Is this organization real, active, and legally eligible?
Identity & complianceIRS status, state entity record, solicitation standing, applicant authority
12%
CausewayFWA.comSponsored by Faith Walk Alliance CausewayFWA.comCausewayFWA ranking architecture
What a donor needs to know before giving
The ranking separates identity gates, red-flag review, and a transparent 100-point evidence score. Missing data lowers verified coverage; it does not silently become an accusation.
100weighted points
10donor questions
2approval stages
1human decision
Will my gift produce a meaningful, measurable change?
Outcomes & impactOutcome definition, baseline, denominator, method, limitations
18%How will my money actually be used?
Financial stewardshipThree-year trends, program model, reserves, restrictions, audited or reviewed records
15%Will the charity tell me the whole truth—including setbacks?
TransparencyComplete disclosures, source links, correction history, timely updates
10%Who is accountable if something goes wrong?
GovernanceIndependent board, conflicts, compensation review, complaints and escalation
10%Is the need urgent and is this approach a good fit?
Need & fitPopulation, geography, unmet need, intervention logic, donor restrictions
8%Is the evidence stronger than a compelling story?
Evidence qualityIndependent sources, longitudinal history, comparisons, uncertainty
10%Are people served treated with dignity and given a voice?
Beneficiary safeguardsConsent, accessibility, feedback, grievance process, non-coercion
6%Will my personal information and preferences be protected?
Donor protectionPrivacy policy, data-sharing choices, security incident disclosure
5%Does the organization have a durable track record?
History & resilienceThree-to-five-year performance, leadership continuity, reserves, corrective action
6%Historical proof
Time is evidence
Review three-to-five-year trends when available: revenue concentration, reserves, leadership continuity, repeat outcomes, complaints, late filings, and whether corrective actions stayed in place. A one-year snapshot cannot establish durability.
Logical discipline
Gates before scores
Entity identity, applicant authority, disqualifying sanctions, unresolved diversion, falsified documents, and material safety issues are reviewed as gates. A high impact score cannot mathematically cancel an unresolved integrity risk.
Fair comparison
Context before overhead
Compare organizations by cause, size, age, geography, and operating model. Fundraising and administrative costs are interpreted with results, controls, and life-cycle needs—not treated as universal evidence of waste.
Evidence mathematics
A confidence aid, not a truth machine
For multiple reasonably independent sources, the model may summarize coverage as C = 1 − ∏(1 − rᵢ), where rᵢ is a documented source-reliability factor. Correlated sources are discounted, outputs are capped, and the result is labeled “evidence coverage”—never probability of honesty, success, or absence of fraud.
All numeric outputs retain a source list, date, assumptions, missingness, and uncertainty note. Reviewers may not replace judgment with the number.
| Evidence source | Illustrative factor |
|---|---|
| Authoritative government record | 1.00 |
| Independent audit or evaluation | 0.95 |
| Filed Form 990 / reviewed financials | 0.90 |
| Board-approved internal record | 0.65 |
| Applicant attestation | 0.45 |
| Anecdote without supporting record | 0.25 |
Non-scored approval gates
Entity and EIN resolve to a lawful path
Applicant authority independently supported
No fabricated or materially altered evidence
Material conflicts explained or corrected
Required donor privacy baseline accepted
Human reviewer records a source-based rationale
Correction and reconsideration route remains open
Annual and material-change re-verification accepted