Fact check: Which charity rating services provide administrative cost percentage information?

1. What the original claims say — a clear catalog of the assertions made

The set of analyses submitted asserts three main points: that CharityWatch publishes administrative cost percentages and derives metrics like Program % and Cost to Raise $100** to express administrative and fundraising burdens ^[1]. The analyses further claim Charity Navigator provides administrative and fundraising expense percentages and used them in calculating a financial score, though one analysis notes Charity Navigator removed the administrative expense ratio from its rating in 2023 ^{[2] [3] [6]}. Finally, the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance and Candid are named as organizations that publish program expense guidance and benchmarks that donors can use to assess administrative load ^{[4] [5]}. These are the core factual claims present in the material provided.

2. Which watchdogs actually display administrative-cost metrics — confirming the names

CharityWatch appears consistently in the source material as a provider of explicit administrative-cost metrics: its Program % represents the share of total expenses spent on programs, and Cost to Raise $100 quantifies fundraising efficiency, both of which inform administrative-cost assessments ^[1]. Charity Navigator is likewise named repeatedly for publishing administrative and fundraising expense percentages and incorporating them into financial assessments, though that role has evolved ^{[2] [6]}. The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance is cited as offering program expense ratio guidance and recommending benchmarks ^[4]. Candid is listed among groups that rate financial health using program expense ratios, offering sector-based context for acceptable administrative shares ^[5].

3. Important timing and methodology changes — why Charity Navigator’s role is more complex now

Multiple analyses indicate a methodological change: Charity Navigator removed the administrative expense ratio from its rating algorithm in 2023, signaling a shift away from single-ratio reliance toward a broader picture of financial health ^{[3] [6]}. That means although Charity Navigator still publishes administrative and fundraising expense figures in some form, how those percentages influence overall scores can differ from pre-2023 practice. Donors should therefore treat older references to “Charity Navigator’s administrative expense ratio-driven score” as potentially outdated and verify the site’s current scoring methodology rather than assuming legacy metrics continue to carry the same weight ^[3].

4. How these percentages are presented — similarities and limits across services

Across sources, watchdogs tend to surface program expense percentage, fundraising expense, and administrative expense as primary numerical indicators, but presentation and calculation differ. CharityWatch publishes distinct metrics and assigns letter grades reflecting efficiency ^[1]. Charity Navigator has used administrative and fundraising percentages within its financial score but has shifted its framework, which affects comparability ^{[2] [3]}. The Wise Giving Alliance focuses on recommended benchmarks (e.g., 65% program ratio) rather than letter grades, and Candid provides contextual benchmarks that vary by sector ^{[4] [5]}. These differences mean percentages are comparable only with attention to definitions and calculation methods.

5. What donors are advised to do with these numbers — practical cross-checks and caveats

Given inconsistent methodology and evolving scorecards, the prudent approach is to consult multiple watchdogs and the charity’s own Form 990 or audited financials when evaluating administrative costs. CharityWatch’s Program % and Cost to Raise $100 provide concrete, comparable figures, while Charity Navigator’s published percentages remain informative if paired with an understanding of its post-2023 scoring policy ^{[1] [3]}. Use the Wise Giving Alliance’s 65% program-expenditure benchmark and Candid’s sector-specific context to judge whether administrative shares are typical or outliers for that field ^{[4] [5]}. Always confirm the date and methodology on the watchdog’s site, because changes in scoring frameworks materially affect interpretation.

6. Competing narratives and possible agendas — spot the framing that matters

Watchdog groups frame administrative percentages differently: CharityWatch emphasizes efficiency metrics and grades, which can pressure charities to minimize overhead; Charity Navigator’s methodological shift signals a move toward broader financial indicators, potentially countering singular “overhead” narratives ^{[1] [3]}. The Wise Giving Alliance and Candid stress benchmarks and context, which can defend higher overhead in some sectors. These divergent approaches reflect underlying agendas—some groups aim to spotlight frugality and donor efficiency, others to discourage shorthand judgments about overhead—so donors should read metrics alongside organizational mission, sector norms, and recent methodological disclosures ^{[4] [5] [6]}.