The 2010 Charity 100: Where is your money going?

Most of us know almost nothing about how our donations are used. MoneySense has created Canada’s first charity grading system to help change that.


Online only.


The idea of creating a ratings system for charities first occurred to me while eating curried shrimp and eggplant with my uncle Art at a Chinese restaurant in Toronto’s Yorkville district. As rain poured down outside, we got into a deep discussion about which charities most deserve your money. My uncle, a retired professor who lives in Buffalo, N.Y., donates around $8,000 a year to human rights groups, poverty advocates and environmental organizations, but he worries about how his money is used. Like many donors, he’s happy to give generously if his money is actually helping people­—but he has no guarantees that it is.

Recent studies and newspaper headlines are enough to give any donor doubts. In 2008 the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation was criticized for giving former president Michael O’Mahoney a lavish $2.1-million golden parachute. A Toronto Star investigation in 2002 revealed that almost one in six Canadian charities was spending more money on running the organization than on the actual charitable work. Data from five American states shows that less than half the money collected by for-profit contract fundraisers actually reaches the charities. Meanwhile a 2003 study by Harvard Business Review and McKinsey & Co. found that non-profits in the U.S. could free up $100 billion a year by changing operating practices to become more efficient.

My family has strong ties to the non-profit sector, so I know that many organizations are lean and well-run, constantly stretching their limited dollars to push important causes forward. But a few bad apples can taint the barrel, and it’s tough to find out which apples are bad. The Canadian government tries to regulate charities through its tax collection arm, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), but with only 270 staffers overseeing 85,000 charities—and a mandate that’s more concerned with tax evasion than charitable program outcomes—mismanaged organizations and outright scams can and do slip through the cracks.

To me, it seems that part of the solution is to give potential donors more information so they can judge the charities for themselves. If an independent third party could delve into the charities’ financials and come up with a fair and easy-to-use ratings system, Canadians would be more likely to direct the $14 billion that they donate every year to the charities that most deserve their money. That’s why we have decided to attempt what many say is impossible: establish the country’s first ever grading system for Canada’s 100 largest charities. We know that such a system is controversial and doomed to be incomplete, but having some information is better than none—and the key financial indicators can be telling.

For instance, we think it’s useful to know how much of your money is absorbed by overhead, and how much goes directly to the cause. We understand that charities need to spend some of the money they receive on things like accountants and offices for support staff—but if a charity is spending more on such things than the cause itself, we think there’s some explaining to do. We also think it’s helpful to get an idea of how much a charity is spending to raise each additional dollar in its fundraising efforts. Imagine if you donated $10,000 to a charity, only to find out that all of your money was used to air annoying hospital lottery TV ads, rather than helping people. In our rating system, we also keep an eye out for charities that don’t seem to need your money, because they never use it. Believe it or not, some charities already have years of reserves in their vaults. Do you really want to add another $1,000 to a growing pile of dusty, unused money? Finally we look for red flags such as poor governance and secretive charities that won’t divulge what they do with your money, even when donors ask.

There are many other important things you need to know before giving to a charity, such as how valid its mission is and how successful it is at accomplishing its goals. But such factors are difficult to measure through hard numbers, so we weren’t able to incorporate them directly into our rating system. Instead, we did the best we could with the data currently available through the CRA’s 2008 charity information filings to come up with what we call the MoneySense Charity Standards Grade. This score is based on similar systems already in place at charity rating agencies in the U.S., and it’s designed to make it easier to spot when key financial ratios at a charity are out of line for its sector. It also helps donors identify charities with overly large or small reserves, or those without proper governance. By applying it to Canada’s largest 100 charities—as measured by the dollar amount of public donations they receive—we’re simply hoping to help our readers make the most effective use possible of the limited dollars they have available to give.

How much goes to the cause?
The first factor we looked at was how much of your donated money goes to the cause itself, versus administrative and fundraising costs. Yes, sometimes you need to spend money to raise money. But Kate Bahen, managing director of Charity Intelligence Canada, a Toronto organization that advises donors, says that charities can get carried away and spend more time empire-building than helping the people they’re supposed to help. “There are some organizations that are incredibly nimble and cost-efficient,” she says, “while others have an incredibly bloated cost structure.” Because of this, she says, the percentage of income an organization spends on administration and fundraising can be revealing.

In our rating system, charities receive 10 points if 85% or more of their overall annual expenses go to charitable programs, 7.5 points if 75% to 85% go to programs, and so on. Charities that spend less than 60% on charitable programs get zero points.

One wrinkle we ran into was how to grade fundraising organizations such as the United Way or hospital foundations, which don’t run charitable programs themselves. Such organizations exist mainly to funnel money to outside groups, so in these cases we decided to count the money they transferred to other organizations as program expenses. As well, fundraising organizations generally have lower overhead costs (as they are not running programs directly), so we held them to a higher standard, awarding top marks only if 90% or more of their expenses go to other charities. Fundraising organizations with less than 70% going to other charities received no points in this category.

How efficient is the fundraising?
Spending big bucks on galas, telemarketing, door-to-door campaigns and TV ads can raise awareness of a charity—which in turn can bring in even bigger bucks. But some charities are more efficient at this than others. So the next factor in our Charity 100 grade is how much each charity spends on fundraising for every $100 raised.

This is a controversial subject, because from a charity’s point of view, spending $90 to raise $100 makes perfect sense. After all, at the end of the day you end up with $10 more to spend on your charitable programs. “But from a donor’s perspective, do you want 90 cents of your dollar to go to fundraising costs, and only 10 cents to go to charitable programs?” asks Bahen. “It’s prudent to seek charities with low fundraising costs where your dollar will have more impact.”

To rate the charities on fundraising efficiency, we divided the amount spent on fundraising in a year by the amount raised. A charity gets a top mark of 10 points if it spends $10 or less to raise $100. It gets 7.5 points if it spends between $10 and $20 to raise $100, and so on. If it spends $35 or more, it gets zero points. That cutoff point may seem arbitrary, but both the American Institute of Philanthropy and the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance cite $35 as a reasonable upper limit to the amount that should be spent to raise $100. The CRA agrees, saying that a charity which spends $35 or less to raise $100 is unlikely to generate concerns about its fundraising costs.

For organizations that focus primarily on fundraising for outside causes, such as hospital foundations and the United Way, we again demand a higher level of efficiency, since fundraising is pretty much all they do. For these organizations, we awarded full points to those that spend less than $5 to raise $100, while organizations that spend more than $30 to raise $100 were given a zero.

When we looked at how efficient the top 100 charities were at fundraising, we were surprised to find that many big-name organizations spent far more than our $35 cutoff. For instance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario spent $61, and the Canadian Cancer Society Ontario Division spent $43. When we looked closer, we quickly found out why their fundraising expenses were so high: lotteries.

It turns out that using lotteries to raise money is particularly costly, as they rely on pricey TV ads, cash prizes, cars and trips, all of which have to be paid for. But Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada chair Irfhan Rawji argues that the Ontario lottery generates $10 million in profits—money it couldn’t raise otherwise. “Calculating a fundraising efficiency ratio from the information from the CRA doesn’t tell the whole story for an organization like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which raises money in many different ways,” he says.

That’s a reasonable argument, but we still stuck to our $35 limit. That’s because we felt that lottery expenses really are a hard fundraising cost. Lotteries can be so expensive, in fact, that they can result in a huge waste of your donated money. In 2008, the BC Cancer Foundation lost more than $600,000 on an unsuccessful lottery.

When looking at the fundraising efficiency grades, however, keep in mind that there could be valid reasons for a low score. A new charity, or one working on a less popular cause, such as helping drug addicts, will usually have higher fundraising expenses, for example.

Is the charity run properly?
A charity is only as good as the men and women in charge, and “many have concluded that an organization with a strong and active board is less likely to have other problems,” says Bennett Weiner, of the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. We agree, so we decided to make strong governance one of the categories in our rating.

Half of the points in this category are awarded based on a short governance questionnaire that we sent out to all 100 charities. We based our questions on the Better Business Bureau’s governance standards and adapted them based on the opinions of various Canadian experts about standard practices in well-run organizations. Organizations got half a point for every question they answered “yes” to. Twenty-nine of the 100 organizations we contacted responded to our questionnaire. Those which did not respond at all—even after a follow-up phone call—got zero.

The remaining points in the governance category were awarded for transparency. Susan Phillips from Ottawa’s Centre for Voluntary Sector Research and Development, says that of all the factors used for assessing charities, “transparency is the most important.” Charities should expect to be accountable to the public if they rely on the public for donations, and we felt it’s not right for a charity to ask you for money, then refuse to tell you how that money is spent.

While researching our rating system, we found a huge range in attitudes when it came to secrecy. Some charities were open with their financial information when we requested it. Others, however, had bare bones websites and refused requests to provide information. “Many organizations are not interested in transparency,” says Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer with Blumberg Segal LLP. “They want to be private fiefdoms where they can secretly do what they want and put out the information they think you need to know.”

In order to rate the top 100 charities on transparency, we looked at both what information they provide automatically and how they deal with specific requests. For instance, if a charity posts complete audited financial statements on its website, it receives four points; if it posts only partial financial statements online, or if it agreed to provide us with complete audited financial statements only upon request, we gave them two points. If a charity refused to provide financial statements, or didn’t respond at all, it got zero points. If the organization had a privacy policy on its website explaining how personal information was used, it got another point. We awarded a bonus point in the governance category to charities that disclosed the exact salary of their executive director, as we believe that charity leaders—just like CEOs of public companies—should be transparent about their pay. Only 11 out of the 100 charities gave us this information.

Do they even need your money?
How would you feel if you found out your $10,000 donation to a charity from three years ago hadn’t been touched? Not too good, we imagine, yet it happens all the time. That’s because some charities build up massive reserve funds that sit in investment accounts for years. “It’s mind boggling,” says Bahen. “People think they’re making a difference and helping find a cure for disease in this lifetime, but the money’s being parked in investment accounts. It’s just going to Bay Street.”

Charities argue that large reserve funds give them long-term stability and provide income, which is true, but we felt that if reserve funds were ballooning beyond three years’ worth of expenses, it could mean that a charity is not in urgent need of new donations.

The American charity evaluator, Charity Navigator, believes that a healthy charity needs to have some rainy day funds on hand, so we decided that a charity should have at least three months’ reserve to get a top score of 10 points in this category. Organizations got no points if they ran a deficit and had no reserve funds (except for hospitals and major art galleries, which tend to have little money in reserve due to regular government funding), or if they had more than five years’ worth of funds on hand. Keep in mind that there could be some legitimate reasons for a charity to temporarily have a large amount of money in reserve, for example, if it is saving up for a new building or if it has just received an unusually large donation.

How to use our rating system
The MoneySense Charity 100 provides a quick way to tell if a charity is meeting industry standards for its finances and governance. But many people I spoke with warned me there are crucial things you need to know about a charity that can’t be captured by comparative data. There’s no quick solution. To find a charity you can support with confidence, you need to do some research, and some thinking.

Start with an issue that you’re passionate about. Don’t rely on telemarketers and door-to-door salespeople to tell you what’s important to you. Much of this type of soliciting is done by for-profit fundraisers, meaning a chunk of your donation will be skimmed off before it even reaches the charity. Instead, be proactive: look online or on our Charity 100 for organizations working in the area you’re interested in until you find a few that you think might be a good fit.

If the organizations you like are on the Charity 100, at this point you may want to see if they are meeting financial and governance standards. You’ll find that on our chart we have divided the charities up into sectors and awarded them easy-to-read letter grades, just like those awarded in school. (When calculating the overall grade, all categories were weighted at 100% except for the reserve fund score, which was weighted at 50%.)

One important point we’d like to make is that we only compared each charity to other charities within the same sector. So you can’t say that a charity that got an ‘A’ in the Fundraising Organizations category is necessarily better than a charity which got a ‘B’ in the Social Services category. Because we normalized the scores across each sector, it’s quite possible that a less efficient charity in one sector will get a higher grade than a more efficient charity in a different sector.

Finally, even if a charity you’re interested in receives a low overall grade, don’t write it off automatically—it’s possible the charity may have a legitimate explanation. Instead, look at the subcategories to see where the charity is weak and where it is strong, and read the charity’s website to make sure you have a clear understanding of what it does, how it is structured and its track record. As you do your research, it may become clear why it has unusually high fundraising costs, for instance, or no reserve fund. It doesn’t hurt to do a quick Google search to see what people are saying about the organization, and if you still have questions about the charity, you should call.

The most important thing is to get an understanding of the overall effectiveness of the organization’s programs. Good financial health and governance are irrelevant if an organization isn’t accomplishing anything. If it’s an addiction centre, find out how many addicts have been successfully rehabilitated in the last year. For a land trust, find out how much land has been purchased. Ensure that the organization has a long-term strategic plan, as well as regular evaluations to measure and improve the results of their programs.

We think our Charity 100 is a valuable tool for Canadian donors. But we know it’s far from perfect. More sophisticated systems, such as the one used by Charity Navigator in the U.S., have customized target ranges for program costs, fundraising efficiency and reserves for various sub-sectors within the charity field. They also use more than one year of data, to smooth out irregularities such as large one-time donations.

Any measurement system is only as good as the data it uses, and unfortunately, the data available to us was limited in both quantity and quality. In some cases, the numbers may not be accurate due to differences in how charities categorize costs, in others, because charities provided the CRA with misleading or erroneous data.

In fact, after completing this process, we feel strongly that the Canadian government needs to provide donors with more information and do more to ensure its accuracy. Both the U.S. and England have stronger disclosure requirements for charities. As well, while little governance information is collected in Canada, in the U.S. the IRS asks for detailed senior executive salary information as well as including questions similar to the ones in our governance questionnaire.

Charities need to do their part too. While many are doing a great job of being transparent, some are doing as little as possible. At the very least, large charities need to publish detailed annual reports and post their full audited financial statements online.

We feel that providing the public with high-quality easy-to-access data benefits everyone—except, of course, those charities that have something to hide. Pertinent information presented in a useful manner can save donors a lot of time too. My uncle Art in Buffalo spent years weeding out bad charities from his list. He looked at their finances, read appeals with a critical eye, and phoned and wrote when he had concerns. If a charity didn’t respond with credible answers, he stopped giving. Now he’s at the point where he feels confident that all the charities he gives to are doing good work, and he’s proud to support them. We hope our ratings will help you feel more confident about the charities you support too.

Research by Emma Marshall and Jacqueline Nelson

121 comments on “The 2010 Charity 100: Where is your money going?

  1. Your attempt to rank fundraising operations is commendable, however, your treatment of lotteries is incorrect. Buying a lottery ticket to win a prize is quite different than donating the same amount to a charity. Lottery costs are paid for by ticket sales and should not be considered a fundraising cost. These lottery costs are determined by the various provincial gaming authorities that legislate that a certain % of proceeds be given away as prizes.


    • CRA states that these costs associated with lotteries are fundraising costs.


    • This year the Ottawa Cancer Foundation spent $1.6m on its lottery to raise $1.3m. That shortfall is ripped right out of other revenues and does not go to addressing the mission of the Charity.


  2. As an ex-pat Canuck, now living in the US, I want to bring your attention to a book that every fundraiser, donor and nonprofit board of directors should read. Uncharitable by Dan Pallotta is an eye-opener on this very topic.

    The nonprofit organizations for which I consult or know through my roles in the Association of Fundraising Professionals and American Marketing Association, have been struggling with reduced operational dollars. Especially after the mortgage crisis and economic meltdown last year, many have been demoralized, have cut back on staffing, and are trying to keep their heads above water to continue to do their work. Staff are doing the work of three FTE's and boards expect fundraising miracles without adequate tools.

    As for the ratio of fundraising costs to raise $100, one has to take into account start-up ideas, events, and tactics that may take 2-3 years to build. It may not be until the 3rd or 4th year that the net is at an acceptable level for the time and money invested. This is similar to any start-up business where money goes in before it can come out. It's part of growth.

    It's always the few organizations that the media references as bad eggs that paint the entire sector with a flawed brush. Nonprofits NEED to invest in their services and programs, marketing, and fundraising efforts in order to sustain themselves and live their missions. They NEED top-notch staff to ensure their business operations are sound. They NEED committed volunteers for oversight and assistance. What they don't need is constant criticism that the sector is too rich, spends money foolishly, and wastes donor dollars. That represents a small minority in my experience.


  3. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Charity 100: Where is your money going? | MoneySense --

  4. I'm still amazed that Bahen is used for this type of commentary. Check out the t3010 of Charity Intelligence and see how much revenue they raise goes to charitable works. Otherwise a much better article than the last one MoneySense posted on this topic. I still do not agree with the grading system, as it does not take into account the quality of programs, or the type of fundraising a charity does, or how much a charity is government funded, which ultimately makes their cost of fundraising look better if you're a hospital foundation vs. a health charity dependent on individual, private gifts.


  5. The intent of this article is good, but some of the facts are not true. Please note that lottery is a fundraising activity, in which money is raised for a worthy cause. Buying a lottery ticket is not a donation – the buyer may win a prize, and the cost of the ticket is not tax deductible. However, if anyone makes a donation over $20 (without any return), the donor can get a tax receipt for tax reduction.


  6. I agree with Rick Mahler on the subject of lotteries.Yes the CRA has chosen to include this income in its guidelines, but in my mind they are incorrect in doing so. People who buy lottery tickets are engaging in a gambling activity plain and simple. They have no committment to the organization. Their iinterest is purely and simply to win a prize. Several charities have tried to convert these gamblers to donors over the years without success and hence no longer throw their money away on these endeavors. A charitable donation is made because a donor feels good about an organization.


  7. Pingback: Where is Donor Money Going? « Elaine Fogel – Totally Uncorked

  8. Does a platform like Canada Helps fall under fundraising organization? I would think with it's 3.9% admin fee that they would be considered highly efficient. Or being more of a platform does it not qualify? or perhaps not big enough?


  9. I've worked in many non-profits at a senior level, and many of them on your list have terrible and bureaucratic governance structures that make them inefficient and wasteful. Any person who has worked in a non-profit that uses a federated model knows what I am talking about (and most of the larger national charities do operate under this model). So, I'm not sure how you came up with your grading for governance, but it is not reflective of the reality.
    In the defence of some charities who have large cash reserves, there's a difference between having cash on hand doing nothing versus not giving out money unless there is top-quality, sustainable research or programs that will make sure that the money is well spent (rather than spent for the sake of pleasing CRA or MoneySense) .


  10. I find this article, and the ones preceeding them in MoneySense to be rather misleading and uninformed. Most of the 'big' organizations follow stringent budgetary guidelines and are very responsible in their 'spending'.
    When grading an organizations expense ratio, you aren't taking into consideration or educating readers on how an organization raises money – government grants 'cost' very little compared to special events which many organiztions count on to bring in funds.
    Whether working for a health or arts organization, most staff are dedicated, caring people who are committed & passionate about the mandate of the organization they work for.
    While volunteers are the lifeblood of many an organization, the reality is that most volunteers can't give 30-40 hours a week. Staff are required to organize, manage, and facilitate the good works that they do.
    If they aren't already, perhaps Sarah and editorial staff at MoneySense should put their 'money where their mouth is' and go volunteer somewhere.


  11. Pingback: Well of Change Blog » Blog Archive » The True Cost of a Dollar

  12. It's about time someone did something to help clarify the charity situation – one list is better than no list. Many of the people who see limitations in this list should volunteer solutions to the issues they raise. Charities should take the lead and show us how well our money is spent if they want our hard earned donations.
    The list should also include CEO and/or executive salaries. Many CEO's get huge salaries and argue they bring in more funding. There are no studies to prove that and a CEO who gets $100,000 is 5 times less effective than someone who gets $500,000. High salaried CEOs are in the business for themselves not the charity. If they can make so much more in private industry let them and give their jobs to those who really care about the charity they run.
    If almost one in six Canadian charities is spending more money on running the organization than on charitable work, we need to have some system to evaluate their performance since they do not want to volunteer the information themselves.


  13. It's about time someone did something to help clarify the charity situation – one list is better than no list. Many of the people who see limitations in this list should volunteer solutions to the issues they raise. Charities should take the lead and show us how well our money is spent if they want our hard earned donations.
    The list should also include CEO and/or executive salaries. Many CEO's get huge salaries and argue they bring in more funding. There are no studies to prove that a CEO who gets $100,000 is 5 times less effective than someone who gets $500,000. High salaried CEOs are in the business for themselves not the charity. If they can make so much more in private industry let them and give their jobs to those who really care about the charity they run.
    If almost one in six Canadian charities is spending more money on running the organization than on charitable work, we need to have some system to evaluate their performance since they do not want to volunteer the information themselves.


  14. This list is a great start to a long neglected collection of information for potential philanthropists.
    I wish I could help with what I see as the major flaw: its use of the charity's T3010 returns, as there are varying levels of accuracy in filling out this form. However, this is mitigated by the fact that Moneysense has an implied size rule, or in their terms: "The charities on our list are the biggest charities in Canada terms of both tax-receipted donations and non-tax receipted money received through fundraising."
    A great first step and thanks for the governance questionnaire as I will be applying it to my nfp boards.


  15. Where is the list???


  16. Pingback: How can MoneySense improve the Charity 100? | MoneySense

  17. In looking at, HEDAC claims two be ranked the number two charitable organization
    according to MoneySense dec 09 issue. I clicked to all the possible categories listed in the Charity 100 ranking and
    could not find anything to their claim. Could SARAH EFRON author of that article tell me where in hell are you "hidding"
    yours truly
    jimmy dube


    • We did not look at HEDAC in the Charity 100 article.


  18. I uncovered your web page via search motors even when looking for for the connected topic, your web page demonstrated up up. give many as a consequence of you for the fabulous blog. Amazingg skills! hold on man, you rock!


  19. Wonderful post, I have saved this site so ideally I will see more on this subject matter in the future!


  20. I tried to submit a comment previously, although it has not shown up. I think your spam filter may well be broken?


  21. I want to thanks for the efforts you have contributed in writing this blogpost. I am hoping the same top-quality article from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own blog now. Truly the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a good model of it.


  22. I’m liking Justin Bieber’s style.It’s too bad about his music is so generic.


  23. Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.


  24. Pingback: ehliyet soruları

  25. Zune and iPod: Most people compare the Zune to the Touch, but after seeing how slim and surprisingly small and light it is, I consider it to be a rather unique hybrid that combines qualities of both the Touch and the Nano. It’s very colorful and lovely OLED screen is slightly smaller than the touch screen, but the player itself feels quite a bit smaller and lighter. It weighs about 2/3 as much, and is noticeably smaller in width and height, while being just a hair thicker.


  26. Pingback: Overheads « Room to Grow Foundation

  27. This stage by the bodily power to ride the bicycle by the stunning surrounding surroundings since the exact photo, can not assistance but really feel exceptionally pleasurable, suddenly experience this is [url=]louis vuitton wallet[/url]not just an workout, but in addition a spiritual exile satisfaction. Person’s fingers and feet have many corresponding points human physique, [url=]louis vuitton handbags[/url]as you grip the handlebars and pedal bicycles force, the truth is, the human body has unwittingly commenced the massage. Cycling not merely can make the blood circulation by way of the leg motion[url=]louis vuitton bags[/url] pace, but in addition strengthened the microvascular organization.

    Suggestion: 100 % free cycling procedure will not be restricted to time and intensity, largely ease the pressure brought about through the bodily and mental fatigue; intensity cycling law can offer for his or her very own time, the amount of kilometers per hour, the bicycle pace, it is easy to efficiently increase the cardiopulmonary stimulation, activity, human cardiovascular system; intermittent alternating fast and[url=]louis vuitton outlet[/url] slow cycling approach can trip, as an example, the first sluggish ride 5 minutes, then trip for 5 minutes swiftly, then do similar cycle repeated quite a few times; aerobic cycling strategy primarily inside the medium-speed journey, ordinarily ride 45-60 minutes, to slim down and boost heart and lung features are superior.


  28. Your website seems to be actually very good. Currently being a weblog writer myself, I really appreciate the time you took in crafting this write-up.


  29. Exceptional post you have established here! The internet is stuffed of horrid penning and I was taken hold of by your lucidity. Your decisions are correct and I will instantly subscribe to your rss feed to stay up to date with your up emerging postings. Yes! I acknowledge it, your composition style is phenomenal and I will work harder on mine.


  30. Great list, and thanks for the include. Have to say the David Hellmann site is a tough choice, though, considering how much of the design was lifted from


  31. Pingback: Facebook profile

  32. His “affair”is a pain in your heart foreverAffair eventsAlthough the pieces of your heart,Although you love him, he does not value you,Although you pay so much, but did not return,


  33. Pingback: proactol plus

  34. Peculiar this post is totaly unrelated to what I used to be searching google for, however it was indexed at the first page. I suppose your doing one thing right if Google likes you enough to place you at the first page of a non similar search.


  35. I precisely desired to say thanks once again. I’m not certain what I might have handled in the absence of the entire techniques shown by you relating to such field. It previously was a real alarming setting in my position, however , encountering the very skilled approach you managed that made me to weep over joy. I’m grateful for this support and then expect you know what a powerful job that you are getting into instructing the rest through a site. I know that you’ve never got to know any of us.


  36. My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!


  37. Pingback: Jtosme Movie

  38. That is the proper weblog for anybody who needs to find out about this topic. You realize a lot its virtually onerous to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Nice stuff, just great!


  39. Thank you for your energy to have decided to put these things together on this website. Emily and that i very much appreciated your ideas through your articles about certain things. I am aware that you have a number of demands on program and so the fact that you actually took the maximum amount of time just like you did to help people just like us by way of this article is even highly prized.


  40. I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)


  41. Pingback: Check out my facebook profile

  42. When one views the issue at hand, i have to agree with your endings. You intelligibly show cognition about this matter and i have much to discover after reading your post.Lot’s of salutations and i will come back for any further updates.


  43. Pingback: Richelle

  44. Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much. I hope to give something back and aid others like you aided me.


  45. I feel all your tips are terrific! Break it up and list it down. It always looks better and much more readable when you publish your points that way. Thanks for that tips!


  46. Are you sure the aforementioned is definitely accurate? Could be my internet browser mucking up, I am using opera!


  47. I¡¦ll immediately snatch your rss as I can’t find your e-mail subscription link or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me know so that I may subscribe. Thanks.


  48. We enjoy this vital information everyone present within your reports. I may discover your blog and get my own mates visit these usually. My business is extremely sure they can learn several cutting edge items the following compared to anybody as well!


  49. I don't usually donate becuase of the loss of donation in expenses and costs. Look at Canada's of support of African countries. They are slowing or stopping donations because of the blatent corruption. As a consequence, I will not donate $1 to an African orientated charity becuase only 2 cents of the dollar I donate makes it. Our Hollywood favourites are giving up paying for African schools because of corruption. I see from the comments that their is defence – you had better. I would encourage that , you begin to set standards and performance criteria that others can commit to, report, audit, compare and evaluate. Money Sense has made some major efforts to evaluate and standardize a monster. I personally would like to see an annual re-evaluation of these and other charities. As Globe& can standardize 5000+ mutual funds, we need to evaluate charities on a similar scale. Best you get your ducks in a row. In a way, this is an early stage "black book" like purchasing cars. We want value for our donation. We want healing, research, hope, medication for those who need it , education and support for every dollar we donate. We want ROI. If I can't be guaranteed of it. I will forgoe the effort.


  50. Pingback: poly mva

  51. Pingback: microwave ovens

  52. Pingback: Spine Institution

  53. Pingback: How to Remove Tonsil Stones at Home

  54. Pingback: Best Converting Squeeze Pages

  55. Pingback: Drug Rehab

  56. Pingback: The Kitchen Cookware

  57. Pingback: The Bathroom Scales

  58. Pingback: Christmas Gift Suggestions

  59. Pingback: Waterkettle

  60. Pingback: Electronic cigarette Review

  61. Pingback: Water kettles

  62. Pingback: Air Conditioner Filters

  63. Pingback: Bungalow Ile Maurice

  64. Pingback: ppc management service

  65. Pingback: Location Vacances Ile Maurice

  66. Pingback: Asthma Homeopathy

  67. Pingback: Mauritius Self Catering Holidays

  68. Pingback: arthur shtaynberg

  69. The quantity of top quality content on your fantastic site has indeed made me understand the authority your site has. Incredible posts and articles all ’round. Keep it up.


  70. Pingback: Paralegal Courses

  71. Pingback: Wooden Doghouse

  72. Pingback: how to make money online

  73. Pingback: Associate Degrees Online

  74. I’m not sure why but this blog is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a problem on my end? I’ll check back later and see if the problem still exists.


  75. Pingback: kitchen remodel sacramento

  76. Pingback: sacramento patio covers

  77. Pingback: Location Villa Ile Maurice

  78. Pingback: patio covers austin

  79. Pingback: Whole Life Insurance Rates

  80. Pingback: Mauritius Villa Rental

  81. Hey I mate this is off message but I was wondering if you knew of any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest sound updates. I’ve been perception for a plug-in similar this for quite both experience and was hoping maybe you would somebody both participate with something same this. Satisfy let me eff if you run into anything. I really relish measurement your blog and I await frontward to your new updates.


  82. Pingback: MoneySense wins Canadian magazine of the year | US Weekly Magazine

  83. Pingback: MoneySense wins Canadian magazine of the year « MoneySense

  84. Pingback: Coupons

  85. Pingback: web deals

  86. Pingback: New Roofing

  87. Pingback: lap band cost

  88. Pingback: Buy Stair Lifts

  89. Pingback: Back To School Sales

  90. Pingback: property casualty license

  91. Pingback: Cheap Car Insurance Quotes Online

  92. Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely helpful information specifically the last part :) I care for such info a lot. I was seeking this particular information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.


  93. Pingback: Best Diet Plan

  94. Pingback: car accident lawyer chicago

  95. Pingback: Credit Card Consolidation

  96. Pingback: Acnenomore Review

  97. Pingback: Bath Salts

  98. Pingback: sexless marriage help

  99. Pingback: Self Storage Units

  100. Pingback: Keurig Best Price

  101. Pingback: Schwinn 240

  102. Pingback: Lanyards

  103. Pingback: atlanta truck accident attorneys

  104. Pingback: relationship help

  105. Pingback: עבירות מס

  106. Pingback: Colon Cleanse

  107. Pingback: makita btw253z

  108. This was my first year, where I gave some money to charity and I felt really good about it. I think giving money and goods to the poor is a good way to improve the world. Interessting to read here more about the background of the canadian charity system.


  109. i live in england and i think all charities particularly the larger ones such as mencap and the rspca in england should be thoroughly investigated if not by the government then by the national press these so called charities actually employ agents from a firm called smee and ford to snoop through probate documents to see if they have been mentioned in peoples wills etc they then contact the executors and try to frighten them into sending details of the will this disgraceful practice is not generally known by the public and should be exposed immediately and also why do they need so called executives on high salaries and plush offices when compared to mother teresa they are an absolute disgrace and should be exposed for what they are just a bunch of frauds


  110. This is a great resource. I tend to simply donate my time because I don't trust that charities use money appropriately. It's great to have a way to research them. Perhaps I'll start to donate funds as well.


  111. When thinking about the people who needs help everyday they are somewhat to be helpless and to think that their number thing that they need is food, so why not share something.


  112. Charity is something that needs a support for people and the one the need the most would be the needy.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *