. It assesses the reporting of a charity’s strategy, activities, outputs, outcomes, learning, and the quality of that reporting. The DQS focuses only on a few key outputs and outcome metrics needed to measure impact, which varies across program types.
• Audience: The Donor Accountability measures how well a charity reports its social results to the general public. In contrast, the DQS measures the quality of the data that the charity collects and shares with our analysts. It does not matter whether this information is published in an annual report or shared privately.