Charity Transparency Rating Methodology
Charity Transparency Rating Methodology
Published scoring rules and evidence standards for the Charity Transparency rating (ct-v1.3-zero-contribution-revenue) used in the public charity profiles and Compare surface.
The methodology keeps the arithmetic deterministic, the explanations source-grounded, and the public uncertainty visible instead of hiding it behind a single unexplained grade.
It is designed to keep the launch-phase score reproducible, readable, and easy to question while preserving the weighted-percentage model used for charity profiles.
Read this methodology together with the Charity Directory and Compare pages: the methodology explains how a score is computed; the profiles show each organization's coverage state, confidence, and cautions.
What this page covers
Published scoring rules: the six weighted score families, the weighting, and the A–F grade bands.
Evidence standards: data source, coverage states, confidence model, peer benchmarking, and guardrails.
Versioning and public accountability: phase, rating and weighting versions, and the phase disclosure that names what is deferred.
Core product principle
Not all salaries are overhead, and headline revenue can mislead when noncash support is large. The launch model treats direct animal-care labor differently from management-heavy, fundraising-heavy, or executive-heavy spending, and the public profiles keep cash, in-kind, labor, confidence, and caution context visible instead of collapsing them into one blunt ratio.
Published methodology
Charity Transparency Rating · ct-v1.3-zero-contribution-revenue
Phase
Phase 1 - Baseline financial transparency
Weighting version
ct-v1.3-zero-contribution-revenue
Data source
published deterministic methodology
Last updated
Jul 16, 2026
No public last-updated date is published for this methodology yet.
Scoring rules
The score is a weighted composite of six families.
The six published weights total 100% (22+12+16+16+18+16), so each family score is multiplied by its published percentage before the composite is mapped to a grade.
The composite score maps to the A–F grade bands shown below: A 90+, B 80+, C 70+, D 60+, F 0+.
Changelog: ct-v1.1 publishes exact deterministic category bands and replaces the fabricated worked example with the verified ASPCA fiscal-year 2024 score.
Score families
Each family is scored, then weighted by the percentage shown, to produce the composite grade below.
Management Burden
22%Measures how much cash-like support is consumed by management and general expense after in-kind adjustment; scored so leaner management burden raises the grade.
Model basis: How much reported support is consumed by non-program expense under a form-neutral canonical definition.
Published scoring rule: Total expenses minus program-service expenses, divided by total contributions, scored against the configured upper ratio bands. When reported contributions are zero, total revenue is used as the disclosed denominator instead.
Executive Compensation Burden
12%Measures whether senior-compensation levels are proportionate for the organization's scale and cash-adjusted support base; scored so more proportionate compensation burden raises the grade.
Model basis: Whether senior-compensation levels appear proportionate to the organization's total reported contribution base.
Published scoring rule: Configured average of chief-executive and combined-executive compensation divided by total contributions. When reported contributions are zero, total revenue is used as the disclosed denominator instead.
Fundraising Efficiency
16%Measures how much of the cash-like donor base is consumed by fundraising rather than deployable mission use; scored so more efficient fundraising raises the grade.
Model basis: How much of the reported donor base is consumed by fundraising effort when standardized fundraising expense is available.
Published scoring rule: Fundraising expense divided by total contributions; unavailable when the filing does not report standardized fundraising expense.
In-Kind Distortion
16%Measures whether noncash contributions materially distort headline revenue and donor impressions about usable support; scored so lower in-kind distortion raises the grade.
Model basis: Whether noncash contributions materially distort headline revenue and donor impressions about usable support.
Published scoring rule: Noncash contributions divided by total contributions, scored against the configured upper ratio bands.
Transparency & Governance
18%Measures whether schedules, governance disclosures, and explanatory context are present and internally coherent; scored so stronger transparency and governance raises the grade.
Model basis: Whether schedules, governance disclosures, and explanatory context are sufficiently present and internally coherent for donor interpretation.
Published scoring rule: Configured checklist of structured filing, schedules, board independence, policies, and filing review.
Financial Resilience
16%Measures liquidity, balance-sheet, and cash-adjusted sustainability signals; scored so stronger financial resilience raises the grade.
Model basis: How resilient the organization appears from balance-sheet and cash-adjusted sustainability signals.
Published scoring rule: Configured average of operating margin, liabilities-to-assets, and net-asset-trend scorers.
Verified real example · ASPCA fiscal year 2024
Worked example: ASPCA family scores to composite grade
The ASPCA example applies the published bands to IRS Form 990 inputs. Strong management, in-kind, governance, and resilience scores offset a lower fundraising-efficiency result.
Management Burden
Family score 100 × 22% = 22.0 weighted points.
Executive Compensation Burden
Family score 90 × 12% = 10.8 weighted points.
Fundraising Efficiency
Family score 70 × 16% = 11.2 weighted points.
In-Kind Distortion
Family score 95 × 16% = 15.2 weighted points.
Transparency & Governance
Family score 100 × 18% = 18.0 weighted points.
Financial Resilience
Family score 98 × 16% = 15.7 weighted points.
Weighted points sum to 92.88 out of 100, rounded to 93, which maps to the A band. The profile retains medium confidence because this first score uses disclosed internal bands rather than a mature same-model peer cohort.
Grade bands
A · 90+
Strong cash-adjusted stewardship with only limited interpretive cautions.
B · 80+
Solid profile with some caution areas that should still be read in context.
C · 70+
Mixed profile with notable caution signals or weaker peer context.
D · 60+
Material concerns or distortions that reduce donor clarity.
F · 0+
Severe caution signals within the launch methodology.
Coverage states
Automated Full Rating
The filing package provided enough detail for category scoring, confidence assignment, and donor-facing publication.
Automated Limited Rating
A publishable score exists under the same weights and bands, but one or more unavailable categories were disclosed and excluded rather than treated as zero.
Analysis Pending
The organization and filing values are verified, but the rating pipeline has not yet published a score.
Insufficient Data
The available public filing package is too thin for a stable launch score.
Separate Methodology Required
The filing type needs a dedicated methodology before scoring.
Confidence model
- High confidence requires usable structured filing data, core schedules, and internally consistent detail.
- Medium confidence is publishable but may use fallback baselines or thinner narrative support.
- Low confidence remains visible with caution language rather than a strong claim of precision.
Peer benchmarking
- The preferred baseline is a same-model, similar-scale cohort.
- Fallback baseline use is disclosed when same-model cohort depth is thin.
- Peer context does not replace deterministic filing inputs.
Guardrails
- Direct animal-care labor is not automatically treated as overhead.
- Narrative context supports citations, but numeric scoring remains deterministic and versioned.
- Public pages show confidence and coverage state rather than hiding uncertainty.
- Unavailable filing fields are excluded and disclosed; they are never converted to zero or an adverse result.
Phase disclosure
- Phase 1 centers on cash-vs-noncash framing and six financial-transparency score families.
- The active methodology applies one set of weights and bands to Form 990 and Form 990-EZ.
- Direct Animal Benefit Proxy scoring is deferred to a later phase.
- The launch experience does not claim to be a full impact-evaluation system.
Financial transparency first
This section's launch frame is financial transparency, not a complete impact evaluation. A strong score here does not mean every program outcome question is settled.