Misplaced Pages

#141858

29-477: Charity Navigator is a charity assessment organization that evaluates hundreds of thousands of charitable organizations based in the United States, operating as a free 501(c)(3) organization . It provides insights into a nonprofit's financial stability, adherence to best practices for both accountability and transparency, and results reporting. It is the largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities in

58-475: A podcast for The Chronicle of Philanthropy in September 2009. The article explained that plans for a revised rating system would also include measures of accountability (including transparency, governance, and management practices) as well as outcomes (the results of the work of the charity). In July 2010, Charity Navigator announced its first major revamp. This revamping began what the organization stated

87-722: A 2014 Chronicle of Philanthropy interview on the nonprofit sector, journalist Nicholas Kristof identified it with a trend he deplored: "There is too much emphasis on inputs and not enough on impact", Kristof said. "This has been worsened by an effort to create more accountability through sites like Charity Navigator. There is so much emphasis now on expense ratios that there is an underinvestment in administration and efficiency." A 2014 survey of attitudes toward charity evaluation indicated positive results for Charity Navigator in six of seven categories. In October 2020, Charity Navigator acquired impact-based charity evaluator ImpactMatters . In August 2023, Charity Navigator acquired Causeway,

116-477: A network of "outcomes champions" and supporting around 1,500 voluntary and community organisations. The programme was independently evaluated in 2006 by the Open University and in 2009 by Tribal Consulting. An "outcomes approach", focussing on the changes, benefits or other effects which happen as a result of an organisation's activities, was commended as an effective approach to performance measurement in

145-664: A nonprofit to provide financial analyst services to donors. They eventually decided to rate charities based on the metric of how much money it cost to save a life. GiveWell has focused primarily on the cost-effectiveness of the organizations that it evaluates, rather than traditional metrics such as the percentage of the organization's budget that is spent on overhead . In the first year, Karnofsky and Hassenfeld advocated that charities should generally spend more money on overhead, so that they could pay for staff and record keeping to track how effective their efforts were. This ran counter to standard ways of evaluating charities based on

174-553: A philanthropy technology startup. Using publicly available tax returns ( IRS Form 990 ) filed with the Internal Revenue Service and information posted by charities on their web sites, the Charity Navigator rating system bases its evaluations in two broad areas—financial health and accountability/transparency. Based on these criteria charities are awarded one to four stars. In the early years,

203-496: Is spent, how it governs itself, and how the charity protects its donors ' privacy , among other criteria. Charity evaluation from these organizations has typically focused on measuring administrative and fundraising costs, salaries, and assessing how large of a proportion of a charity's budget is directly spent on impactful activities. In 2000, Ministry Watch , an evangelical Christian organization that reviews Protestant ministries for financial accountability and transparency,

232-610: Is the process to move toward CN 3.0, which is a three-dimensional rating system that would include what they consider the critical elements to consider in making a wise charitable investment After collecting data for more than a year, in September 2011 Charity Navigator launched CN 2.0, which is a two-dimensional rating system that rates a charity's: (1) financial health, and (2) accountability and transparency. In January 2013, Charity Navigator announced another expansion to its rating methodology, "Results Reporting: The Third Dimension of Intelligent Giving". Because mission-related results are

261-534: The National Council for Voluntary Organisations in 2014. CES had a history of supporting charities in identifying their aims and objectives and the outcomes they wanted to achieve, as well as mapping how successful they were at achieving those outcomes. The "National Outcomes Programme" was delivered and delivered by CES with funding from the Big Lottery Fund between 2003 and 2009, developing

290-521: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act , among others), creating limitations on how accurately a charity's efficiency can be graded based on a tax return. Particularly relevant to Charity Navigator's methodology in 1999 was that 59% of the 58,000 charities receiving public donations in 1999 failed to report any fundraising expenditures, illustrating a potential problem with relying on Form 990 figures alone when analyzing an organization. Charity Navigator rates

319-573: The "top 100 charities" hold at least three years' worth of funding (that is, they have three times their annual budget in savings) and some store as much as eight 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. In 2015 the United Kingdom government announced

SECTION 10

#1732780173142

348-429: The 6% of charity organizations in the United States that have over $ 1 million in annual revenue (these 6% get 94% of the revenues that come into the nonprofit sector each year). In December 2008, President and CEO Ken Berger announced on his blog that the organization intended to expand its rating system to include measures of the outcomes of the work of charities it evaluated. This was described in further detail in

377-547: The Internal Revenue Service, that transition took effect. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is involved in research projects such as The Philanthropy 400, which annually ranks the nation's largest nonprofit groups based on the amount of money they raise, and The Philanthropy 50, which ranks the individuals who give the most money to nonprofit groups each year. According to a 2012 study by the Chronicle ,

406-405: The United States. It does not accept any advertising or donations from the organizations it evaluates. Charity Navigator was launched in spring 2001 by John P. (Pat) Dugan, a pharmaceutical executive and philanthropist. The group's mission was to help "donors make informed giving decisions and enabling well-run charities to demonstrate their commitment to proper stewardship" of donor dollars. Over

435-573: The accuracy and reliability of IRS Form 990 data may be questionable, according to the chief executive of GuideStar . Form 990 categorizes a charity's expenditures into three broad categories that are open to accounting manipulation. The nonprofit sector does not have the strict financial regulation and transparency required from public corporations (under the Securities Act of 1933 , the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , and

464-569: The charity sector. The Chronicle of Philanthropy The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a magazine and digital platform that covers the nonprofit world of philanthropy . Based in Washington, D.C., it is aimed at charity leaders, foundation executives, fund raisers, and other people involved in philanthropy . The Chronicle of Philanthropy publishes 12 print issues a year as well as daily Web coverage and multiple e-newsletters, including Philanthropy Today. The Chronicle of Philanthropy

493-417: The creation of a new government-run watchdog to regulate large charities. In 2006, hedge fund employees Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld formed an informal group with colleagues to evaluate charities based on data and performance metrics similar to those they used at the fund. The group was surprised to find the data often did not exist. The next year, Karnofsky and Hassenfeld formed GiveWell as

522-557: The group's methodology was the subject of some criticism for its approach at the time. This method was criticized in a 2005 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review for (at the time) taking into account only a single year's IRS Form 990. This approach can lead to significant fluctuation in the ranking of a charity from year to year. Also, the focus on the IRS Form 990 has itself been criticized, as

551-504: The idea of discriminating among cause areas for being moralistic and elitist "by weighing causes and beneficiaries against one another". Philosopher and effective altruism advocate William MacAskill defended the concept by comparing the choice to donate to an art gallery with the choice of saving a painting rather than saving people from a burning building. In 2013 and 2014, GuideStar , BBB Wise Giving Alliance , and Charity Navigator wrote open letters urging nonprofits and donors to end

580-422: The organization to increase the total number of rated nonprofits from 9,000 to 160,000 at launch. The rating system launched with the first key indicator, Finance & Accountability, with a plan to release additional indicators over the next 18–24 months. Some charities, in response, began to supply more information. The New York Times reported in 2010 that one non-profit began "reporting on its finances using

609-399: The ratio of overhead to funds deployed for the charity work itself. Giving What We Can (GWWC), founded in 2009 by Toby Ord , also differed from other charity evaluators in terms of the importance given to metrics of charity performance, solely focusing on the cost-effectiveness of the charity's work. It has argued that the variance in cost-effectiveness of charities arises largely due to

SECTION 20

#1732780173142

638-414: The rich (those making over $ 100,000 a year) give a smaller share, averaging 4.2%, to charity than those poorer (between $ 50,000 - $ 75,000 a year), who give an average of 7.6%. In 2007, they evaluated the credibility of celebrity in charitable giving and found that often celebrity involvement is not as effective as the broader press attention it is given. The Chronicle of Philanthropy' s chief executive

667-511: The same format as the 10-K ." In response to an op-ed authored by Charity Navigator's CEO entitled "The Elitist Philanthropy of so-called Effective Altruism", the cofounder of the Centre for Effective Altruism wrote "What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism". Charity assessment A charity watchdog is a type of nonprofit organization that provides ratings of charitable groups based on how an individual charity's money

696-488: The use of the overhead ratio as the sole or main indicator of a nonprofit's performance. Charity Navigator has also been working to expand its criteria to include results reporting. See Charity Navigator § Evaluation method . In the United Kingdom, Charities Evaluation Services (CES), itself a charity, was established in 1990 to support the improved effectiveness of the voluntary sector . The services merged with

725-677: The variance in the nature of the causes that the charities operate in, and therefore has made evaluations across broad areas of work such as health, education, and emergency aid before comparing specific organizations. In practice, it recommends a selected few charities in the area of global health . Its work is similar to that of GiveWell. GWWC no longer evaluates charities but, like the National Philanthropic Trust , it accepts philanthropic members and helps them to donate to charities. Charity Navigator 's former CEO Ken Berger and consultant Robert M. Penna harshly criticized

754-471: The very reason that charities exist, Charity Navigator developed this new rating dimension to specifically examine how well charities report on their results. The new rankings now include "various criteria, including ... privacy policies". In July 2020, Charity Navigator announced an additional nonprofit rating system, Encompass. The new Encompass Rating System analyzes nonprofit performance based on four key indicators: This alternative methodology allows

783-404: The years, the group grew from 1,100 to over 200,000 charities. As of 2009, four percent of the charities it evaluated had earned at least five consecutive 4-star ratings. In 2011, Kiplinger's Personal Finance selected Charity Navigator as a Money Management Innovation for "helping millions of people become philanthropists", and it was on Time magazine 's top 50 websites of 2006 list. In

812-429: Was founded in 1988 by editor Phil Semas and then managing editor Stacy Palmer. It was initially owned by The Chronicle of Higher Education Inc., which also publishes The Chronicle of Higher Education , a weekly newspaper covering colleges and universities. On May 4, 2022, The Chronicle of Philanthropy announced plans to spin off and become an independent, nonprofit organization, As of February 2023, with approval from

841-649: Was founded. Charity Navigator was launched in 2001 by John P. Dugan, a wealthy pharmaceutical executive and philanthropist. Initially, Charity Navigator provided financial ratings for 1,100 charities, and has data on 8,000 as of mid-2016. The Toronto Star has reported on some of the difficulties and revelations of auditing charities in Canada as described by Charity Intelligence Canada (Ci). 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 Ci. Moreover, one-quarter of

#141858