Charity Intelligence’s history of dishonesty, bias and unprofessionalism
Since its controversial launch more than a decade ago, Charity Intelligence has displayed an astonishing talent for dishonesty and unprofessionalism, particularly during the CSSG controversy.
In 2020, WE Charity and its beneficiaries was the victim of sustained attacks by media, politicians and pundits, based almost entirely on misrepresentation and misinformation. Charity Intelligence was one of the key sources of that misrepresentation and misinformation.
Its affiliations with the Conservative Party of Canada and bewildering alterations in WE Charity’s rankings are a testament to its inherent bias.
A more fulsome accounting of CI’s biased, dishonest and unwarranted evaluation of WE Charity can be found below. However, Charity Intelligence's dubious affiliations, past indiscretions and questionable methodologies demand rigorous scrutiny. The organization's assault on WE Charity, based on half-truths and outright fabrications, warrants a thorough investigation. In the ever-evolving philanthropic landscape, watchdogs must remain accountable, objective, and transparent. Anything less is a disservice to the charitable sector and the public.
Questionable Neutrality:
Charity Intelligence's claim to unbiased evaluation is laughable, given their board composition and self-evaluation scores. Ties between Charity Intelligence's Kate Bahen and Graeme Hepburn to the Conservative parties are extensively documented [see Mark Bourrie’s Fair Press article, which makes one question the motivation behind their targeted assault on WE Charity.
Unprofessional Conduct:
The behaviour of Charity Intelligence’s executive director, Kate Bahen, during the entire CSSG controversy was nothing short of a smear campaign. Her tone-deaf comments, especially those aimed at Victor Li, WE Charity's CFO undergoing medical treatment, were inhumane and indefensible.
Past conduct:
This isn't Charity Intelligence's first time misrepresenting data and facing backlash for naive analysis. Their track record is marred with criticism and even a brief revocation of their charitable status in 2012. Bahen even had to apologize to the True North Youth Foundation for false claims against that children’s charity.
Blatant Self-Promotion:
Charity Intelligence masterfully exploited the CSSG controversy to bolster its own image, sacrificing the truth in the process.
• Between June and December 2020, Charity Intelligence's executive director, Kate Bahen, appeared in 698 articles, 356 TV reports, and 659 radio reports.
• Donations to CI increased by 56% (or $206,195) from July 2020 to June 2021.
• Between June and December 2020, Charity Intelligence's executive director, Kate Bahen, appeared in 698 articles, 356 TV reports, and 659 radio reports.
At the time of their relentless attacks on WE Charity, Charity Intelligence had only three board members, including Kate Bahen herself, and one of her paid employees, Greg Thomson. Kate Bahen endlessly criticized WE Charity's Board of Directors throughout the CSSG matter, meanwhile her own Board did not represent good governance. Her attacks represented the classic example of "do as I say, not as I do", coming from an organization that was meant to help set a standard in the charitable sector.
See original mediaCharity Intelligence actively criticized WE Charity’s Board of Directors structure, however, its own governance is extremely poor at best, failing to meet the most basic expectations for a charity. Contrary to the best practices they claim to uphold, the board of Charity Intelligence had only 3 board members in 2020, including Kate Bahen and Greg Thomson, who approve the annual budget which would include the total spent on their own compensation. The three board members have remained the same since 2006.
Charity Intelligence leveraged its attack on WE Charity Canada to raise its profile and make more money for its own operations. The increase in fundraising was considerable – by the end of the WE Charity saga in 2022, Charity Intelligence had more than four times the cash in their bank account than prior to 2020 when the attacks began. Although their funds increased significantly, Charity Intelligence did not put this money towards an increase on program spending, but instead chose to hold the money in its bank accounts.
Over 25 years, WE Charity made a significant impact. Over 100,000 educators were engaged in classrooms across Canada, the US and the UK, providing free resources to help students with service learning—integrating global issues, action and volunteerism into core curriculum. Over 1.5 million students earned their free ticket to WE Days celebrating service. In nine countries in Africa, South America and Asia, more than 1 million people gained access to clean water and sanitation, 200,000 students received an education in schools established by WE Charity, and over 30,000 women were provided with the tools and resources to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
It should be noted that, over the years, WE Charity has received funding from the Skoll Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as global businesses such as KPMG, Microsoft, and Unilever, as well as the family foundations of some of the most prominent philanthropists in North America and the UK. All performed due diligence on WE Charity and, based on their findings, chose to partner with and financially support WE Charity. It should also be noted that Charity Navigator (the largest reviewer of charities in North America) in Fall 2020 provided WE Charity [WE Charity US, a different and distinct charity] a perfect four-star rating.
However, Charity Intelligence's latest narrative paints a radically different and distorted picture. Their retroactive downgrade of WE Charity in 2020 was a tactical maneuver to justify their venomous public onslaught. Their inability to provide substantial justification for this move under parliamentary scrutiny only exposes the cracks in their facade.
Charity Intelligence head researcher Greg Thomson told a Parliamentary Committee: “Starting in 2014, Charity Intelligence rated WE Charity with our highest four-star rating based on transparency, reporting and overhead spending. WE Charity ticked all of the boxes and performed well relative to other Canadian charities.”
Despite this, in 2020 Charity Intelligence retroactively downgraded WE Charity’s ratings for financial accounting, transparency and governance in order to justify its vitriolic public attacks on WE. When confronted about this by MPs in a Parliamentary committee, Charity Intelligence representatives were unable to explain the sudden reversal and significant downgrade.
As Tawiq Rangwala notes in his book, What WE Lost: Inside the Attack on Canada’s Largest Children’s Charity: “Throughout her many media appearances, Bahen maintained that Charity Intelligence had long-standing concerns about the organization, and that she was not simply jumping on the anti-WE bandwagon. But this was belied by years of consistently good ratings for the charity from Charity Intelligence. In testimony to the FINA committee, Greg Thomson, the director of research, said, ‘Starting in 2014, Ci rated WE Charity with our highest four-star rating based on transparency, reporting and overhead spending. WE Charity ticked all of the boxes and performed well relative to other Canadian charities.’ And in 2019, WE was given an A grade for transparency and reporting—the very things Bahen was now calling into question.
"For more on Rangwala’s analysis Charity Intelligence’s commentary on WE Charity, listen for free to Chapter 6 of What WE Lost.
Charity Intelligence leveraged the CSSG controversy for its own self-promotional benefit, boosting its own profile by advancing false information to harm another charity. In his book, Rangwala describes how from June to December 2020, Charity Intelligence and its executive director, Kate Bahen, had appeared in 698 print and online articles, 356 television reports, and 659 radio reports—all to talk about WE Charity, ME to WE, the Kielburgers, and the CSSG. “Kate Bahen of Charity Intelligence rode the WE Charity Scandal to bigger and better things. Her organization is now actively working with media outlets like the Globe and Mail to assist in investigative reports.” In that time period, from July 2020 to June 2021, Charity Intelligence saw a 56 percent (or $206,195) increase in donations within Canada from the previous year. CI’s own financial records show a 134 percent increase in “fee for service” in the same time periods.
WE Charity has always respected the need for independent oversight of the charitable sector, and therefore had always supported and sought to cooperate with Charity Intelligence to the greatest degree possible. Nevertheless, the actions of Charity Intelligence, and particularly the behaviour of its key staff since 2020 were wholly lacking in respect, responsibility, accountability, professionalism, and fairness. In particular, the rhetoric of Ms. Bahen on social media was puerile, unprofessional, and wholly unbecoming of someone who claims to provide neutral and unbiased assessment. For example, as Craig and Marc Kielburger were about to testify before the Ethics Committee, Bahen childishly tweeted a photo of a hamburger with the caption “Burger time!”
More on the inaccuracy of public statements to follow below.
As described by Rangwala, “It’s very simple and uncontroversial stuff, but you would never know it if you listened to Bahen. Although she presented herself as an unbiased observer, her public comments were often one-sided and carried charged language.”
Throughout the controversy, Bahen showed little to no regard for who got caught in the crossfire of her vitriol. In December 2020, she once again jumped on the bandwagon, this time attacking WE Charity’s CFO Victor Li, who was on medical leave after being diagnosed with a cerebral aneurysm—a bulging artery in the brain that, if it ruptured, could cause paralysis or death. Through his lawyer, he mase it clear that the stress of live testimony could literally kill him, and he offered the committee two options – a written response and delay his testimony until his condition stabilized.
Bahen was among those who falsely claimed that Li was avoiding the committee, implying wrongdoing. In one tweet, she stated: “WE CFO declines invitation to answer Ethics Committee questions. This is outrageous unaccountability and shames Canada’s charity sector. Enough. Parliament should revoke all charities that Victor Li oversees.”
And when she was criticized, she seemed to offer a mea culpa, but then doubled down on her attacks, calling Li a “mastermind” behind WE’s structure and accusing him of stalling the committee’s work.
For more on how pundits and politicians tried to keep the CSSG controversy in the news, listen for free to Chapter 7 of What WE Lost.
It is unfortunate that there appears to be few checks and balances on such misconduct. While Charity Intelligence presents itself as an expert on non-profit governance, its board consisting of just three individuals, two of whom are also paid staff of the organization (including Ms. Bahen) – absolutely not in keeping with governance best practices for non-profits. Despite that, Charity Intelligence continues to assess itself, generously awarding itself the highest grades in its own evaluation.
There’s have also been questions raised about Charity Intelligence’s claim to partisan neutrality. According to lawyer and media critic Mark Bourrie, both founder Kate Bahen and CI board chair Graeme Hepburn are significant donors to federal and/or provincial Conservative parties.
“And no one at the 2020 Parliamentary hearings knew, or at least raised the issue, of Bahen’s donation of almost $1,000 to the Conservative Party before the CSSG became an issue, according to Elections Canada data,” Bourrie wrote on his Fair Press website. “No one described how board chair Hepburn’s lengthy ties to the Conservatives – both financially and personally – make Charity Intelligence’s involvement in attacking WE Charity highly suspect.
”According to Bourrie, Elections Canada data shows shows Hepburn donated to the Conservatives 56 times. “His largest annual contribution – just under $10,000 – was made in 2020, the year WE Charity was under attack from the Conservatives and Charity Intelligence,” Bourrie wrote, noting Hepburn’s total contributions were just over $43,000.
Bourrie also highlights that Hepburn’s wife, Cluadia, was a past director at the Fraser Institute, “the ultra right-wing think tank that has been associated with the Conservative party for decades.” She was also appointed to the LCBO through an Order in Council by Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government in Ontario in 2021.
“In 2022, she donated $1,200 back to the party that appointed her, according to Elections Ontario data. This was in addition to almost $24,000 to the federal Conservatives over the years, according to Elections Canada’s database.
“Prior to his wife’s appointment to the LCBO board in 2021, Graeme Hepburn donated almost $3,000 to the provincial Progressive Conservatives from 2019-2020. He also contributed around $3,200 to the provincial party from 2014-2016.
“The power couple also hosted a fundraiser for provincial PC party leadership candidate Tim Hudak at their home in 2009.“None of these direct associations between Charity Intelligence and the Conservatives were raised by any member of the Parliamentary Finance Committee when Bahen and Thomson appeared before the Committee’s CSSG hearings in August 2020.”
“In 2022, she donated $1,200 back to the party that appointed her, according to Elections Ontario data. This was in addition to almost $24,000 to the federal Conservatives over the years, according to Elections Canada’s database."
“Prior to his wife’s appointment to the LCBO board in 2021, Graeme Hepburn donated almost $3,000 to the provincial Progressive Conservatives from 2019-2020. He also contributed around $3,200 to the provincial party from 2014-2016."
“The power couple also hosted a fundraiser for provincial PC party leadership candidate Tim Hudak at their home in 2009."
“None of these direct associations between Charity Intelligence and the Conservatives were raised by any member of the Parliamentary Finance Committee when Bahen and Thomson appeared before the Committee’s CSSG hearings in August 2020.”
Charity Intelligence is not a legitimate authority when it comes to analyzing non-profits. Managing Director Kate Bahen is a self-appointed watchdog of the charitable sector in Canada, despite having no credentials for this role. Despite employing only three full-time staff, none of whom are CPAs, Charity Intelligence issues annual ratings of charities, including giving them a grade on their financial transparency.
Shortly after launching its online search engine in November 2011, Charity Intelligence’s methodology came under criticism from various charities and analysts. According to Charity Village, the site "caught the attention of the sector, not necessarily for its usefulness, but for what many sector experts are calling a naïve analysis of data and lack of knowledge of CRA guidelines and how nonprofits in Canada actually work."
No, Charity Intelligence is not a reliable source of information for evaluating charities. Kate Bahen and her colleague Greg Thomson have regularly made false and misleading statements about charities in Canada in their desire to receive media coverage, misrepresenting data and facing backlash for naive analysis. Their track record is marred with criticism and even a brief revocation of their charitable status in 2012. Kate Bahen even had to apologize to the True North Youth Foundation for false claims against the children’s charity.
No, Charity Intelligence is not an objective source. While Charity Intelligence presents itself as an expert on non-profit governance, its board consists of just three individuals, two of whom are also paid staff of the organization (including Kate Bahen) – absolutely not in keeping with governance best practices for non-profits. Despite that, Charity Intelligence continues to assess itself, generously awarding itself the highest grades in its own evaluation.
There have also been questions raised about Charity Intelligence’s claim to partisan neutrality. Charity Intelligence Canada has ties to the Conservative Party through Kate Bahen herself (donating approximately $1,000 to the CPC) as well as board member Graeme C. Hepburn and his wife Claudia, who is the niece of Galen Weston and an heir to the Weston family fortune as well as a former director and senior fellow at the right-wing Fraser Institute. Hepburn has donated to Conservatives 56 times and contributed over $43,000, his largest contribution of just under $10,000 in 2020 when Charity Intelligence was being questioned before Parliament.
No, Kate Bahen is not a legitimate authority on ranking Canadian charities. Kate Bahen is not a Certified Public Accountant and has no evident professional training in accounting that would qualify her to make such assertions and conclusions. Her assessments were directly refuted and proven false by multiple lawyers, tax experts, and forensic auditors. Kate Bahen also has a history of making false and inflammatory comments about charities. In May 2019, she was forced to formally apologize for false and misleading statements she made about the True North Foundation – the charitable arm of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team.
What WE Lost tells the full story behind Kate Bahen from Charity Intelligence's undisclosed affiliations with the Conservative Party of Canada and her false commentary on WE Charity’s finances for Charity Intelligence’s financial gain.
Listen to Martin Luther King III speak about Kate Bahen and Charity Intelligence’s lack of qualifications and flawed findings, which became the basis for media and political attacks against WE Charity.
Listen to Chapter 7 free on Spotify | Apple
Both eagerly accepted their roles as the chief critics of the WE organization, appearing in hundreds of news stories over the summer of 2020. And it appears to me that both adeptly leveraged their increased media presence for professional and financial success. Bahen and Blumberg advanced many narratives that I contend were misleading, and their commentary was seized on by politicians and journalists to become part of the larger story. A number of these misleading narratives are now assumed to be fact.
Bahen is the managing director of Charity Intelligence (Ci), a self-appointed watchdog agency that she founded in 2006. Ci analyzes charities on factors like financial transparency and social impact, then posts the results on its website. Bahen likens her approach to that of a financial analyst who researches stocks to find the best investment opportunities for clients. Ci is a small operation—based on publicly available information, it has just five permanent staff, including Bahen, and does not employ any full-time accountants or auditors. Research director Greg Thomson admitted to the FINA committee that he and Bahen are “analysts, not auditors.” Ci has a three-member board of directors that includes Bahen and Thomson.
When Ci launched its online search engine in 2011, it was the subject of a flattering profile in the Toronto Star, but it was met with considerable skepticism from other quarters. For an article posted to its website, Charity Village, a company that recruits people to work in the charitable sector, spoke to many who criticized Ci’s “naïve analysis of data and lack of understanding of CRA guidelines and how nonprofits in Canada actually work.” Mark Blumberg, for example, said that “to telescope the issue of transparency into disclosure of an audited financial statement on the website of a charity is a simplification of the complexity of the issues.” Malcolm Burrows, the head of philanthropic advisory services for Scotia Wealth Management, concurred. “Ci seems to want to put all [charities] into a single space, and I think that does a real disservice,” he said. “They need to look at that before they make these huge generalizations in public . . . You can’t have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ standard of accountability in the sector.” And Imagine Canada’s then CEO, Marcel Lauzière, offered a similar observation. “They’ve taken a [data-gathering] model from the investment world,” he noted, “where you look at inputs and then tell your investors where to put their dollars . . . It’s not that simple when you’re looking at charities and at their outcomes and impacts.”
All this matters because when Bahen later began commenting publicly on WE Charity’s involvement with the CSSG and presenting herself as an expert on the charitable industry, some of her assertions were based on exactly this kind of superficial and inaccurate analysis of the organization’s financial statements and structure. For instance, she told journalist Jesse Brown, in an interview for his Canadaland website, that the charity was “in breach of its bank covenants,” a situation she characterized as “a massive, massive red flag.” She compared it to a person who is close to maxed out on her credit cards but can’t stop spending. In fact, though, this was a simple technicality arising from WE Charity’s decision to shift its fiscal year from the standard calendar year to one that aligns with the academic year. That made sense because most of the expenditures for and work around the charity’s domestic programs followed the educational calendar. The switch created a minor complication because WE Charity’s real estate mortgage agreements required the organization to earn a minimum level of revenue each year. In the year of the change, 2018, the charity did not demonstrate the required level of revenue because its financial report covered just eight months instead of twelve. The shift also required the organization to defer some revenue to align with the year in which related program spending would occur. So the same issue came up in 2019. WE Charity’s lenders understood this and waived compliance with the covenants, and its auditors noted the waiver in footnotes to the organization’s financial statements without using the word “breach.”
It’s very simple and uncontroversial stuff, but you would never know it if you listened to Bahen. Although she presented herself as an unbiased observer, her public comments were often one-sided and carried charged language. In the more than one hundred tweets she made about the charity between June and October 2020, she often used the hashtag #WEHaveAProblem, and in one, she asked sarcastically, “Does anyone think it is a good idea for WE Charity to implement this $900m government grant?” Months later, as Marc and Craig were preparing to testify before the ETHI committee, she tweeted the words “Burger time!” with an image of a hamburger and a side of cauliflower alongside the brothers on a television screen….