The 2010 Charity 100

Where is your money going?



Online only.


Check out MoneySense’s updated Charity 100 for 2011.

Ever wonder how much of the money you donate to a charity actually helps the charity achieve its goals? How much goes to programs which cure disease, preserve the environment and alleviate suffering, as opposed to being gobbled up by administrative and fundraising costs? To help you find out, MoneySense magazine has created Canada’s first grading system for the country’s top 100 charities.

Browse list by categories

How to Use These Tables

Culture & Research


Fundraising Organizations

Health/Health Services

Hospital Foundations

International Aid


Social Services


The good news is that many of Canada’s charities are doing are a great job of responsibly managing the money they receive from Canadians. Some of our best-known charities, the War Amps, the Terry Fox Foundation and the United Way of Greater Toronto, all received glowing grades of at least a “B+”.

Overall, four of the charities rated received the top “A+” grade: the Mennonite Foundation of Canada, the Tides Canada Foundation, the IWK Health Centre Foundation, and the Jewish General Hospital Foundation.

Some charities received lower grades because they spent a lot on administration, and less than other charities in their sector on the causes they are dedicated to. Others were docked marks for high fundraising costs, or for being overly secretive.

Charities which received a “C” grade or lower included the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, the BC Cancer Foundation, the London Health Sciences Foundation, the Alberta Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service Foundation, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the United Israel Appeal of Canada, and the VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation.

The MoneySense Charity 100 is meant to be a tool for potential donors researching which charities to give money to, but it’s not meant to directly measure how successful a charity has been at achieving its program goals. Instead, it measures how each charity compares to others in its sector when it comes to meeting specific financial and governance benchmarks. Thus, the grades should not be used in isolation when deciding which charities to support, but as a starting point for a donor’s own research.

To calculate the grades, the magazine used 2008 Canada Revenue Agency filings and other sources to evaluate how each charity performed in four categories. The first category, Overall Charity Efficiency, looked at the percentage of charity expenditures that go to program costs, rather than overhead and fundraising costs. The second, Fundraising Efficiency, looked at how much money is spent on fundraising to raise each $100. The third, Governance and Transparency, looked at whether the charity has proper governance policies and how openly it shares financial information with the public. The last category, Reserve Fund Size, looked at how much money the organization keeps on hand. If a charity had less than three months in reserve funds, it lost points for having too little. If it had more than three years’ worth of reserves on hand, it lost points because it is likely not in urgent need of new donations.

The magazine grouped the different types of charities and normalized their scores in order to compare those operating in a similar sector. In this way, hospital foundations were ranked against other hospital foundations and environmental charities were ranked against other environmental charities.

One interesting finding was that using lotteries to raise funds had a surprisingly large impact on fundraising efficiency. Many big-name organizations spent large amounts to raise each $100 because of the high cost of holding and marketing a lottery. For instance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario spent $61 to raise $100, and the Canadian Cancer Society Ontario Division spent $43. Using lotteries to raise cash is a controversial subject in the non-profit sector, but Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada chair Irfhan Rawji defends the practice, arguing that the Ontario lottery generates $10 million in profits—money the charity couldn’t raise otherwise. “Calculating a fundraising efficiency ratio from the information from the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) doesn’t tell the whole story for an organization like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which raises money in many different ways,” he says.

82 comments on “The 2010 Charity 100

  1. Thanks for the great data. A few months ago, I ceased all support for Plan Canada after learning that their CEO takes over $300,000 per year and others at the organization take over $200,000 per year in compensation. I was not surprised therefore to see that they are ranked second from the bottom, out of 15, on your chart. Their argument, and the argument of other charities such as Sick Kids Foundation (where salaries are even higher than at Plan Canada), seems to be that they need to pay high salaries since other charities are doing so. This is the same argument used by professional sports teams to justify their high salaries.
    I understand that your data is not perfect, but it is a great start. Let's hope that it helps to dismantle these fiefdoms and puts the money where it is needed the most, rather than into bloated salaries for the executives of some of these charities.


    • @GGa, Many charities pay their CEO's $200k+, because doing so will be more likely to get the best talent at the top, which will get the best result for the charity. Plan Canada may be low on the chart, but I'm sure some of the organizations that are higher on the chart pay their CEOs even more than Plan Canada. These CEOs are ultimately responsible for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Would you want someone who is only worth a salary of $50k managing tens of millions? Of course not – you want a person who has years of experience in and out of the not-for-profit sector.

      Gga, you seem to want a charity that is run on heart, and not on talent. That worked 80 years ago, and it works today for tiny – and largely low-impact – charities. But the sophistication required to run a massive, effective charity today means that you need to recruit the kind of people who will already be taking a huge pay cut to only earn $200k. Granted, you want someone with heart, but someone who could be making a salary of mid-six figures in the NFP world shouldn't have to take a pay cut of 80% to work for a charity.

      Many NFP CEOs take cuts in their pay to work there, even when earning $200k+ I support a charity that pays its regional directors in the neighbourhood of $120k, and I recently met one of those regional directors, who left his position as a founding partner at a massive law firm to take the job. I bet he took a pay cut of at least 50% to work for the charity, but he did it cause he cares about the cause, and at that wage he didn't have to completely rip his family from their lifestyle, cut his kids off from the college they were currently going to, etc. The reason I continue to support this organization isn't because the guy gets paid more or less, but because he makes things happen; he achieves the objectives of the organization.


    • I would hate for the fact of things getting lost like "Lives Impacted". While financial compensation is just one metric, what else are these individuals bringing to the table. For example, how is effective leadership of the CEO being evaluated and compensated? By having one type of leader over another are staff turn-over rates being reduced thereby saving the organization money over time?

      Sarah and the Money Sense team – thank you for continuing such a valuable conversation and for opening more doors to delving deeper into the issues facing the charitable sector.


    • I think looking at salaries is far from an important consideration of the work of a non-profit. While I do work at a non-profit, I am far from being a CEO. However what you are neglecting to consider, is that the majority of us are sacrificing our income to work for a non-profit in comparison to the corporate sector. I would argue that a non-profit paying higher salaries is much more likely to get higher quality work & longer serving staff than one that doesn't.

      I would also argue that our work is certainly as important as the work of corporates and that we should be paid comparatively to the corporate sector. You are right though in that other business expenses should be a consideration to review, however I don't believe salaries is one of those. A good CEO at a high price will drive much better results than a terrible one at a low price.


      • If you're interested in knowing what salaries are at a charity, there is some information on the charities' tax filings, although it is in ranges (ie. $200,000 to $250,000) so it's hard to know for sure. However, I agree that in most cases, wages in the sector are low in comparison to other sectors. Many of these CEOs are running large and complex organizations and that should be taken into account.


  2. Ever wonder how much of the money you donate to a charity actually helps the charity achieve its goals?

    Rating charities and assessing their effectiveness based on arbitrary metrics and artificial efficiency standards just continues to perpetuate our misunderstanding and misinformation about how charities operate and how donor dollars are used. The system is fundamentally flawed. You're not looking at the the whole picture – it's a lot messier and it's very difficult to effectively assess an organization's effectiveness based on neat and tidy metrics, and unfortunately, data like this unfortunately leads to people assuming that an organization that has 10% administration ratio is more effective than an organization at 20% – but is it really?

    Can you really argue that a donated dollar is wasted or wait – 'gobbled up' as you so eloquently state – if it goes towards paying the salary of a program manager, or rent for office space instead of directly 'curing disease' or ' alleviating suffering'? Who is it that alleviates that suffering? Where does that person in need go for treatment?

    Instead of relying on arbitrary metrics that generalize and don't give you the full picture – I'd urge you to take the only sound advice in this article and look into a charity’s programs and how effective the organization has been in implementing them. Use that information to determine whether or not you'll give.


    • Rubbish. You must obviously work for or are affiliated with one of those charities fleecing donors. I for one will now only donate to the A+ charities. If you don't make the grade, you're not going to get my money unless you pull up your grades. Simple mathematics. Not rocket science.


  3. Pingback: Twitted by msHG

  4. Your article which has some good points should have included the fact that a lot of these charities that are trying to make a difference would have better returns to Charity numbers if more people that read your articles would Volunteer with any of these events. I guess my next question would be. Have you ever Volunteered at any of these events to see what it takes to put on an event of any size Or does your research just take place sitting in front of your computer? The world is a different place looking through the eyes of a volunteer.

    "The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of other"

    Someone who volunteers 15 hours a week on top of a full-time job


    • Yes, you work for free so the CEO can take the 200k pay… your name is sucker


    • Why would I VOLUNTEER when the CEO of these charities is pulling in hundreds of thousands of dollars from donations ……. why would I volunteer to help make he or she richer ???????


  5. I would warn people to take the "grades" with a grain of salt. What is not measured here is the effectiveness of a given charity.

    For example – Doctors Without Borders, World Vision, Canadian Red Cross, and Plan Canada have proven themselves effective, and reliable in times of crisis. They were all front and centre for good reason during the recent crisis in Haiti. Don't be decieved that Chalice is the "best" International Aid organization to donate to simply because they received a better score than anyone else.


    • Could not agree more. The grade is just a quick look from one person's point of view. I would recommend everyone make sure they completely check out the organization.


  6. Let's shed a little more light on how CRA allows charities to report their management & administration costs. There is no single formula that ALL charities must follow. In the 2008 guidebook, CRA instructs charities to:

    Line 5010 – Enter the part of the amount on Line 4950 that represents management and administrative expenditures. This includes all expenditures related to the overall management and administration of the registered charity.

    CRA then gives SOME EXAMPLES, like holding meetings of the board of directors; accounting/auditing personnel, and other administrative services; purchasing supplies and equipment, and paying occupancy costs for administrative offices.

    CRA further writes: "Some expenditures will be atrributable to both charitable programs and management and administrative expenses, such as salaries and occupancy costs." Here's the rub —> "In these cases, it will be necessary to allocate the amounts accordingly. The allocation should be made on a CONSISTENT AND REASONABLE BASIS."

    So, no two charities will allocate the same. No one asks to review your formula. No one checks to see if it was consistent and "reasonable" from year-to-year. And who knows what is reasonable, anyway? My point is that until you have ALL CHARITIES USING THE EXACT SAME FORMULA, you cannot make an effective comparison who is using financial resources the most efficiently, judiciously, and appropriate to the scope of the organization.

    I would ask charities to be transparent about the method they have chosen, to calculate their management & administration costs. If you ask the RIGHT type of question, according to the guidelines that CRA requires charities to report, you may just come up with a different "ranking" of charities.


  7. Good comments all. The cost of having a physical presence if that's part of the charity's function (i.e. walk in peer counseling) can be quite high. The comments about governance and transparency are points well taken. I agree with the comments about lotteries – they're pretty risky propositions – there's almost lottery overload. Advertising is a very expensive way to raise awareness and money, and can be prohibitively so. I don't like receiving wasteful paper in the mail and I don't like spam either so how does someone get hold of me? An interesting conundrum.


  8. This approach reflects a fundamental mistake in our thinking about and understanding of not-for-profit organizations. At Vantage Point, we have been students of the voluntary sector for 66 years, and we know that most organizations actually do not invest significantly enough in their infrastructure (ie "administration").

    It should go without saying, but organizations require resources, administration and infrastructure to achieve their goals. When organizations spend money to strengthen these areas, they are not "gobbling" up valuable donations. Rather, they are investing in the effectiveness and impact of their organization and increasing their ability to achieve their mission by investing in PEOPLE – their paid staff and volunteers. People are the ones who make a difference in community, who ensure that organizations achieve their missions.

    We must begin to think in a new and different way, if we are to positively impact our communities, our country, and the world! I hope you'll read our recent blog post related to this topic:


  9. Unfortunately articles like this grab headlines and influence how people give money. Over simplification, backed up with a few statistics lead to people making uninformed decisions. The truth is far more complex and difficult to understand. Luckily most who have commented are picking up on this.
    I love that accountants try to reduce everything in the world (no matter how complex) to a set of numbers.


  10. Pingback: MoneySense’s Charity 100 list « Open hands

  11. This explains why MoneySense is the laughing stock of financial media. One group that MoneySense considered to be among Canada's "Top 100" charities reported net revenue for 2008, according to the CRA , of $2,270, net expenditures of $693 and filed nothing for spending on charitable programming or fundraising expenses, Yet MoneySense gives them top marks for fundraising efficiency and a far higher rating than many well known, credible and completely transparent organizations. I don't know what bizarre hidden agenda MoneySense has for this, but it is appalling.


  12. The methodology of this rating system is deeply flawed. A simple look at the online 2009 financials for Canadian Feed the Children, for example, shows that their 'program spending' is actually gifts in kind (listed as 'medicine' in their finanicals). Less than 10% of actual cash revenue is really directed to program spending. A very different picture of donor giving effectivenss than the high score awarded to them in this article.


  13. Further to what Karin said about asking the right questions and CRA rules above, this is so very true. Same with what is considered a program expense. Many charities allocate a portion of their fundraising expenses as program expenses on the premise that they are educating the public about their cause!


  14. Pingback: Grading Charities | Catalyst Foundation

  15. One more example, of why we need to learn to ask the right questions, in order to get better answers.

    Did you know that "compensation" amount on the Registered Charity Information Return is required to include additional employment costs paid by the charity? Of course not, because it doesn't say that anywhere on the information return, accessible in the online database by any member of the public, including the writers of Money Sense Magazine.

    Let me ask this: what does "compensation" mean to you? The definition of "compensation" according to Revenue Canada includes the value of all taxable + non-taxable benefits. This means employer costs (CPP, EI, WCB) and benefits (medical, insurance, pension contributions) that the charity paid, related to that person's employment.

    For most people, "compensation" just means "salary" — though I suspect most of the general public, including the Money Sense Magazine writers, and perhaps even a fair percentage of charities themselves — are not clear on this, because it does not specifically state this in the information return. You really have to dig online to find the detailed policy statement.

    Besides, who would generally consider the charity's payment to federal plans like CPP, EI, or provincial workers compensation as part of their "compensation?" It isn't described that way on your job offer! And it kind of makes the whole Bill-C470 proposition about capping charity total compensation, mean something entirely different.

    Just another example that the actual data reported, and how it is analyzed/interpreted, have some serious gaps. We have to understand the basic math. We have much learning, collaborating and refining to do before we all share the same common understanding.


  16. While the author's intentions are commendable, the rating system unfortunately paints a grossly inaccurate picture. With more thorough research into standards of performance, the difference between charitable donations and social enterprise, the impact of a downturned economy and the timing of gift acceptance, the author could have presented a balanced and defendable report. Money Sense, you have a good publication but your research was flawed. Here is an great opportunity to provide your readers with facts and data that help dispell the myths around fundraising costs and the efficiencies of our non profit sector. If there is a genuine interest in understanding the facts and helping our communities appreciate the realities of fundraising costs, we welcome your attention. We hope you take up the challenge and create a report that puts the numbers in context and refrains from comparing apples and oranges.


  17. I donate to a number of charities. I have been planning to cut down on the number of small donations I make and increase support to a few charities. The Money Sense article gives me one more tool to use in making my choices. For example, I support both the Nature Conservancy and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. Both organizations have merit but, on the basis of my volunteer experience on NCC properties, the comprehensive information they provide, and the ratings in Money Sense, I will be supporting NCC.
    A number of people have commented that effectiveness is not being considered in the Money Sense article. While this should be a key component in a review, most of the charities I am currently supporting do not report to donors the exact nature of their programs or the measures they have in place to determine their effectiveness. After reading the Money Sense article, I intend to ask more questions before commiting my money. I want to give and I want the money to be spent effectively.


    • I think this is a very reasonable, and well thought out decision to make. I wish that more donors would put as much thought into where they allocate their donations as you do.

      What worries me, and obviously many others who have commented, is that there is very little consistency in how expenditures, compensation, etc. are reported to the CRA. Lets hope that this can be resolved in the near future.


  18. When I buy stock, I do not look at how much the CEO makes? I look for the ROI.


  19. Pingback: the charity 100 — award tour

  20. I misself will NOT donate a dime to the United Way. They have one of the highest overhead expenses. I also have a problem with charties that have CEOs pulling in 6 figures, just like the United Way.


    • the other problem i have with United way is that they dont seem to actualy provvide any service to anyone. THey seem to be an organization that just takes donations and funnels the funds out to various charities (the ones that actually provide a service to those in need). WHy would i need to give my money to United way so they can take a % of those dollars for salaries and advertising when I can give it direclty to the charity of my choice and know that a greater percentage of each dollar is going to actually help those in need?


  21. Sorry, type-o – should read:

    I myself will NOT donate a dime to the United Way. They have one of the highest overhead expenses. I also have a problem with charities that have CEOs pulling in 6 figures, just like the United Way.


  22. One other challenge is the mission of the charity. Some are easy, fund the work of research A…. some are more complex, advocate for certain positions and policies.

    As a donor, do you want to pay for advocacy? If so to what percent and is that measured the same as program work.


  23. Then beyond that is the final impact of your donation, is it matched with other funds to produce twice or four times the program value (think CIDA matching), or like feed the children it is all used for admin, so they can find and located donated gifts in kind (medicine) to send overseas which makes up the bulk of their donation value, which is fine if you are comfortable with your funds used to locate medicines, rather than feed children. (both noble pursuits).

    One other point, I donate to an organization that has a CEO that make more that $200K. I am comfortable with this, because the organization has over 300 staff and multiple operations locations. It needs someone qualified to operate an organiation of this size, quality costs that is reality. Otherwise I would be giving to a small volunteer group that may not be around tomorrow. Grass roots = easily replaced with weeds, unless maintained.

    Look at chalice for example, have we not learned from having catholic priest raise children! Really efficient, but come on, so were residental schools and Mount. Chasel, anyone want to associate themselves with those charities today.


  24. there all a bunch of scams !


  25. Glad to see a lot of folks are figuring this out. The overhead metric is well understood by the not -for -profit sector and they assign expenses accordingly to make this figure look as low as possible because this is the first questions potential donors ask. The real issue is whether they can produce 3rd party expert verification as to the effectiveness of their programs, and to support the claims they make in their marketing. It appears that once a non profit gets big it may be more concerned with perpetuating itself rather than measuring its success in a meaningful way. As for the salaries; yes a few folk in the not -for- profit sector make a lot of cash but the common factor with all of these organisations is that they are under resourced, under staffed, have excessively high staff turnover and nowhere near the capacity to do what they claim they can do.


  26. I like how you stated in your article that, "such a system is controversial and doomed to be incomplete , but having some information is better than none". It seems many of the above comments missed that point. For my money I support "Sleeping Children Around the World" 100% goes to the children. Bed kits are distributed to children in impoverished nations. The kits are made up in that country providing work and they are distributed by charitable groups such as the Rotary club. Over 1 million kits have been given out.


  27. When I see Tides Canada as A+ I know there is a massive fault in the analysis.

    The organization takes huge amounts of money from American Foundations which is held in trust as an income generator.,nd redistributes a large portion of these amounts to the most dodgy causes under the sun.

    Is fighting GM food a charitable cause ? I think not.

    The executive is highly compensated, and because the amount of trust money is so huge,t he comparative administrative amounts seem low as a percentage of the total.

    If you take Tides Canada overhead versus the amount of donations and income generated, I franly believe they would score a D-. In additon , it appears there is constant double dipping by so called activist groups in the name of tax avoidance .

    You need to change your methodology.


  28. Pingback: Transparency & Celebrity: How the Face of Giving is Changing « Live To Inspire

  29. I read with interest your article on how we rate Canada's Top 100 Charities. However, was very dissappointed to not be able to find the "Stephen Lewis Foundation" which I have supported for over 5 years. I have called the Foundation to find out if they received a survey questionnaire and if so why they did not reply. It is very upsetting not to find this worthwhile organization not mentioned . I would like to know why they were omitted from the survey, how would I go about getting more information?


    • Hi Barbara,

      Stephen Lewis Foundation were not large enough (in terms of money donated) to make it on our list, and they weren't asked to fill out a survey.

      If you're interested in their financial information, it's on the CRA site here:

      Thanks for your interest.



  30. I am looking at the grades, and the metrics used. Where is the measure of whether a charity actually does what it says it does? Is the disaster relief organization effectively relieving people in disaster situations? Is the 'fight hunger' charity making an impact on the lives of hungry people? If we do not know this, what's the point of the rest of it?

    Measurable impact on issues is the only grade that matters, at the end of the day. That is what we are investing in when we give to charity. Return on investment is about how much of a difference is being made, not about the percentage of dollars and cents going to the rent. Focusing on admin and fundraising costs when choosing a charity is tantamount to asking what Apple's software engineers make when considering an iPod purchase. This well-intentioned but wrong headed thinking is crippling the charitable sector by making it impossible for charities to run their own organizations with a view to getting the job done, as opposed to keeping costs low.


  31. The simple metric of administrative efficiency is not the only metric one should use to decide where to spend your charitable dollars. However, when an outfit like the Sick Kids Foundation meant to raise money to support Sick Kids Hospital rates at 65% something is wrong. All they do is give the money to Sick Kids Hospital. I think I will simply write a check to Sick Kids and be done with it. Plan Canada is a little different in that there is a program that works to serve children in difficult circumstances overseas. As such there is a program to be accomplished that requires good people and expertise.

    An argument has been made in one of the comments about ROI. It seems clear that in the case of Sick Kids and other hospital foundations that the ROI is extrememly poor.

    I have some problem with salaries of CEOs of charitable organizations being hundreds of thousands of dollars unless the work load and responsibility is measured by comparison with other public servants….because that is what they are.


  32. Pingback: Efficient charities

  33. Pingback: Donations & Wycliffe: Is it spent wisely? « Sarah Barnes

  34. Why is sumaritans purse in this catagory? It is a religeous charity that supplies bibles with the shoe boxes filled with trinkets and tries to push christianity. The CEO of this foundation is Bill Grahams son and he collects a salary from this charity alone that exceeds $500,000.00 per year.


  35. Pingback: 5 Great Charities to Donate to this Holiday Season « Escents Aromatherapy Blog | Essential oils have therapeutic properties that work to improve our physical, mental and emotional well being.

  36. Pingback: Making the Most of Your Charitable Donation | In Search of Salt

  37. Hi and many thanks for the comment you still left on my blog, i’ve also bookmarked your internet site and can return as i uncovered the data within your internet page just like a very good source to my very own pup regards Eddie


  38. 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!


  39. If the equine feels restless or starts acting crazy, this could previously be an indication of colic. The man or lady will require to remain a small way more the perfect time to create an assessment as a consequence of the simple fact it is in real truth also doable how the four-legged friend was spooked by something.


  40. I apperceive i am a small away topic, but i just funds to say i adulation the blueprint of the blog. i am new in the direction of blogegine platform, so any tips on accepting my web page analytic good can be appreciated.


  41. It depends on how much the person is paying for the ad that is clicked.? You earn a different amount depending on the ad price and google doesn’t disclose how much is shared with you. If you want more money, work on building more traffic. This is purely a numbers game.


  42. This may likely be considered a instead method for dwelling use but just like a chef and earlier (40Years ago) breakfast cook I use pace and I flip my eggs by utilising a coated pan NO Spatulas contact my pans.Try it !


  43. I am just uncovering this internet site via the Archos product and I can’t obtain the detailed internet site to arrive to be from the positioning to load. we Just assumed you wants to know!


  44. I need to many thanks for the endeavours you have obtained contributed in composing this blogpost. i am hoping the identical top-quality publish from you from the lasting as well. In simple fact your soil breaking composing skills has inspired me to start my very own web page now. in real truth the blogging and site-building is spreading its wings rapidly. Your create up may likely be considered a very good design of it.


  45. Nice post! You truly have a wonderful way of writing which I find captivating! I will definitely be bookmarking you and returning to your blog. In fact, your post reminded me about a strange thing that happened to me the other day. I’ll tell you about that later…


  46. some conditions its a ache from the ass to assessment what internet internet site proprietors authored but this internet internet site is really consumer genial !!


  47. Im impressed, I must say. really rarely do I discovered a blog thats both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, youve hit the nail on the top. Your opinion is outstanding; the matter is something that not a lot of individuals are speaking intelligently regarding. Im really happy that I stumbled across this in my search for something regarding it.

  48. There are certainly a lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to carry up. I provide the ideas above as basic inspiration however clearly there are questions just like the one you deliver up the place a very powerful factor will likely be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I’m certain that your job is clearly recognized as a fair game. Each boys and girls really feel the influence of only a second’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.


  49. Great entry cheers, You must have a Facebook group for this site?


  50. Hello, I categorically fancy reading your posts, acknowledgement you in compensation the expert dispatch!


  51. earn good money with [url=]pay with a tweet[/url]


  52. I and my friends came going through the best ideas found on your web site then then I got an awful suspicion I never expressed respect to you for those techniques. Those young men came for this reason glad to study all of them and have in effect sincerely been making the most of them. Appreciate your indeed being considerably kind as well as for deciding upon this form of decent guides most people are really wanting to be informed on. My personal sincere apologies for not saying thanks to sooner. btw this is my website about Low Self Esteem Symptoms


  53. Pingback: test blasts are fun

  54. Thank you for the list. It is useful.


  55. Pingback: test blasts are fun

  56. Pingback: Cost of Lap band surgery

  57. Pingback: 2011 Charity 100 Methodology « MoneySense

  58. I find it intriguing that the Red Cross earns an 86% efficiency rating while spending 33% of donations on fund raising, whereas World Vision earns an 82% efficiency rating while spending 15.2% of donations on fund raising. For me, efficiency would be the % of donations going to programmes, rather than % of expenditures.
    One of my concerns is that the information I see in the media never seems to show the organizations on the ground – I have yet to see a story or photo of the Red Cross or World Vision in action in Haiti or the Horn of Africa.


  59. Going through the lists of all these wonderful organizations, I was disapointed to see that the Salvation Army is no where to be found. The Salvation Army is an International charitable organization in over 100 countries that does fantastic work, and should be ackowledged.


  60. To think that people nowadays are being good about helping people and expanding their care upon the other stuff. When talking about the charity stuff this may need some support to other people like the rich people and the government.


Leave a comment

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