Jump to content

Charity evaluator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tired time (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 9 July 2016 (→‎References: {{Charity}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A charity evaluator is an organization, normally non-profit, that focuses on assessing charities. They attempt to bring concepts such as skepticism and business best practices to the field of philanthropy.[citation needed]

Auditing charities

The Toronto Star reports on some of the difficulties and revelations of auditing charities as described by Charity Intelligence Canada (CIC). The authors call it "concerning", for example, that one in five of "Canada's top 100 charities" refused to release their full audited financial statements to CIC. Moreover, one quarter of the "top 100 charities" store at least 3 years worth of funding (that is, they have three times their annual budget in savings) and some store as much as 8 years worth. Of the "top 100 charities", 14% exceed the guidelines set by the Canada Revenue Agency by spending more than 35% of donations on fundraising – with some spending as much as 50% of donations on fundraising.[1]

Comparing philosophies

Charity evaluators have a range of different philosophies. For example, GiveWell challenged evaluators Charity Navigator and GreatNonprofits for their high ratings of the Central Asia Institute (CAI) after the CAI was involved in a scandal. Givewell's says its model was superior in this case because Givewell recommends only a few charities most supported by evidence, and avoids commenting on charities that provide as little information as did CAI.[2] Givewell also contends that the most valuable charities are often those that work overseas, and do not work in disaster relief or microfinance.[3]

A joint press release by Givewell, Great Nonprofits, and Philanthropedia discusses why measuring charities' spending on administrative costs is a poor way to evaluate effectiveness. For example, ranking charities that way motivates them to minimize costs billed as "administrative", even when more administration would save money overall.[4][5]

List of notable charity evaluators

See also

References

  1. ^ "Audit of charities encounters resistance", in The Star, by Raveena Aulakh and Amy Dempsey, published Tuesday Nov 15 2011
  2. ^ Givewell.org, "Three Cups of Tea scandal: why we had the right bottom line on the Central Asia Institute", Holden Karnofsky , April 25, 2011, Accessed January 13, 2013.
  3. ^ Givewell.org, "Giving 101: the basics", accessed January 13 2013
  4. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (2009-12-01). "The worst way to pick a charity". GiveWell blog post on joint press release with Great Nonprofits and Philanthropedia.
  5. ^ Goodintents.org, "Charity ratings based on administrative costs can do more harm than good", Saundra Schimmelpfennig, May 20 2009, accessed January 13 2013