charity evaluator

Charity Navigator

A nonprofit charity-rating platform that evaluates nonprofits using accountability, finance, impact, leadership, adaptability, culture, and community signals. Charity Navigator scores well because the model leaves more value with stakeholders and ownership is comparatively aligned, though person-dependent governance and ideological disavowal still limits the evaluation.

Why this matters: Donor-facing ratings can redirect large amounts of philanthropic money.

Letter grade B Qualified Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 7, 2026

Final Score 44* B - Qualified

BQUALIFIED44 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material43

Bonus+7

Cap66No structure cap

After Cap50

Penalties-6

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

B - Qualified

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Reversibility.

Strengths

Extraction7/10
Ownership6/10
Governance6/10

Penalties

Reversibility-5
Ideological Disavowal-1

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims15
Direct axis claims15
Coverage15/15

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	6 / 10	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator in the middle of Ownership: there is some mission, member, producer, or public-interest constraint, but decisive control is not fully democratic. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 125 scored entries below, 20 tied, 81 above on Ownership. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Charity Navigator is an independent nonprofit evaluator rather than a donor-, worker-, or beneficiary-owned charity rating cooperative. [2]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	6 / 10	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 148 scored entries below, 14 tied, 64 above on Governance. Uncertainty Priority page: add more axis-specific research over time to make the comparative placement harder to dispute. Linked evidence Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	7 / 10	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 140 scored entries below, 32 tied, 54 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Charity Navigator reduces information asymmetry in giving, but it still concentrates evaluative authority in a private ratings methodology. [3]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	3 / 7	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 45 scored entries below, 66 tied, 115 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Its methodology reviews charities but does not create worker or beneficiary control over charity governance or evaluation outcomes. [4]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	2 / 7	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That keeps Charity Navigator low on Solidarity with the Unemployed: the model provides little protection for people who leave, are excluded, or cannot bargain from employment. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 31 scored entries below, 49 tied, 146 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Charity Navigator helps donors identify charities, but it does not directly provide support to unemployed people or replace the need for beneficiary power. [5]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	5 / 7	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 119 scored entries below, 43 tied, 64 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Charity Navigator publishes accountability and impact ratings, but the evaluator does not itself bear the losses caused by charities or by mistaken donor allocation. [6]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	5 / 5	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator high on Market Conduct: pricing, access, switching, and bargaining practices show restraint compared with ordinary rent-seeking competitors. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 180 scored entries below, 46 tied, 0 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Public charity ratings improve donation-market conduct by making accountability, finance, and impact information easier for ordinary donors to use. [7]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 134 scored entries below, 92 tied, 0 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Charity Navigator’s core product is charity-rating information with practical public value, though ratings can never substitute for direct claim-level evidence. [8]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. The linked record identifies Charity Navigator as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. That places Charity Navigator high on Scale Integrity: growth appears compatible with accountability, quality, and stakeholder benefit. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 109 scored entries below, 81 tied, 36 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results. [1] Charity Navigator’s rating system scales across many charities, making it useful as public infrastructure while magnifying any methodology limits. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	The organization’s positive conduct depends materially on current leadership, nonprofit or platform policy, accreditation rules, religious culture, or discretionary operating practice rather than on locked worker or affected-stakeholder control. The organization’s positive conduct depends materially on current leadership, nonprofit or platform policy, accreditation rules, religious culture, or discretionary operating practice rather than on locked worker or affected-stakeholder control. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence The organization’s positive conduct depends materially on current leadership, nonprofit or platform policy, accreditation rules, religious culture, or discretionary operating practice rather than on locked worker or affected-stakeholder control. [14]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-1	Charity Navigator's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Charity Navigator shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through… Charity Navigator's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Charity Navigator shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of. That warrants a limited Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Charity Navigator's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Charity Navigator shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of standpoint. [15]

Bonus Credits

Bonus	Credit	Why this credit
Openness to Dissent ? Credit for tolerating internal, user, customer, worker, and public dissent without retaliation, capture, or viewpoint laundering.	1 / 3	Charity Navigator exposes methods and rating details publicly, but disputed ratings remain governed through the evaluator’s private process. Charity Navigator exposes methods and rating details publicly, but disputed ratings remain governed through the evaluator’s private process. That supports partial Openness to Dissent credit because people can criticize, dissent, or challenge the institution without being managed into silence. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 188 scored entries below, 11 tied, 27 above on Openness to Dissent. Linked evidence Charity Navigator exposes methods and rating details publicly, but disputed ratings remain governed through the evaluator’s private process. [10]
Constitutional Spirit ? Credit for respecting constitutional rights and civil-liberties norms even where private law does not strictly require it.	2 / 3	Charity Navigator rates governance and accountability practices that bear on public trust, conflicts, and donor protection. Charity Navigator rates governance and accountability practices that bear on public trust, conflicts, and donor protection. That supports partial Constitutional Spirit credit because the institution respects speech, privacy, due process, conscience, or civil-liberties norms beyond bare legal compulsion. The value remains partial because the linked record does not show the practice as comprehensive, durable, or central enough for full credit. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 188 scored entries below, 23 tied, 15 above on Constitutional Spirit. Linked evidence Charity Navigator rates governance and accountability practices that bear on public trust, conflicts, and donor protection. [11]
Good Deal ? Credit for unusually fair value: durable quality, fair pricing, low lock-in, and clear customer surplus.	1 / 3	Charity Navigator provides free donor-facing charity ratings, reducing search costs for donors comparing nonprofits. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 163 scored entries below, 21 tied, 42 above on Good Deal. Linked evidence Charity Navigator provides free donor-facing charity ratings, reducing search costs for donors comparing nonprofits. [12]
Cost Transparency ? Credit for clear posted prices, all-in fees, unit costs, public rate cards, margin/cost visibility, or surplus-allocation transparency, especially in markets where opaque quotes, hidden fees, or individualized pricing are normal.	3 / 3	Charity Navigator makes ratings and methodology public, including accountability, finance, and impact measures used to evaluate charities. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 214 scored entries below, 12 tied, 0 above on Cost Transparency. Linked evidence Charity Navigator makes ratings and methodology public, including accountability, finance, and impact measures used to evaluate charities. [13]

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 78/100

15 verified linked claims 15 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 15/15 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 13/20

15 verified linked claims

Source quality 12/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

15 direct claims across 15 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

15/15 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Charity Navigator describes itself as an independent charity evaluator and publishes a ratings methodology using multiple beacons including Accountability & Finance and Impact & Results.

Governance Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%

2Charity Navigator is an independent nonprofit evaluator rather than a donor-, worker-, or beneficiary-owned charity rating cooperative.

Ownership Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

3Charity Navigator reduces information asymmetry in giving, but it still concentrates evaluative authority in a private ratings methodology.

Extraction Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

4Its methodology reviews charities but does not create worker or beneficiary control over charity governance or evaluation outcomes.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

5Charity Navigator helps donors identify charities, but it does not directly provide support to unemployed people or replace the need for beneficiary power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

6Charity Navigator publishes accountability and impact ratings, but the evaluator does not itself bear the losses caused by charities or by mistaken donor allocation.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

7Public charity ratings improve donation-market conduct by making accountability, finance, and impact information easier for ordinary donors to use.

Market Conduct Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

8Charity Navigator’s core product is charity-rating information with practical public value, though ratings can never substitute for direct claim-level evidence.

Product Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

9Charity Navigator’s rating system scales across many charities, making it useful as public infrastructure while magnifying any methodology limits.

Scale Integrity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%

10Charity Navigator exposes methods and rating details publicly, but disputed ratings remain governed through the evaluator’s private process.

Openness To Dissent Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%

11Charity Navigator rates governance and accountability practices that bear on public trust, conflicts, and donor protection.

Constitutional Spirit Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

Charity Navigator Accountability & FinanceGeneral web source · 58%

12Charity Navigator provides free donor-facing charity ratings, reducing search costs for donors comparing nonprofits.

Good Deal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%

13Charity Navigator makes ratings and methodology public, including accountability, finance, and impact measures used to evaluate charities.

Cost Transparency Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%

14The organization’s positive conduct depends materially on current leadership, nonprofit or platform policy, accreditation rules, religious culture, or discretionary operating practice rather than on locked worker or affected-stakeholder control.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 7, 2026

Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%

15Charity Navigator's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Charity Navigator shows bounded neutrality theater: some contested choices are softened through expertise, public-interest, professional, market, safety, or institutional language, but the record does not show dominant concealment of standpoint.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Charity Navigator official siteGeneral web source · 58%
Charity Navigator About UsOfficial self-description · 68%
Charity Navigator Ratings MethodologyGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD58 GiveWell charity evaluator · same market AGOOD55 CharityWatch charity watchdog · same market AGOOD55 FairTest nonprofit standardized-testing watchdog · same market AGOOD55 Protect Borrowers / Student Borrower Protection Center nonprofit student-loan borrower advocacy organization · same market AGOOD52 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau federal consumer-finance watchdog agency · same market AGOOD51 National Association of Community Health Centers nonprofit community-health-center advocacy organization · same market BQUALIFIED48 BBB Wise Giving Alliance charity watchdog · same market BQUALIFIED44 Candid / GuideStar nonprofit transparency platform · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Charity Navigator Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 7, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding directory-expansion

Added source-backed evaluation during accreditation/watchdog, charity/humanitarian, fundraising-platform, and religious-institution expansion pass.

View Full Audit Log