Our Methodology
We at Bless BIG admire your efforts to bless others! More importantly, we take them very seriously. We’ve spent hundreds of hours of research with several global think tanks and 23 well-known charity evaluators, all to bring you the most evidence-based and impactful secular and Christian charities. Our Top Recommendations outperformed millions of other non-profits and programs, and our methodology below explains precisely how and why.
Better yet, it’s reproducible! To compare the charitable initiatives of any organization to the 71 Top Recommendations or Honorable Mentions we showcase, simply follow the step-by-step process starting here (links to evaluators are in Section B if needed). If you don’t have time to calculate a detailed rating, reading the rationales for each step will typically explain why a charity did or didn’t meet our criteria. For our complete start-to-finish charity ratings process (and rationales), simply read on to learn a lot more about how to get the most from your giving!
A. Make the method match the mission
The mission of Bless BIG is to use the most current and comprehensive data to bless the most people, in the most life-giving ways, so that the donors to our recommended charities get the biggest ROI for their generosity. “Charity” or “charities” below refers to any movement, non-profit, government initiative, fund, or foundation providing charitable services.
Evaluation of charitable bang-for-buck is incredibly complex, but many resources are now available to make very reliable and high-impact giving recommendations possible. But only if 3 guiding principles are maintained, all of which permeate every step of our Methodology…
1. Humility
No one person or group can access enough primary data or accurately process the complex issues involved to make accurate recommendations. That’s why our founder – who is professionally trained in research methods – defers instead to the diverse expertise of at least 23 charity evaluators, all independent of Bless BIG and each other. Each has its own unique data set and specialty in giving recommendations, as summarized above.
Our methodology relies entirely on the vast primary data they review, on incorporating their analyses where their strengths are maximized, on accepting those results, and on applying them to our own personal giving. No matter what preconceptions we started with. The hundredfold increase in impact our donors have for the world’s neglected must supersede our pride. Bless BIG is not the right way. It’s simply the best way we can think of to allow every expert in charity impact to teach us what’s most likely to be the right way, as we constantly learn more.
2. Objectivity
Familiarity with, emotional inclinations toward, and relational connections to non-profits do not make them better stewards of your money than others. There are millions of charity initiatives, so the probability of your life circumstances just happening to connect you to the most impactful ones is exceedingly low. It was for us too, once evidence and unbiased third-party analysis exposed how much our generosity was being wasted!
In contrast, both we and donors to our recommended charities have been absolutely delighted how much more we get for our money by transferring our donations to non-profits with objective, retrospective, very high impact-per-dollar! No matter how new or foreign they were. For generosity to be truly altruistic, multiplying fruit must be more important than maintaining familiarity. At Bless BIG, our methodology (and giving) will only go where the data show.
3. Thoroughness
Gathering evaluators, responsibly incorporating their analyses, and avoiding bias is vital. But it’s only valuable if all significant variables are considered and if the methodology is executed uniformly and reproducibly. Bless BIG does not claim to use the correct algorithm. However, our methodology is the only one we know of that’s fully reproducible. Using the steps and rationales below, any user can compare any charity initiative to each other and to our ratings. And as far as we know, our process is more inclusive of third-party data and (partly because of that) more considerate of variables than any charity methodology our hundreds of hours of exploration has been able to find.
If it weren’t, we’d humbly and objectively point you to a better one! Bless BIG doesn’t take donations, it personally costs us lots of money and time, and we’d love to recover both by simply referring you elsewhere! In fact, if you can show us a more thorough, comprehensive, and transparent methodology, we humbly and objectively will! But if not, perhaps you’d similarly welcome ours and enjoy the laughter, life, and gratitude so many will have because you choose to Bless BIG.
Thanks for considering!
B. Inclusively gather charity evaluators, identifying the strengths of their approaches and value of their data
Consistent with the 3 principles above, Bless BIG assesses charity initiatives according to 3rd-party Impact Evidence (IE below), Budget Transparency and Efficiency (TE below), and Relative Need (RN below). We asked several global philanthropic and humanitarian communities and extensively searched the internet to identify any researched-based evaluators of charity initiatives. Every evaluator with non-profit ratings based on objective evaluation of either impact evidence or budget efficiency/transparency was included, totaling 23.
The quality of their research, type of data, and pros/cons of their methodology are subsequently described, along with the most fitting roles each plays in the charity evaluation process. Thus, each step in our own evaluation of non-profits incorporates these evaluators in their specialized niches, as detailed further below.
Tier 1: Evaluators performing or primarily using independent retrospective third-party data analysis regarding charity IE, TE, and RN
-Give Well (GW in bold below)
Pros: GW evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its methodology better than most evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, details limitations of its recommendations, focus on solutions to problems with high solvability and scalability, and always provides detailed impact-per-dollar figures.
Cons: GW relies on research-proven high pre-test probability of impact to screen out the vast majority of charities, subsequently only recommending a few secular charities in the few cause groups proving the very highest impact-per-dollar.
Niche: A GW recommendation is the best criterion for a high IE/TE rating. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for religious charities or charities primarily producing outcomes that are impossible to measure.
-The Life You Can Save (LS in bold below)
Pros: LS evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its general methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators below, focuses on solutions to more problems with high solvability and scalability than GW, and usually provides detailed impact-per-dollar figures.
Cons: LS relies on research-proven high pre-test probability of impact to screen out the majority of charities, subsequently recommending only a small number of secular charities in the few cause groups proving the very highest impact-per-dollar. LS is less transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations than other IE evaluators, relying largely on GW data and a non-reproducible thought process by its expert board for its recommendations.
Niche: An LS recommendation is a good criterion for a high IE/TE rating. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for religious charities or charities primarily producing outcomes that are impossible to measure.
-Founders Pledge (FP in bold below)
Pros: FP evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its general methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, focuses (with thorough education) on many more cause groups than GW/LS with outcomes difficult to measure, and occasionally provides detailed impact-per-dollar figures.
Cons: FP still relies on research-proven high pre-test probability of impact to screen out the majority of charities, subsequently funding only a small number of secular charities in the few cause groups proving the very highest impact-per-dollar. The complexity and uncertainty regarding its lower-impact cause groups makes its evaluation of them more informational than directive in donation decisions.
Niche: A FP recommendation is the best criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a charity intending the many outcomes FP assesses that are difficult to quantify.
-Happier Lives Institute (HL in bold below)
Pros: HL evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, and focuses on the neglected cause of mental health (i.e. happiness).
Cons: HL only focuses on mental health charities, has only evaluated a few high pre-test probability outcomes affecting mental health, and only offers impact-per-dollar figures relative to those few outcomes.
Niche: A HL recommendation is a good criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a charity addressing mental health. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for any charity.
-Giving Green (GG in bold below)
Pros: GG evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, and focuses (with thorough education) on the neglected cause of climate change.
Cons: GG only focuses on climate change charities, and the complexity and uncertainty inherent to this cause disable GG from offering impact-per-dollar figures.
Niche: A GG recommendation is the best criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a charity addressing climate change. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for any charity.
-ROI Ministry w/ Calvin Edwards Co. (RC in bold below)
Pros: RC evaluates IE/TE independently and with current data, explains its methodology better than non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about some counterfactuals and data limitations, and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity research.
Cons: RC only focuses on Christian charities, does not consider RN, limits evaluation to only a small number of high pre-test probability charities, and is not transparent about all counterfactuals and data limitations, thus making self-calculated impact-per-dollar figures (when possible from the given data) much more accurate than their reported figures.
Niche: A RC recommendation is a good criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a Christian charity, particularly when the data provided allows for a reliable impact-per-dollar calculation. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for any charity.
-Charity Navigator/Impact Matters (CN in bold below)
Pros: CN thoroughly evaluates TE and independently evaluates IE, explains its methodology better than non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, often provides specific impact-per-dollar figures, and evaluates tens of thousands of secular and religious charities from all cause groups. Impact Matters was a similar charity evaluator that is now folded into CN.
Cons: IE evaluation is increasing but “limited” to 1000-2000 charities, TE evaluation is solely based on 1st-party charity-supplied data, does not consider RN, has lenient ratings that aren’t distinguishing (>10,000 4-star charities), and often uses old/pre-COVID data or large prospective assumptions about counterfactuals that lower reliability of impact-per-dollar figures.
Niche: High CN scores are good criteria for a high IE rating, but only with post-COVID data and reliable counterfactual considerations. A high CN score is the best criterion for a high TE rating, but only with a very high percentage (not star) score. Given CN‘s usefulness for so many secular and religious charities, the lack of a high CN score should be a main criterion for a low TE rating for any charity.
Tier 2: Evaluators using independent retrospective first-party (charity-reported) data analysis regarding charity TE and RN
-Ministry Watch (MW in bold below)
Pros: MW thoroughly evaluates TE independently and with current data, considers RN, assesses hundreds of charities, and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity research.
Cons: MW only focuses on Christian charities, does not consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators.
Niche: A high MW score is a good criterion for a high TE rating for a Christian charity. A below-average MW score should influence a TE rating for a Christian charity but should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Charity Watch (CW in bold below)
Pros: CW thoroughly evaluates TE independently, is transparent about many counterfactuals, and assesses hundreds of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: CW bases some ratings on old/pre-COVID data, does not evaluate small charities, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators.
Niche: A high CW rating is a good criterion for a high TE rating for mid to large-sized secular and religious charities, if the evaluation is current. A below-average CW score should influence a TE rating but should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Guidestar (GS in bold below)
Pros: GS thoroughly evaluates TE independently, considers RN, and assesses thousands of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: GS bases some ratings on old/pre-COVID data, focuses more on transparency than efficiency, does not helpfully consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: A high GS rating is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities, especially paired with high ratings from the above Tier 2 evaluators. A below-average GS score should influence a TE rating but should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-So Give (SG in bold below)
Pros: SG evaluates TE independently, considers RN, and assesses secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: SG evaluates <200 charities and only unconditionally recommends a few, does not helpfully consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: A high SG rating is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities but is very rare. Given the small number of charities evaluated, a below-average SG score should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. SG ratings should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Excellence in Giving (EG in bold below)
Pros: EG evaluates TE independently, considers RN, and assesses hundreds of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: EG provides no ratings, is prohibitively expensive to use for comprehensive charity comparisons, does not rate many charities that evaluators above do, does not helpfully consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: An EG evaluation is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities. Given the lack of comparative ratings, an EG evaluation should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. EG evaluations should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-BBB Wise Giving Alliance (BB in bold below)
Pros: BB evaluates TE independently and assesses hundreds of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: BB focuses more on transparency than efficiency, does not rate many charities that evaluators above do, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: A BB recommendation is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities. Given the many charities not fully assessed yet, a BB rating should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. BB evaluations should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Evangelical Christian Financial Accountability (EC in bold below)
Pros: EC evaluates TE independently and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity assessment.
Cons: EC provides no comparative ratings, focuses more on transparency than efficiency, only focuses on Christian charities, does not rate many Christian charities that evaluators above do, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: EC membership is a good criterion for a high TE rating for Christian charities. Given the lack of comparative ratings and the many Christian charities not assessed, EC membership should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. EC membership should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Ministry Voice (MV in bold below)
Pros: MV evaluates TE independently and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity assessment.
Cons: MV provides no comparative ratings, only focuses on Christian charities, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW. MV also became indefinitely inaccessible online during our latest ratings process.
Niche: An MV recommendation would be a good criterion for a high TE rating for Christian charities, if the site becomes accessible again and if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. If not, an MV recommendation should not affect IE/TE/RN ratings for any charity.
Tier 3: Evaluators using either partial meta-analysis of Tier 1 or 2 evaluator data or a single charity parameter (e.g. revenue) to determine recommendations, with an otherwise unspecified methodology.
-Wallet Hub (WH in bold below)
Pros: WH evaluates TE for secular and religious charities using CN/CW data.
Cons: WH provides no comparative ratings, does not consider IE/RN, considers charity popularity a valid recommendation criterion, and does not otherwise explain its methodology.
Niche: A WH recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. A WH recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Consumer Reports (CR in bold below)
Pros: CR evaluates TE for secular and religious charities using CN/CW/BB data.
Cons: CR provides no comparative ratings, often uses old/pre-COVID data, does not consider IE/RN, and does not explain its methodology.
Niche: A CR recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. A CR recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Forbes: America’s Top Charities (FC in bold below)
Pros: FC evaluates TE for secular and religious charities.
Cons: FC does not consider IE/RN, considers revenue/size a valid and primary recommendation criterion, and does not otherwise explain its methodology.
Niche: A FC recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. A FC recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-America’s Best Charities (AB in bold below)
Pros: AB evaluates TE for secular and religious charities.
Cons: AB provides no comparative ratings, does not consider IE/RN, and does not explain its methodology.
Niche: An AB recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. An AB recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
Tier 4: Evaluators performing primary research or meta-analyses on charity impact in general, without a comprehensive charity recommendation methodology or impact-per-dollar assessments
-Giving What We Can
Pros: GWWC conducts very thorough IE/TE/RN research.
Cons: GWWC is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology, assesses some charities based solely on data from other evaluators like GW/FP, Animal Charity Evaluators, and Effective Altruism Funds.
Niche: GWWC offers valuable practical education about increasing impact for various cause groups and accountability mechanisms for maintaining impactful giving.
-EA Funds
Pros: EAF conducts very thorough IE/TE/RN research, evaluates neglected cause groups like AI, X-risk, animal welfare, and longtermism.
Cons: EAF is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology, assesses some charities based solely on data from other evaluators like GW.
Niche: EAF offers valuable practical education about increasing impact for various cause groups, particularly the neglected cause groups above.
-Innovations for Poverty Action
Pros: IPA conducts very thorough IE/TE/RN research on a variety of qualitative approaches to reduce suffering.
Cons: IPA is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology.
Niche: IPA offers valuable practical education about high-impact ways to reduce a variety of suffering.
-Center for Reducing Suffering
Pros: CRS conducts IE/TE/RN research and gathers resources regarding a variety of qualitative approaches to reduce suffering.
Cons: CRS is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology.
Niche: CRS offers valuable practical education about high-impact ways to reduce a variety of suffering.
We at Bless BIG admire your efforts to bless others! More importantly, we take them very seriously. We’ve spent hundreds of hours of research with several global think tanks and 23 well-known charity evaluators, all to bring you the most evidence-based and impactful secular and Christian charities. Our Top Recommendations outperformed millions of other non-profits and programs, and our methodology below explains precisely how and why.
Better yet, it’s reproducible! To compare the charitable initiatives of any organization to the 71 Top Recommendations or Honorable Mentions we showcase, simply follow the step-by-step process starting here (links to evaluators are in Section B if needed). If you don’t have time to calculate a detailed rating, reading the rationales for each step will typically explain why a charity did or didn’t meet our criteria. For our complete start-to-finish charity ratings process (and rationales), simply read on to learn a lot more about how to get the most from your giving!
A. Make the method match the mission
The mission of Bless BIG is to use the most current and comprehensive data to bless the most people, in the most life-giving ways, so that the donors to our recommended charities get the biggest ROI for their generosity. “Charity” or “charities” below refers to any movement, non-profit, government initiative, fund, or foundation providing charitable services.
Evaluation of charitable bang-for-buck is incredibly complex, but many resources are now available to make very reliable and high-impact giving recommendations possible. But only if 3 guiding principles are maintained, all of which permeate every step of our Methodology…
1. Humility
No one person or group can access enough primary data or accurately process the complex issues involved to make accurate recommendations. That’s why our founder – who is professionally trained in research methods – defers instead to the diverse expertise of at least 23 charity evaluators, all independent of Bless BIG and each other. Each has its own unique data set and specialty in giving recommendations, as summarized above.
Our methodology relies entirely on the vast primary data they review, on incorporating their analyses where their strengths are maximized, on accepting those results, and on applying them to our own personal giving. No matter what preconceptions we started with. The hundredfold increase in impact our donors have for the world’s neglected must supersede our pride. Bless BIG is not the right way. It’s simply the best way we can think of to allow every expert in charity impact to teach us what’s most likely to be the right way, as we constantly learn more.
2. Objectivity
Familiarity with, emotional inclinations toward, and relational connections to non-profits do not make them better stewards of your money than others. There are millions of charity initiatives, so the probability of your life circumstances just happening to connect you to the most impactful ones is exceedingly low. It was for us too, once evidence and unbiased third-party analysis exposed how much our generosity was being wasted!
In contrast, both we and donors to our recommended charities have been absolutely delighted how much more we get for our money by transferring our donations to non-profits with objective, retrospective, very high impact-per-dollar! No matter how new or foreign they were. For generosity to be truly altruistic, multiplying fruit must be more important than maintaining familiarity. At Bless BIG, our methodology (and giving) will only go where the data show.
3. Thoroughness
Gathering evaluators, responsibly incorporating their analyses, and avoiding bias is vital. But it’s only valuable if all significant variables are considered and if the methodology is executed uniformly and reproducibly. Bless BIG does not claim to use the correct algorithm. However, our methodology is the only one we know of that’s fully reproducible. Using the steps and rationales below, any user can compare any charity initiative to each other and to our ratings. And as far as we know, our process is more inclusive of third-party data and (partly because of that) more considerate of variables than any charity methodology our hundreds of hours of exploration has been able to find.
If it weren’t, we’d humbly and objectively point you to a better one! Bless BIG doesn’t take donations, it personally costs us lots of money and time, and we’d love to recover both by simply referring you elsewhere! In fact, if you can show us a more thorough, comprehensive, and transparent methodology, we humbly and objectively will! But if not, perhaps you’d similarly welcome ours and enjoy the laughter, life, and gratitude so many will have because you choose to Bless BIG.
Thanks for considering!
B. Inclusively gather charity evaluators, identifying the strengths of their approaches and value of their data
Consistent with the 3 principles above, Bless BIG assesses charity initiatives according to 3rd-party Impact Evidence (IE below), Budget Transparency and Efficiency (TE below), and Relative Need (RN below). We asked several global philanthropic and humanitarian communities and extensively searched the internet to identify any researched-based evaluators of charity initiatives. Every evaluator with non-profit ratings based on objective evaluation of either impact evidence or budget efficiency/transparency was included, totaling 23.
The quality of their research, type of data, and pros/cons of their methodology are subsequently described, along with the most fitting roles each plays in the charity evaluation process. Thus, each step in our own evaluation of non-profits incorporates these evaluators in their specialized niches, as detailed further below.
Tier 1: Evaluators performing or primarily using independent retrospective third-party data analysis regarding charity IE, TE, and RN
-Give Well (GW in bold below)
Pros: GW evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its methodology better than most evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, details limitations of its recommendations, focus on solutions to problems with high solvability and scalability, and always provides detailed impact-per-dollar figures.
Cons: GW relies on research-proven high pre-test probability of impact to screen out the vast majority of charities, subsequently only recommending a few secular charities in the few cause groups proving the very highest impact-per-dollar.
Niche: A GW recommendation is the best criterion for a high IE/TE rating. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for religious charities or charities primarily producing outcomes that are impossible to measure.
-The Life You Can Save (LS in bold below)
Pros: LS evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its general methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators below, focuses on solutions to more problems with high solvability and scalability than GW, and usually provides detailed impact-per-dollar figures.
Cons: LS relies on research-proven high pre-test probability of impact to screen out the majority of charities, subsequently recommending only a small number of secular charities in the few cause groups proving the very highest impact-per-dollar. LS is less transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations than other IE evaluators, relying largely on GW data and a non-reproducible thought process by its expert board for its recommendations.
Niche: An LS recommendation is a good criterion for a high IE/TE rating. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for religious charities or charities primarily producing outcomes that are impossible to measure.
-Founders Pledge (FP in bold below)
Pros: FP evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its general methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, focuses (with thorough education) on many more cause groups than GW/LS with outcomes difficult to measure, and occasionally provides detailed impact-per-dollar figures.
Cons: FP still relies on research-proven high pre-test probability of impact to screen out the majority of charities, subsequently funding only a small number of secular charities in the few cause groups proving the very highest impact-per-dollar. The complexity and uncertainty regarding its lower-impact cause groups makes its evaluation of them more informational than directive in donation decisions.
Niche: A FP recommendation is the best criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a charity intending the many outcomes FP assesses that are difficult to quantify.
-Happier Lives Institute (HL in bold below)
Pros: HL evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, and focuses on the neglected cause of mental health (i.e. happiness).
Cons: HL only focuses on mental health charities, has only evaluated a few high pre-test probability outcomes affecting mental health, and only offers impact-per-dollar figures relative to those few outcomes.
Niche: A HL recommendation is a good criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a charity addressing mental health. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for any charity.
-Giving Green (GG in bold below)
Pros: GG evaluates IE/TE/RN extensively and with current data, directly links to primary research, explains its methodology better than ROI Ministry, Charity Navigator, and non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, and focuses (with thorough education) on the neglected cause of climate change.
Cons: GG only focuses on climate change charities, and the complexity and uncertainty inherent to this cause disable GG from offering impact-per-dollar figures.
Niche: A GG recommendation is the best criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a charity addressing climate change. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for any charity.
-ROI Ministry w/ Calvin Edwards Co. (RC in bold below)
Pros: RC evaluates IE/TE independently and with current data, explains its methodology better than non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about some counterfactuals and data limitations, and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity research.
Cons: RC only focuses on Christian charities, does not consider RN, limits evaluation to only a small number of high pre-test probability charities, and is not transparent about all counterfactuals and data limitations, thus making self-calculated impact-per-dollar figures (when possible from the given data) much more accurate than their reported figures.
Niche: A RC recommendation is a good criterion for a high IE/TE rating for a Christian charity, particularly when the data provided allows for a reliable impact-per-dollar calculation. The lack of a recommendation should not solely determine a low IE/TE/RN rating for any charity.
-Charity Navigator/Impact Matters (CN in bold below)
Pros: CN thoroughly evaluates TE and independently evaluates IE, explains its methodology better than non-Tier 1 evaluators, is transparent about counterfactuals and data limitations, often provides specific impact-per-dollar figures, and evaluates tens of thousands of secular and religious charities from all cause groups. Impact Matters was a similar charity evaluator that is now folded into CN.
Cons: IE evaluation is increasing but “limited” to 1000-2000 charities, TE evaluation is solely based on 1st-party charity-supplied data, does not consider RN, has lenient ratings that aren’t distinguishing (>10,000 4-star charities), and often uses old/pre-COVID data or large prospective assumptions about counterfactuals that lower reliability of impact-per-dollar figures.
Niche: High CN scores are good criteria for a high IE rating, but only with post-COVID data and reliable counterfactual considerations. A high CN score is the best criterion for a high TE rating, but only with a very high percentage (not star) score. Given CN‘s usefulness for so many secular and religious charities, the lack of a high CN score should be a main criterion for a low TE rating for any charity.
Tier 2: Evaluators using independent retrospective first-party (charity-reported) data analysis regarding charity TE and RN
-Ministry Watch (MW in bold below)
Pros: MW thoroughly evaluates TE independently and with current data, considers RN, assesses hundreds of charities, and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity research.
Cons: MW only focuses on Christian charities, does not consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators.
Niche: A high MW score is a good criterion for a high TE rating for a Christian charity. A below-average MW score should influence a TE rating for a Christian charity but should not affect IE/RN ratings any charity.
-Charity Watch (CW in bold below)
Pros: CW thoroughly evaluates TE independently, is transparent about many counterfactuals, and assesses hundreds of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: CW bases some ratings on old/pre-COVID data, does not evaluate small charities, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators.
Niche: A high CW rating is a good criterion for a high TE rating for mid to large-sized secular and religious charities, if the evaluation is current. A below-average CW score should influence a TE rating but should not affect IE/RN ratings any charity.
-Guidestar (GS in bold below)
Pros: GS thoroughly evaluates TE independently, considers RN, and assesses thousands of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: GS bases some ratings on old/pre-COVID data, focuses more on transparency than efficiency, does not helpfully consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: A high GS rating is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities, especially paired with high ratings from the above Tier 2 evaluators. A below-average GS score should influence a TE rating but should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-So Give (SG in bold below)
Pros: SG evaluates TE independently, considers RN, and assesses secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: SG evaluates <200 charities and only unconditionally recommends a few, does not helpfully consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: A high SG rating is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities but is very rare. Given the small number of charities evaluated, a below-average SG score should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. SG ratings should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Excellence in Giving (EG in bold below)
Pros: EG evaluates TE independently, considers RN, and assesses hundreds of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: EG provides no ratings, is prohibitively expensive to use, does not rate many charities that evaluators above do, does not helpfully consider IE, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: An EG evaluation is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities. Given the lack of comparative ratings, an EG evaluation should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. EG evaluations should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-BBB Wise Giving Alliance (BB in bold below)
Pros: BB evaluates TE independently and assesses hundreds of secular and religious charities in numerous cause groups.
Cons: BB focuses more on transparency than efficiency, does not rate many charities that evaluators above do, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: A BB recommendation is a good criterion for a high TE rating for secular and religious charities. Given the many charities not fully assessed yet, a BB rating should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. BB evaluations should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Evangelical Christian Financial Accountability (EC in bold below)
Pros: EC evaluates TE independently and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity assessment.
Cons: EC provides no comparative ratings, focuses more on transparency than efficiency, only focuses on Christian charities, does not rate many Christian charities that evaluators above do, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW.
Niche: EC membership is a good criterion for a high TE rating for Christian charities. Given the lack of comparative ratings and the many Christian charities not assessed, EC membership should only influence a TE rating if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. EC membership should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Ministry Voice (MV in bold below)
Pros: MV evaluates TE independently and focuses on the neglected cause of Christian charity assessment.
Cons: MV provides no comparative ratings, only focuses on Christian charities, does not consider IE/RN, and explains its methodology less transparently than Tier 1 evaluators and MW/CW. MV also became indefinitely inaccessible online during our latest ratings process.
Niche: An MV recommendation would be a good criterion for a high TE rating for Christian charities, if the site becomes accessible again and if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. If not, an MV recommendation should not affect IE/TE/RN ratings for any charity.
Tier 3: Evaluators using either partial meta-analysis of Tier 1 or 2 evaluator data or a single charity parameter (e.g. revenue) to determine recommendations, with an otherwise unspecified methodology.
-Wallet Hub (WH in bold below)
Pros: WH evaluates TE for secular and religious charities using CN/CW data.
Cons: WH provides no comparative ratings, does not consider IE/RN, considers charity popularity a valid recommendation criterion, and does not otherwise explain its methodology.
Niche: A WH recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. A WH recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Consumer Reports (CR in bold below)
Pros: CR evaluates TE for secular and religious charities using CN/CW/BB data.
Cons: CR provides no comparative ratings, often uses old/pre-COVID data, does not consider IE/RN, and does not explain its methodology.
Niche: A CR recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. A CR recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-Forbes: America’s Top Charities (FC in bold below)
Pros: FC evaluates TE for secular and religious charities.
Cons: FC does not consider IE/RN, considers revenue/size a valid and primary recommendation criterion, and does not otherwise explain its methodology.
Niche: A FC recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. A FC recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
-America’s Best Charities (AB in bold below)
Pros: AB evaluates TE for secular and religious charities.
Cons: AB provides no comparative ratings, does not consider IE/RN, and does not explain its methodology.
Niche: An AB recommendation should only be a minor criterion for a high TE rating, only if comparative ratings from MW/CW/GS are indistinguishable. An AB recommendation should not affect IE/RN ratings for any charity.
Tier 4: Evaluators performing primary research or meta-analyses on charity impact in general, without a comprehensive charity recommendation methodology or impact-per-dollar assessments
-Giving What We Can
Pros: GWWC conducts very thorough IE/TE/RN research.
Cons: GWWC is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology, assesses some charities based solely on data from other evaluators like GW/FP, Animal Charity Evaluators, and Effective Altruism Funds.
Niche: GWWC offers valuable practical education about increasing impact for various cause groups and accountability mechanisms for maintaining impactful giving.
-EA Funds
Pros: EAF conducts very thorough IE/TE/RN research, evaluates neglected cause groups like AI, X-risk, animal welfare, and longtermism.
Cons: EAF is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology, assesses some charities based solely on data from other evaluators like GW.
Niche: EAF offers valuable practical education about increasing impact for various cause groups, particularly the neglected cause groups above.
-Innovations for Poverty Action
Pros: IPA conducts very thorough IE/TE/RN research on a variety of qualitative approaches to reduce suffering.
Cons: IPA is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology.
Niche: IPA offers valuable practical education about high-impact ways to reduce a variety of suffering.
-Center for Reducing Suffering
Pros: CRS conducts IE/TE/RN research and gathers resources regarding a variety of qualitative approaches to reduce suffering.
Cons: CRS is not designed for comprehensive charity recommendations, no charity evaluation methodology.
Niche: CRS offers valuable practical education about high-impact ways to reduce a variety of suffering.
C. Use the subsequent reproducible algorithm to apply the above principles and evaluator niches to any charity to determine Bless BIG ratings
Ratings are labelled Strong, Stronger, or Strongest, as only 25 out of millions of charities meet at least Strong criteria for all 3 categories (IE/TE/RN). All charities that meet at least Strong criteria for RN – and either IE or TE – are included in either our 36 Top Recommendations or 35 Honorable Mentions. This was to account for charities that haven’t been given the opportunity to have IE evaluated, to keep the number of recommendations from being overwhelmingly large or unhelpfully small, or to include more diverse cause groups, as the following explains in detail. To see our cause groups, Top Recommendations, and Honorable Mentions, click here.
Relative Need (RN) Rating
1. Is the charity’s target population or cause the recipient of <5% government expenditures/services?
(As per the US Treasury, The Balance Federal Budget Breakdown, and the National Priorities Project)
Rationale: The enormous number of dollars and services primarily supplied by wealthy governments leaves populations either redundantly over-served or increasingly overlooked. This wastes both your money and its desperately-needed benefit to neglected recipients.
2. Is the charity’s target population or cause the focus of <1% of front-page headlines in the mainstream media?
(As per 100 random reviews of Reuters, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, and NPR home pages over 6 months)
Rationale: Independent of government and services bias, the attention and advocacy mass media outlets direct toward various populations leave them either redundantly over-served or increasingly overlooked. This wastes both your money and its desperately-needed benefit to neglected recipients.
3. Is the charity’s target population or cause the recipient of <5% of personal donation dollars?
(As per 2022 Define Financial Giving Statistics, the 2022 Charities Aid Foundation Giving Index, the 2022 Forbes: America’s Top 100 Charities, the 2021 Giving USA Visual Report, the 2021 National Philanthropic Trust Report, and the 2021 Candid Report)
Rationale: Independent of government, services, and media bias, the often similar familiarities, emotional inclinations, and relational connections of personal donors leave populations either redundantly over-served or increasingly overlooked. This wastes both your money and its desperately-needed benefit to neglected recipients.
4. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 1-3?
-If 0, the charity does not meet Strong criteria for Relative Need and has not yet earned a Bless BIG Top Recommendation or Honorable Mention. Hopefully next time! Please progress to Section E, question 39.
-If 1, the charity is assigned a Strong rating for Relative Need! Please progress to the next section, question 5.
-If 2, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Relative Need! Please progress to the next section, question 5.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Relative Need! Please progress to the next section, question 5.
Rationale: The RN rating is more qualitative than the TE and IE ratings, although still somewhat quantifiable as above. Also, the RN rating has components that weigh into TE and IE ratings. For example, services in areas of high RN tend to be cheaper and more accurately explained or quantified on budgets, which can correlate with a high TE. And the simpler and more cost-effective solutions for high-RN populations/causes often allow charities to prove much higher (and better quality) IE. However, several above components of the RN rating are independent of TE or IE, can never be completely quantified, and yet heavily influence the destination and significance of your giving. So much so that low RN populations/causes unfortunately, ineffectively, and redundantly receive the vast majority of donation dollars, wasting a shocking amount of generosity and impact. Thus a distinct RN rating remains very important and provides somewhat more practical than numerical considerations for blessing BIG.
Budget Transparency and Efficiency (TE) Rating
Important:
-“Post-pandemic” below refers to a report or data created 2021 or later that was the basis for a charity’s rating or recommendation. For many reasons, the COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the reality and reliability of TE data for nearly all charities.
-“Recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator” means the charity’s presence at the above GW/LS/HL/GG/RC links, or being funded by FP at its link above.
-“Recommendation by any other Tier 2 or 3 evaluator” below means the charity’s presence at the above EG/MV/WH/CR/FC/AB links, a Gold rating by SG, a Standards Met rating by BB, or membership by EC.
5. Does the charity have a post-pandemic 4-star CN rating and 5-star MW rating?
Rationale: CN is the best overall direct TE evaluator for secular and many religious charities. MW is the best overall direct TE evaluator for many Christian charities that are not evaluated by CN.
6. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator
-Post-pandemic A/A+ CW and Platinum GS ratings
Rationale: IE is more beneficial to charity recipients than TE alone. Also, a charity can’t prove a high impact-per-dollar by a Tier 1 evaluator without its budget transparently and efficiently producing outcomes, which aren’t often reflected in budget figures alone. Thus, without making IE evaluators criteria for TE ratings, a high TE rating would be incomplete and far less valuable than a high IE rating. Finally, CW/GS are the next best overall direct TE evaluators after CN/MW.
7. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by CW and GS
-Rated better than C+ by CW and better than Silver by GS?
Rationale: CW/GS are good TE evaluators but do not evaluate all charities. So a non-rating doesn’t hurt a charity, but a below-average rating cancels an inclusion criterion above.
8. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 1-3?
-If less than 3, go to question 9.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
9. If the charity has less than a 5-star MW rating or no MW rating, does it have post-pandemic 4-star CN, A/A+ CW, and Platinum GS ratings?
Rationale: See question 5, and the combined evaluation quality of CW and GS is similar to that of MW. Also, MW does not evaluate secular charities, and GS evaluates many small charities that CW does not.
10. Does the charity have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator?
Rationale: See question 6.
11. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by MW
-Rated 3-star or 4-star by MW
Rationale: MW is a good TE evaluator but does not evaluate all charities. So a non-rating doesn’t hurt a charity, but a below-average rating cancels an inclusion criterion above.
12. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 9-11?
-If less than 3, go to question 13.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
13. Does the charity have a post-pandemic 4-star CN rating and 5-star MW rating?
Rationale: See question 5.
14. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic A/A+ CW rating or Platinum GS rating
-A recommendation by any non-CN/CW/GS Tier 2 or 3 evaluator? Each “Not recommended” SG or “Standards not met” BB rating cancels 1 of these recommendations.
Rationale: CW/GS are the next best overall direct TE evaluators after CN/MW. Any net recommendations from other Tier 2 or 3 evaluators are helpful in distinguishing a charity’s TE when CN/MW/CW/GS/Tier 1 ratings are similar.
15. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by CW or GS
-Rated better than C+ by CW and better than Silver by GS
Rationale: See question 7.
16. If the charity does not have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator, does it have a CN numerical score of at least 97% or a CW grade of A+?
Rationale: Well over 10,000 charities get a 4-star (90% or better) CN rating or A/A+ CW rating, which makes much stricter criteria necessary for a more isolated CN or CW rating to be helpful in truly distinguishing a charity’s TE.
17. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 13-16?
-If less than 4, go to question 18.
-If 4, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
18. If the charity has less than a 5-star MW rating or no MW rating, does it have post-pandemic 4-star CN, A/A+ CW, and Platinum GS ratings?
Rationale: See questions 5, 9, and 11.
19. Does the charity have a recommendation by any non-CN/CW/GS Tier 2 or 3 evaluator? Each “Not recommended” SG or “Standards not met” BB rating cancels 1 of these recommendations.
Rationale: Any net recommendations from other Tier 2 or 3 evaluators are helpful in distinguishing a charity’s TE when CN/MW/CW/GS/Tier 1 ratings are similar.
20. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by MW
-Rated 3-star or 4-star by MW
Rationale: See question 11.
21. If the charity does not have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator, does it have a CN numerical score of at least 97% or a CW grade of A+?
Rationale: See question 16.
22. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 18-21?
-If less than 4, go to question 23.
-If 4, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
23. Does the charity meet at least 3 of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic 4-star CN rating
-A post-pandemic 5-star MW rating
-A post-pandemic A/A+ CW rating
-A post-pandemic Platinum GS rating
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator
Rationale: In the event of a good-but-not-great rating by a good TE evaluator, a charity should still be eligible for a Strong TE rating with highest ratings from several other good TE evaluators.
24. Does the charity meet all of the following criteria?
-No CN rating or a CN rating better than 2-star
-No MW rating or a MW rating better than 2-star
-No CW rating or a CW rating better than C+
-No GS rating or a GS rating better than Silver
Rationale: CN/MW/CW/GS are all good TE evaluators but do not each evaluate all charities. So a non-rating doesn’t hurt a charity, but a below-average rating cancels an inclusion criterion above.
25. If the charity does not have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator, does it have a CN numerical score of at least 97% or a CW grade of A+?
Rationale: See question 16.
26. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 23-25?
-If less than 3, the charity does not meet Strong criteria for Budget Transparency and Efficiency. Please progress to the next section, question 27.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strong rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
Impact Evidence (IE) Rating
Important:
-“Post-pandemic” below refers to a report or data created 2021 or later that was the basis for a charity’s rating or recommendation. For many reasons, the COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the reality and reliability of IE data for nearly all charities.
27. Do the charity’s outcomes measured for evaluator recommendations meet all of the following criteria?
-Outcomes are life-giving (e.g. food/clean water/shelter provision, affecting afterlife status if religious, or mortality-reducing healthcare), not only life-improving.
-Outcomes are highly reliable (e.g. from high-quality scientific study with large sample sizes and counterfactuals considered).
-Outcomes are longer-term (e.g. sustainable farming, not delivered meals; business coaching/microfinance, not one-time cash transfers; completion of discipleship programs, not “decisions for Christ”/conversions/baptisms; indigenous healthcare services, not emergency medical supplies; etc.).
Rationale: Evidence of overall impact (and actual aid to recipients) is much less reliable for outcomes that are statistically known to 1) provide relatively small benefits, 2) typically produce only transient change on follow-up, 3) require unsustainable resources or manpower, 4) create dependency or entitlement that eventually cost more than short-term gains, 5) be imprecise enough to artificially inflate, 6) poorly isolate charity outcomes from partners, or 7) involve assessments with low sample sizes, confidence intervals, or design quality.
28. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-RC/CN Tier 1 evaluator
-A post-pandemic recommendation from RC and a post-pandemic Impact & Results Beacon score of 100% from CN
Rationale: GW/LS/FP/HL/GG conduct the highest quality research and do the best job avoiding the pitfalls from question 27 in their IE recommendations. The types of assessment RC and CN do complement each other. Their combined quality approaches other Tier 1 evaluators, if the data they provide are processed to avoid as many pitfalls as possible from question 27.
29. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 27-28?
-If 0, go to question 33.
-If 1, go to question 30.
-If 2, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Impact Evidence! Please progress to the next section, question 35.
30. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-RC/CN Tier 1 evaluator
-A “No” answer to question 27
31. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from RC or a post-pandemic Impact & Results Beacon score of 100% from CN
-A “Yes” answer to question 27
32. Did the charity get a “Yes” answer for either question 30 or question 31?
-If so, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Impact Evidence! Please progress to the next section, question 35.
-If not, go to question 33.
Rationale: A reasonably reliable or shorter-term benefit confirmed by high-quality assessment is considered to be similar evidence of impact to a highly reliable or long-term benefit confirmed by good-quality assessment. Obviously, neither are as ideal as a highly reliable or long-term benefit confirmed by high-quality assessment.
33. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from RC or a post-pandemic Impact & Results Beacon score of 100% from CN
-A “No” answer to question 27
34. Did the charity get a “Yes” answer for question 33?
-If so, the charity is assigned a Strong rating for Impact Evidence! Please progress to the next section, question 35.
-If not, the charity does not meet Strong criteria for Impact Evidence. Please progress to the next section, question 35.
Rationale: A reasonably reliable or shorter-term benefit confirmed by good-quality third-party assessment is better evidence of impact than an advertised benefit that is not confirmed by any good-quality, retrospective, third-party evidence without conflicts of interest.
D. Publish Top Recommendations and Honorable Mentions
35. Did the charity earn at least a Strong IE, TE, and RN rating?
-If so, it meets primary criteria for a Top Recommendation with a Bless BIG website profile under its cause group. Top Recommendations are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN).
-If not, go to question 36.
Rationale: Out of millions of charities for donors to consider, only 36 meet Strong criteria for all 3 ratings. They’re the best of the best of the best, as far as we and 23 other charity evaluators can tell! Also, 36 is a small enough number for donors to realistically process, but a large enough number to provide options across 11 major cause groups that diversely reflect typical donor values.
36. Did the charity earn at least a Stronger IE rating and at least a Strong RN rating, even if it did not earn a Strong TE rating?
-If so, it meets secondary criteria for a Top Recommendation with a Bless BIG website profile under its cause group. Top Recommendations are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN).
-If not, go to question 37.
Rationale: First, in our methodology, a charity cannot earn a Stronger or Strongest IE rating (i.e. high impact-per-dollar) without having an indirectly high TE. This happens when budget transparency and efficiency is reflected more in the outcomes a charity produces than in budget figures alone, and our methodology accounts for this as above (e.g. see question 6). Also, some charities are assessed by enough TE evaluators to be promising but not enough to confidently assign a TE rating one way or the other (thus keeping them from a Strong rating). So in the very rare event that either of these cases applies to a charity and it meets at least Stronger IE criteria, it is still considered a Top Recommendation. Finally, the RN rating remains required because it is a good qualitative way to assess impact and considers variables that IE and TE do not (as per question 4).
37. Did the charity earn a Strong IE rating and at least a Strong RN rating, even if it did not earn a Strong TE rating?
-If so, it meets criteria for a Tier 1 Honorable Mention under its cause group. Honorable Mentions are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN).
-If not, go to question 38.
Rationale: Given how exceptional a charity must be to earn any Strong rating, and to include exceptional charities from several more cause groups that donors are interested in, Honorable Mentions are offered for donors particularly drawn to them. They are not profiled or linked, as our Top Recommendations are more reliable ways for you and Bless BIG to do more good with your gift! As IE is more important than TE (and since RN is an important and more qualitative rating), Tier 1 Honorable Mentions represent the very few charities that are Strong in IE and RN, but not in TE.
38. Did the charity earn a Strong TE rating and at least a Strong RN rating, even if it did not earn a Strong IE rating?
-If so, it meets criteria for a Tier 2 Honorable Mention under its cause group. Honorable Mentions are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN). Please progress to the next section, question 39.
-If not, the charity has not yet earned a Bless BIG Top Recommendation or Honorable Mention. Hopefully next time! Please progress to the next section, question 39.
Rationale: See question 37. As TE is less important than IE (and since RN is an important and more qualitative rating), Tier 2 Honorable Mentions represent the very few charities that are Strong in TE and RN, but not in IE.
E. Adjust giving toward Top Recommendations, update Bless BIG charity info, and keep learning!
39. Do you know of any charity ratings methodology that incorporates more charities/evaluators, more accurately weighs relevant factors, and is more transparent/reproducible?
-If so, please email info@blessbig.org to share the complete methodology, with a detailed explanation how it accomplishes the above. We’d love to learn from it and either improve our own approach or simply use it!
-If not, that means Bless BIG is currently your best way to bless the most people, in the most life-giving ways, giving you the biggest ROI for your generosity! As in Section A, our methodology remains our mission. Again, Bless BIG is not the right way. But if it’s currently your best way, why not support one of our Top Recommendations? Then we can both give and learn together to find a way that’s even better!
40. Do you have any questions or see any items that need to be explained or updated?
-Email info@blessbig.org, and we’ll do our best to address them! Thank you.
C. Use the subsequent reproducible algorithm to apply the above principles and evaluator niches to any charity to determine Bless BIG ratings
Ratings are labelled Strong, Stronger, or Strongest, as only 25 out of millions of charities meet at least Strong criteria for all 3 categories (IE/TE/RN). All charities that meet at least Strong criteria for RN – and either IE or TE – are included in either our 36 Top Recommendations or 35 Honorable Mentions. This was to account for charities that haven’t been given the opportunity to have IE evaluated, to keep the number of recommendations from being overwhelmingly large or unhelpfully small, or to include more diverse cause groups, as the following explains in detail. To see our cause groups, Top Recommendations, and Honorable Mentions, click here.
Relative Need (RN) Rating
1. Is the charity’s target population or cause the recipient of <5% government expenditures/services?
(As per the US Treasury, The Balance Federal Budget Breakdown, and the National Priorities Project)
Rationale: The enormous number of dollars and services primarily supplied by wealthy governments leaves populations either redundantly over-served or increasingly overlooked. This wastes both your money and its desperately-needed benefit to neglected recipients.
2. Is the charity’s target population or cause the focus of <1% of front-page headlines in the mainstream media?
(As per 100 random reviews of Reuters, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, and NPR home pages over 6 months)
Rationale: Independent of government and services bias, the attention and advocacy mass media outlets direct toward various populations leave them either redundantly over-served or increasingly overlooked. This wastes both your money and its desperately-needed benefit to neglected recipients.
3. Is the charity’s target population or cause the recipient of <5% of personal donation dollars?
(As per 2022 Define Financial Giving Statistics, the 2022 Charities Aid Foundation Giving Index, the 2022 Forbes: America’s Top 100 Charities, the 2021 Giving USA Visual Report, the 2021 National Philanthropic Trust Report, and the 2021 Candid Report)
Rationale: Independent of government, services, and media bias, the often similar familiarities, emotional inclinations, and relational connections of personal donors leave populations either redundantly over-served or increasingly overlooked. This wastes both your money and its desperately-needed benefit to neglected recipients.
4. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 1-3?
-If 0, the charity does not meet Strong criteria for Relative Need and has not yet earned a Bless BIG Top Recommendation or Honorable Mention. Hopefully next time! Please progress to Section E, question 39.
-If 1, the charity is assigned a Strong rating for Relative Need! Please progress to the next section, question 5.
-If 2, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Relative Need! Please progress to the next section, question 5.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Relative Need! Please progress to the next section, question 5.
Rationale: The RN rating is more qualitative than the TE and IE ratings, although still somewhat quantifiable as above. Also, the RN rating has components that weigh into TE and IE ratings. For example, services in areas of high RN tend to be cheaper and more accurately explained or quantified on budgets, which can correlate with a high TE. And the simpler and more cost-effective solutions for high-RN populations/causes often allow charities to prove much higher (and better quality) IE. However, several above components of the RN rating are independent of TE or IE, can never be completely quantified, and yet heavily influence the destination and significance of your giving. So much so that low RN populations/causes unfortunately, ineffectively, and redundantly receive the vast majority of donation dollars, wasting a shocking amount of generosity and impact. Thus a distinct RN rating remains very important and provides somewhat more practical than numerical considerations for blessing BIG.
Budget Transparency and Efficiency (TE) Rating
Important:
-“Post-pandemic” below refers to a report or data created 2021 or later that was the basis for a charity’s rating or recommendation. For many reasons, the COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the reality and reliability of TE data for nearly all charities.
-“Recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator” means the charity’s presence at the above GW/LS/HL/GG/RC links, or being funded by FP at its link above
-“Recommendation by any other Tier 2 or 3 evaluator” below means the charity’s presence at the above EG/MV/WH/CR/FC/AB links, a Gold rating by SG, a Standards Met rating by BB, or membership by EC.
5. Does the charity have a post-pandemic 4-star CN rating and 5-star MW rating?
Rationale: CN is the best overall direct TE evaluator for secular and many religious charities. MW is the best overall direct TE evaluator for many Christian charities that are not evaluated by CN.
6. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator
-Post-pandemic A/A+ CW and Platinum GS ratings
Rationale: IE is more beneficial to charity recipients than TE alone. Also, a charity can’t prove a high impact-per-dollar by a Tier 1 evaluator without its budget transparently and efficiently producing outcomes, which aren’t often reflected in budget figures alone. Thus, without making IE evaluators criteria for TE ratings, a high TE rating would be incomplete and far less valuable than a high IE rating. Finally, CW/GS are the next best overall direct TE evaluators after CN/MW.
7. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by CW and GS
-Rated better than C+ by CW and better than Silver by GS?
Rationale: CW/GS are good TE evaluators but do not evaluate all charities. So a non-rating doesn’t hurt a charity, but a below-average rating cancels an inclusion criterion above.
8. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 1-3?
-If less than 3, go to question 9.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
9. If the charity has less than a 5-star MW rating or no MW rating, does it have post-pandemic 4-star CN, A/A+ CW, and Platinum GS ratings?
Rationale: See question 5, and the combined evaluation quality of CW and GS is similar to that of MW. Also, MW does not evaluate secular charities, and GS evaluates many small charities that CW does not.
10. Does the charity have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator?
Rationale: See question 6.
11. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by MW
-Rated 3-star or 4-star by MW
Rationale: MW is a good TE evaluator but does not evaluate all charities. So a non-rating doesn’t hurt a charity, but a below-average rating cancels an inclusion criterion above.
12. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 9-11?
-If less than 3, go to question 13.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
13. Does the charity have a post-pandemic 4-star CN rating and 5-star MW rating?
Rationale: See question 5.
14. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic A/A+ CW rating or Platinum GS rating
-A recommendation by any non-CN/CW/GS Tier 2 or 3 evaluator? Each “Not recommended” SG or “Standards not met” BB rating cancels 1 of these recommendations.
Rationale: CW/GS are the next best overall direct TE evaluators after CN/MW. Any net recommendations from other Tier 2 or 3 evaluators are helpful in distinguishing a charity’s TE when CN/MW/CW/GS/Tier 1 ratings are similar.
15. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by CW or GS
-Rated better than C+ by CW and better than Silver by GS
Rationale: See question 7.
16. If the charity does not have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator, does it have a CN numerical score of at least 97% or a CW grade of A+?
Rationale: Well over 10,000 charities get a 4-star (90% or better) CN rating or A/A+ CW rating, which makes much stricter criteria necessary for a more isolated CN or CW rating to be helpful in truly distinguishing a charity’s TE.
17. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 13-16?
-If less than 4, go to question 18.
-If 4, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
18. If the charity has less than a 5-star MW rating or no MW rating, does it have post-pandemic 4-star CN, A/A+ CW, and Platinum GS ratings?
Rationale: See questions 5, 9, and 11.
19. Does the charity have a recommendation by any non-CN/CW/GS Tier 2 or 3 evaluator? Each “Not recommended” SG or “Standards not met” BB rating cancels 1 of these recommendations.
Rationale: Any net recommendations from other Tier 2 or 3 evaluators are helpful in distinguishing a charity’s TE when CN/MW/CW/GS/Tier 1 ratings are similar.
20. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-Unrated by MW
-Rated 3-star or 4-star by MW
Rationale: See question 11.
21. If the charity does not have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator, does it have a CN numerical score of at least 97% or a CW grade of A+?
Rationale: See question 16.
22. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 18-21?
-If less than 4, go to question 23.
-If 4, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
23. Does the charity meet at least 3 of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic 4-star CN rating
-A post-pandemic 5-star MW rating
-A post-pandemic A/A+ CW rating
-A post-pandemic Platinum GS rating
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator
Rationale: In the event of a good-but-not-great rating by a good TE evaluator, a charity should still be eligible for a Strong TE rating with highest ratings from several other good TE evaluators.
24. Does the charity meet all of the following criteria?
-No CN rating or a CN rating better than 2-star
-No MW rating or a MW rating better than 2-star
-No CW rating or a CW rating better than C+
-No GS rating or a GS rating better than Silver
Rationale: CN/MW/CW/GS are all good TE evaluators but do not each evaluate all charities. So a non-rating doesn’t hurt a charity, but a below-average rating cancels an inclusion criterion above.
25. If the charity does not have a post-pandemic recommendation from any non-CN Tier 1 evaluator, does it have a CN numerical score of at least 97% or a CW grade of A+?
Rationale: See question 16.
26. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 23-25?
-If less than 3, the charity does not meet Strong criteria for Budget Transparency and Efficiency. Please progress to the next section, question 27.
-If 3, the charity is assigned a Strong rating for Budget Transparency and Efficiency! Please progress to the next section, question 27.
Impact Evidence (IE) Rating
Important:
-“Post-pandemic” below refers to a report or data created 2021 or later that was the basis for a charity’s rating or recommendation. For many reasons, the COVID-19 pandemic drastically altered the reality and reliability of IE data for nearly all charities.
27. Do the charity’s outcomes measured for evaluator recommendations meet all of the following criteria?
-Outcomes are life-giving (e.g. food/clean water/shelter provision, affecting afterlife status if religious, or mortality-reducing healthcare).
-Outcomes are highly reliable (e.g. from high-quality scientific study with large sample sizes and counterfactuals considered).
-Outcomes are longer-term (e.g. sustainable farming, not delivered meals; business coaching/microfinance, not one-time cash transfers; completion of discipleship programs, not “decisions for Christ”/conversions/baptisms; indigenous healthcare services, not emergency medical supplies; etc.).
Rationale: Evidence of overall impact (and actual aid to recipients) is much less reliable for outcomes that are statistically known to 1) provide relatively small benefits, 2) typically produce only transient change on follow-up, 3) require unsustainable resources or manpower, 4) create dependency or entitlement that eventually cost more than short-term gains, 5) be imprecise enough to artificially inflate, 6) poorly isolate charity outcomes from partners, or 7) involve assessments with low sample sizes, confidence intervals, or design quality.
28. Does the charity meet 1 of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-RC/CN Tier 1 evaluator
-A post-pandemic recommendation from RC and a post-pandemic Impact & Results Beacon score of 100% from CN
Rationale: GW/LS/FP/HL/GG conduct the highest quality research and do the best job avoiding the pitfalls from question 27 in their IE recommendations. The types of assessment RC and CN do complement each other. Their combined quality approaches other Tier 1 evaluators, if the data they provide are processed to avoid as many pitfalls as possible from question 27.
29. How many “Yes” answers did the charity get for questions 27-28?
-If 0, go to question 33.
-If 1, go to question 30.
-If 2, the charity is assigned a Strongest rating for Impact Evidence! Please progress to the next section, question 35.
30. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from any non-RC/CN Tier 1 evaluator
-A “No” answer to question 27
31. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from RC or a post-pandemic Impact & Results Beacon score of 100% from CN
-A “Yes” answer to question 27
32. Did the charity get a “Yes” answer for either question 30 or question 31?
-If so, the charity is assigned a Stronger rating for Impact Evidence! Please progress to the next section, question 35.
-If not, go to question 33.
Rationale: A reasonably reliable or shorter-term benefit confirmed by high-quality assessment is considered to be similar evidence of impact to a highly reliable or long-term benefit confirmed by good-quality assessment. Obviously, neither are as ideal as a highly reliable or long-term benefit confirmed by high-quality assessment.
33. Does the charity meet both of the following criteria?
-A post-pandemic recommendation from RC or a post-pandemic Impact & Results Beacon score of 100% from CN
-A “No” answer to question 27
34. Did the charity get a “Yes” answer for question 33?
-If so, the charity is assigned a Strong rating for Impact Evidence! Please progress to the next section, question 35.
-If not, the charity does not meet Strong criteria for Impact Evidence. Please progress to the next section, question 35.
Rationale: A reasonably reliable or shorter-term benefit confirmed by good-quality third-party assessment is better evidence of impact than an advertised benefit that is not confirmed by any good-quality, retrospective, third-party evidence without conflicts of interest.
D. Publish Top Recommendations and Honorable Mentions
35. Did the charity earn at least a Strong IE, TE, and RN rating?
-If so, it meets primary criteria for a Top Recommendation with a Bless BIG website profile under its cause group. Top Recommendations are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN).
-If not, go to question 36.
Rationale: Out of millions of charities for donors to consider, only 36 meet Strong criteria for all 3 ratings. They’re the best of the best of the best, as far as we and 23 other charity evaluators can tell! Also, 36 is a small enough number for donors to realistically process, but a large enough number to provide options across 11 major cause groups that diversely reflect typical donor values.
36. Did the charity earn at least a Stronger IE rating and at least a Strong RN rating, even if it did not earn a Strong TE rating?
-If so, it meets secondary criteria for a Top Recommendation with a Bless BIG website profile under its cause group. Top Recommendations are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN).
-If not, go to question 37.
Rationale: First, in our methodology, a charity cannot earn a Stronger or Strongest IE rating (i.e. high impact-per-dollar) without having an indirectly high TE. This happens when budget transparency and efficiency is reflected more in the outcomes a charity produces than in budget figures alone, and our methodology accounts for this as above (e.g. see question 6). Also, some charities are assessed by enough TE evaluators to be promising but not enough to confidently assign a TE rating one way or the other (thus keeping them from a Strong rating). So in the very rare event that either of these cases applies to a charity and it meets at least Stronger IE criteria, it is still considered a Top Recommendation. Finally, the RN rating remains required because it is a good qualitative way to assess impact and considers variables that IE and TE do not (as per question 4).
37. Did the charity earn a Strong IE rating and at least a Strong RN rating, even if it did not earn a Strong TE rating?
-If so, it meets criteria for a Tier 1 Honorable Mention under its cause group. Honorable Mentions are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN).
-If not, go to question 38.
Rationale: Given how exceptional a charity must be to earn any Strong rating, and to include exceptional charities from several more cause groups that donors are interested in, Honorable Mentions are offered for donors particularly drawn to them. They are not profiled or linked, as our Top Recommendations are more reliable ways for you and Bless BIG to do more good with your gift! As IE is more important than TE (and since RN is an important and more qualitative rating), Tier 1 Honorable Mentions represent the very few charities that are Strong in IE and RN, but not in TE.
38. Did the charity earn a Strong TE rating and at least a Strong RN rating, even if it did not earn a Strong IE rating?
-If so, it meets criteria for a Tier 2 Honorable Mention under its cause group. Honorable Mentions are listed in order of rating (IE, then TE, then RN). Please progress to the next section, question 39.
-If not, the charity has not yet earned a Bless BIG Top Recommendation or Honorable Mention. Hopefully next time! Please progress to the next section, question 39.
Rationale: See question 37. As TE is less important than IE (and since RN is an important and more qualitative rating), Tier 2 Honorable Mentions represent the very few charities that are Strong in TE and RN, but not in IE.
E. Adjust giving toward Top Recommendations, update Bless BIG charity info, and keep learning!
39. Do you know of any charity ratings methodology that incorporates more charities/evaluators, more accurately weighs relevant factors, and is more transparent/reproducible?
-If so, please email info@blessbig.org to share the complete methodology, with a detailed explanation how it accomplishes the above. We’d love to learn from it and either improve our own approach or simply use it!
-If not, that means Bless BIG is currently your best way to bless the most people, in the most life-giving ways, giving you the biggest ROI for your generosity! As in Section A, our methodology remains our mission. Again, Bless BIG is not the right way. But if it’s currently your best way, why not support one of our Top Recommendations? Then we can both give and learn together to find a way that’s even better!
40. Do you have any questions or see any items that need to be explained or updated?
-Email info@blessbig.org, and we’ll do our best to address them! Thank you.
Which causes were you created to bless big?
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION & CLIMATE CHANGE
How to make the biggest impact here!
The solutions for this cause group are inherently complex and costly. Even our best of the best organizations here have depressed ratings or impact evidence relative to other cause groups, especially given the need for global collaboration on this particular issue.
Fortunately, such needs can often be effectively impacted by your time and advocacy, while needs more isolated to foreign populations cannot.
Therefore, feel free to give to our recommended charities here; they’re good, and the causes are important! But we suggest an alternative to help you make the biggest difference…
Donate your money primarily to a more reliably cost-effective cause, but donate your time (especially working/volunteering as a mentor, researcher, or advocate) to help our planet and all its inhabitants thrive, wherever your personal influence can reach.
HOMELESSNESS & DISPLACEMENT, ADDICTION
How to make the biggest impact here!
The solutions for this cause group are inherently complex and costly. Even our best of the best organizations here have depressed ratings and impact evidence relative to other cause groups, especially when working in the setting of Western culture.
Fortunately, such domestic needs can often be effectively impacted by your time and knowledge of local culture, while more cost-effective but foreign needs cannot.
Therefore, feel free to give to our recommended charities here; they’re good, and the causes are important! But we suggest an alternative to help you make the biggest difference…
Donate your money primarily to a more cost-effective cause, but donate your time (especially working/volunteering as a mentor, researcher, or advocate) to aid those who need stable housing or substance freedom, wherever your personal influence can reach.
VETERAN & FIRST RESPONDER TRAUMA, DISASTER RELIEF
How to make the biggest impact here!
The solutions for this cause group are inherently complex and costly. Even our best of the best organizations here have depressed ratings and impact evidence relative to other cause groups, especially when working in the setting of Western culture.
Fortunately, such domestic needs can often be effectively impacted by your time and knowledge of local culture, while more cost-effective but foreign needs cannot.
Therefore, feel free to give to our recommended charities here; they’re good, and the causes are important! But we suggest an alternative to help you make the biggest difference…
Donate your money primarily to a more cost-effective cause, but donate your time (especially working/volunteering as a mentor, researcher, or advocate) to aid those traumatized by conflict or disaster, wherever your personal influence can reach.
Which causes were you created to bless big?
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION & CLIMATE CHANGE
How to make the biggest impact here!
The solutions for this cause group are inherently complex and costly. Even our best of the best organizations here have depressed ratings or impact evidence relative to other cause groups, especially given the need for global collaboration on this particular issue.
Fortunately, such needs can often be effectively impacted by your time and advocacy, while needs more isolated to foreign populations cannot.
Therefore, feel free to give to our recommended charities here; they’re good, and the causes are important! But we suggest an alternative to help you make the biggest difference…
Donate your money primarily to a more reliably cost-effective cause, but donate your time (especially working/volunteering as a mentor, researcher, or advocate) to help our planet and all its inhabitants thrive, wherever your personal influence can reach.
HOMELESSNESS & DISPLACEMENT, ADDICTION
How to make the biggest impact here!
The solutions for this cause group are inherently complex and costly. Even our best of the best organizations here have depressed ratings and impact evidence relative to other cause groups, especially when working in the setting of Western culture.
Fortunately, such domestic needs can often be effectively impacted by your time and knowledge of local culture, while more cost-effective but foreign needs cannot.
Therefore, feel free to give to our recommended charities here; they’re good, and the causes are important! But we suggest an alternative to help you make the biggest difference…
Donate your money primarily to a more cost-effective cause, but donate your time (especially working/volunteering as a mentor, researcher, or advocate) to aid those who need stable housing or substance freedom, wherever your personal influence can reach.
VETERAN & FIRST RESPONDER TRAUMA, DISASTER RELIEF
How to make the biggest impact here!
The solutions for this cause group are inherently complex and costly. Even our best of the best organizations here have depressed ratings and impact evidence relative to other cause groups, especially when working in the setting of Western culture.
Fortunately, such domestic needs can often be effectively impacted by your time and knowledge of local culture, while more cost-effective but foreign needs cannot.
Therefore, feel free to give to our recommended charities here; they’re good, and the causes are important! But we suggest an alternative to help you make the biggest difference…
Donate your money primarily to a more cost-effective cause, but donate your time (especially working/volunteering as a mentor, researcher, or advocate) to aid those traumatized by conflict or disaster, wherever your personal influence can reach.
© Bless BIG. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.