Understanding our charity scores

What the directory shows—and what it does not

Charity Compare Hub displays an overall score and separate indicators for effectiveness, financial health and transparency. It also shows a program-expense percentage, basic organisational information and a named data source. These are useful prompts for further research, not a complete account of an organisation.

The directory retains legacy curated overall, effectiveness, financial-health and transparency scores, all labelled unverified. It does not calculate a new overall score from the components and has no verified weighting formula. Do not assume these scores are averages or live evaluator ratings. Legacy evaluator names and accreditation flags are unverified attributions, not endorsements.

Profiles and comparisons show evidence separately for each metric. A verified financial value links to the exact report and identifies the reporting period, report publication or auditor-signature date, source-check date, location in the report and accounting definition. Where no evidence has been verified, the value is labelled unverified and its reporting date unavailable. Checking a narrative source or an evaluator methodology page does not verify a listing score.

Reporting dates, evidence and freshness

On 4 October 2026, we checked Doctors Without Borders USA’s 2025 audited statements and Feeding America’s fiscal 2025 audited statements. We verified MSF USA’s total revenues including contributed nonfinancial assets, and Feeding America’s operating public support and revenue and reported program-expense percentage. These definitions differ: Feeding America’s revenue figure excludes separately reported nonoperating activities and includes donated goods. Read each metric’s definition before comparing.

The same check now covers three more charities: American Red Cross’s year ended 30 June 2025, Save the Children USA’s calendar 2025, and Direct Relief and Affiliates’ year ended 30 June 2025. Each has source-checked revenue and a program-expense ratio calculated from audited totals, rounded to two decimals: 90.98%, 79.84% and 99.31%, respectively. These calculated ratios are not percentages printed in the statements and do not verify any score or accreditation. All five charities’ checked financial amounts are in US dollars; none is converted from another currency.

American Red Cross’s figure is consolidated operating revenues and gains, including paid Biomedical Services and donated services/materials, but excluding nonoperating investment return and pension changes. Save the Children USA’s figure is consolidated operating revenue, including non-financial contributions and commodities, but excluding nonoperating activities and internal reserve/endowment transfers; it is not the worldwide network’s or UK entity’s income. Direct Relief’s figure includes its Foundation and other controlled affiliates, contributed goods/services and investment gains, not parent-only accounts or cash donations alone. Its program expenses include expired-pharmaceutical inventory adjustments. Donated-goods valuation and these accounting scopes materially affect comparisons.

The reporting period is the time covered by the accounts. Publication dates shown for these reports are the auditor-signature dates. The source-check date records when we inspected the document, not when the charity earned a score. A financial audit does not verify our directory’s effectiveness, financial-health, transparency or overall scores.

As a directory review policy, a report whose period ended more than 730 days ago is labelled outdated. Recent means only that the period end is within that window; it is not a claim that this is the latest available report. Missing dates show freshness unknown, not current. Freshness is recalculated without changing source-check dates. This policy is not a regulator or evaluator standard.

Effectiveness: ask what actually changed

The effectiveness indicator is intended to help you consider programme quality and outcomes. To investigate it, look for evidence that connects an organisation’s activities to benefits for the people or cause it serves.

A count of meals, training sessions or supplies delivered describes activity. It does not by itself establish that needs were met or improvements lasted. Stronger evidence explains the results, the measurement method and the uncertainty. Different causes require different evidence, so comparisons across unrelated missions need particular care.

Financial health: more than a spending ratio

Financial health concerns an organisation’s ability to sustain its work and manage resources responsibly. Useful questions include whether income is unusually concentrated, whether commitments are affordable, and whether reserves are explained in relation to the charity’s risks.

Neither a large reserve nor a small one is automatically good. A charity handling volatile emergency income may need a different buffer from a local organisation with predictable funding. Read management’s explanation and the auditor’s report alongside the figures.

Transparency: can you examine the claims?

Transparency is about access to clear, usable information. Look for annual reports, financial statements, governance details, safeguarding policies and contact information. Check whether the charity explains setbacks as well as successes.

Publication does not guarantee quality. A polished report may omit how a result was measured; a smaller organisation may explain its work well in a simpler format. Ask whether the information lets you understand and challenge the organisation’s claims.

Program expenses are a percentage, not an impact score

The program-expense percentage is conceptually different from the other indicators. It describes the share of expenditure classified as programme spending. For example, 85% means that 85 of every 100 units of reported expenditure were allocated to programmes under that reporting definition. It does not mean that 85% of your particular donation reaches a beneficiary in cash.

Accounting policies, donated goods and shared-cost allocation can affect the percentage. Always check the underlying report and compare similar periods. A higher ratio does not establish that a programme produces better outcomes.

How to read colours and community ratings

The interface uses green for scores of 90 or above, blue for 75–89, amber for 60–74 and red for scores below 60. These are display bands used to make the directory easier to scan. They are not regulator classifications or evidence of a formal accreditation.

Community star ratings are separate from the directory’s scores. They reflect visitor submissions, not an independently verified evaluation of programme impact. Read them as another signal, and do not let a small number of opinions override stronger evidence.

Use the overall score to narrow a search, the components to identify questions, and the original documents to reach a decision. If you find an outdated or inaccurate listing, use our contact form and include a public source so the information can be reviewed.

Further reading and verification

• Doctors Without Borders USA: 2025 financial statements (checked 4 October 2026)
• Feeding America: fiscal 2025 audited financial statements (checked 4 October 2026)
• American Red Cross: fiscal 2025 consolidated audited financial statements (checked 4 October 2026)
• Save the Children USA and related entities: 2025 consolidated audited financial statements (checked 4 October 2026)
• Direct Relief and Affiliates: fiscal 2025 consolidated audited financial statements (checked 4 October 2026)
• Charity Navigator: rating methodology
• GiveWell: how evaluations are conducted
• Charity Commission: find official reports and accounts