Charity Navigator

American charity assessment organization

Charity Navigator

Formation| 2001; 24 years ago (2001)
Founder| John Patrick Dugan
Type| Nonprofit corporation

Tax ID no.

| 13-4148824[1]
Legal status| Active
Purpose| Charity evaluation
Headquarters| Saddle Brook, New Jersey, U.S.

Official language

| English

CEO

| Michael Thatcher[2]

Chief Program Officer

| Laura Andes[2]

Chief Administrative Officer

| Nancy Sadek[2]

Board of directors

| Hope Lyons (chair),[3] Michael Cooney (vice chair)[3]
Website| www.charitynavigator.org

Charity Navigator is a charity assessment organization that evaluates more than 230,000[dubious - discuss] charitable organizations based in the United States, operating as a 501(c)(3) organization.[4] It provides insights into a nonprofit's financial stability, adherence to best practices for both accountability and transparency, and results reporting.[4] It is the largest and most-utilized evaluator of charities in the United States.[5] It does not accept any advertising or donations from the organizations it evaluates.[6][non-primary source needed]

According to a 2025 study, ratings by Charity Navigator shape donor behaviors, as donors increase their contributions to better rated charities.[7] The study also found that charities try to achieve better ratings by cutting expenditures on administration and fundraising, as well as misreporting or mislabelling expenditures to game the ratings.[7]

## History

[edit]

Charity Navigator was launched in the spring of 2001 by John P. (Pat) Dugan, a pharmaceutical executive and philanthropist.[8][9] 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.[10]

Over the years, the group grew from 1,100 to over 230,000 charities.[11]

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.[12][13]

In 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."[14]

A 2014 survey of attitudes toward charity evaluation indicated positive results for Charity Navigator in six of seven categories.[15]

In October 2020, Charity Navigator acquired impact-based charity evaluator ImpactMatters.[16]

In August 2023, Charity Navigator acquired Causeway, a philanthropy technology startup. [17]

## Evaluation method

[edit]

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.[18] Based on these criteria charities are awarded one to four stars.[19]

### Limitations of initial methodology

[edit]

In the early years, 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.[20] This approach can lead to significant fluctuation in the ranking of a charity from year to year.[20] Also, the focus on the IRS Form 990 has itself been criticized, as the accuracy and reliability of IRS Form 990 data may be questionable, according to the chief executive of GuideStar.[20] Form 990 categorizes a charity's expenditures into three broad categories that are open to accounting manipulation.[citation needed] 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 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, among others), creating limitations on how accurately a charity's efficiency can be graded based on a tax return.[citation needed] 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.[20]

Charity Navigator rates 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).[21]

### Revisions

[edit]

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.[8][22] This was described in further detail in 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).[23]

In July 2010, Charity Navigator announced its first major revamp.[24] This revamping began what the organization stated 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[25]

1. financial health (Charity Navigator evaluated this from its inception),
2. accountability and transparency (begun in July 2010) and
3. results reporting (slated to begin rating this dimension in July 2012).[26]

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.[27]

### Expansions

[edit]

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 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".[28]

In July 2020, Charity Navigator announced an additional nonprofit rating system, Encompass.[29] The new Encompass Rating System analyzes nonprofit performance based on four key indicators:[citation needed]

1. Finance & Accountability
2. Impact & Results
3. Leadership & Adaptability
4. Culture & Community

This alternative methodology allows 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.[30]

Since then, Chartity Navigator has continued to expand its methodology to include additional impact ratings, and assessments on Equity policies and practices, feedback and measurement best practices. As of June 2024, there are over 230,000 rated organizations and over 3000 organizations rated on Impact & Measurement.

### Improvements in response; reception

[edit]

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 the same format as the 10-K."[8]

In response to an op-ed authored by Charity Navigator's CEO entitled "The Elitist Philanthropy of so-called Effective Altruism",[31] the cofounder of the Centre for Effective Altruism wrote "What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism".[32]

## See also

[edit]

* American Institute of Philanthropy
* Charity fraud
* Charity Intelligence Canada
* CharityWatch
* GiveWell
* GuideStar

## References

[edit]

1. ^ "Charity Navigator". Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved May 20, 2023.
2. ^ a b c "Board and Staff". Charity Navigator.
3. ^ a b "Board of Directors : Charity Navigator". Retrieved July 26, 2021.
4. ^ a b Piper, Kelsey (October 16, 2020). "Which charities do the most good? Charity Navigator joins the effort to answer this crucial question". Vox.
5. ^ "COVID relief drives record giving at Community Foundation; grants topped $87.5M in 2020". morristowngreen.com. February 16, 2021. Retrieved June 3, 2023.
6. ^ "Charity Navigator: About Us". Retrieved September 26, 2020.
7. ^ a b Mayo, Jennifer (2025). "Navigating the Notches: Charity Responses to Ratings". Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics. 3: 98–137\. doi:10.1086/732241. ISSN 2832-9368.
8. ^ a b c Stephanie Strom (November 26, 2010). "To Help Donors Choose, Web Site Alters How It Sizes Up Charities". The New York Times.
9. ^ Marc Gunther (April 5, 2015). "Why Charity Navigator needs an upgrade". Nonprofit Chronicles. Retrieved July 6, 2015.
10. ^ Overholt, Alison (August 2003). "Charitable Deductions: Charity Navigator dares to hold the nation's nonprofits accountable for their fund-raising". Fast Company. No. 73\. p. 46\. Archived from the original on March 25, 2006.
11. ^ Benz, Christine (17 November 2021). "Which Charities Deserve Your Dollars". Morningstar.
12. ^ "20 Financial Innovations You Can't Afford to Ignore". Kiplinger. June 2011. Archived from the original on January 17, 2012. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
13. ^ Maryanne Murray Buechner (August 2006). "50 Coolest Websites". Time. Archived from the original on August 15, 2006.
14. ^ Bermudez, Caroline (September 15, 2014). "Inspiring People to Make a Difference". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. Archived from the original on December 7, 2018.
15. ^ Janna Finch (April 25, 2017). "Survey: Do Ratings From Watchdog Groups Impact Giving Decisions?". The Able Altruist. Software Advice. Archived from the original on April 24, 2017.
16. ^ "ImpactMatters has been acquired by Charity Navigator". ImpactMatters. October 14, 2020. Archived from the original on October 18, 2020.
17. ^ "Causeway". Archived from the original on August 24, 2023. Retrieved August 29, 2023.
18. ^ Niraj Chokshi (September 27, 2017). "How to Decide Where to Donate Your Money After Disasters". The New York Times.
19. ^ "Ratings | Charity Navigator".
20. ^ a b c d Lowell, Trelstad and Meehan (Summer 2005). "The Ratings Game: Evaluating the three groups that rate the charities". Stanford Social Innovation Review.
21. ^ "UI Press - Nonprofit Almanac 2008 - Summary". urban.org. Archived from the original on March 28, 2012. Retrieved September 27, 2011.
22. ^ "A Measure of Outcome". Kenscommentary.org. December 8, 2008. Archived from the original on July 25, 2011. Retrieved September 15, 2010.
23. ^ "Ken's Podcast Interview". September 11, 2009. Archived from the original on July 18, 2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010.
24. ^ Ken Berger (July 1, 2010). "Charity Navigator Expands Rating Methodology". Charity Navigator. Archived from the original on August 19, 2010. Retrieved September 15, 2010.
25. ^ John Hanc (November 6, 2017). "Want to Help? Do Your Research Before You Donate". The New York Times. "investments .. balanced portfolio"
26. ^ "Where We Are Headed (2013 and Beyond)". charitynavigator.org. Archived from the original on June 29, 2015. Retrieved July 6, 2015.
27. ^ Berger, Ken (September 20, 2011). "Ken's Commentary: CN 2.0: More Knowledge, More Good". Kenscommentary.org. Archived from the original on January 12, 2012. Retrieved January 5, 2012.
28. ^ Ann Carrns (December 2, 2015). "Before Giving, Check Out Charities and Their Policies on Privacy". The New York Times.
29. ^ "Charity Navigator Initiates New Era in Charitable Giving with Launch of Encompass Rating System". Charity Navigator. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
30. ^ Toussaint, Kristin (July 29, 2020). "Charity Navigator is launching a new rating system to help better evaluate nonprofits". Fast Company. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
31. ^ Ken Berger; Robert Penna (November 25, 2013). "The Elitist Philanthropy of so-called Effective Altruism". SSIR.org.
32. ^ William MacAskill (December 3, 2013). "What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism (SSIR)". SSIR.org (Stanford Social Innovation Review).

## External links

[edit]

* Official website
* "Charity Navigator". Internal Revenue Service filings. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer.

* v
* t
* e

Charitable giving and practices

Main topics|

* Alms
* Altruism
* Charity (practice)
* Compassion
* Donation
* Empathy
* Fundraising
* Humanity (virtue)
* Philanthropy
* Volunteering

Types of charitable
organizations|

* Charitable trust / Registered charity
* Foundation
* Private
* Crowdfunding
* Mutual-benefit nonprofit corporation
* Non-governmental organization
* International
* Nonprofit organization
* Public-benefit nonprofit corporation
* Service club
* Social enterprise
* Religious corporation
* Voluntary association

Charity and religion|

* Charity (Christian virtue)
* Dāna
* Tithe
* Tzedakah
* Sadaqah
* Zakat

Charity evaluation|

* Aid effectiveness
* Animal Charity Evaluators
* Candid
* Charity assessment
* Charity Navigator
* CharityWatch
* Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis
* GiveWell
* Giving Multiplier
* Giving What We Can
* GreatNonprofits

Further topics|

* Alternative giving
* Benefit concert
* Caffè sospeso
* Charity fraud
* Charity / thrift / op shop
* Click-to-donate site
* Drive
* Donor-advised fund
* Donor intent
* Earning to give
* Effective altruism
* Psychological barriers
* Ethics of philanthropy
* List of charitable foundations
* wealthiest
* Master of Nonprofit Organizations
* Matching funds
* Telethon
* Visiting the sick
* Voluntary sector
* Volunteer grant
* Wall of kindness
* Warm-glow giving

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template