What happened?
What concrete output or outcome is the organization claiming, and is the term defined well enough to measure?
Childhood cancer
Organizations funding pediatric oncology research, treatment access, family support and clinical trial participation.
The evidence standard
What strong evidence looks like here
Enrollment and treatment counts reconciled to hospital or registry records by an outside party. Research grants with published outputs. Family-support spending traceable to families rather than awareness campaigns.
What No Halo asks
Who measured it?
Is the evidence self-reported, independently corroborated, or evaluated using a method a donor can inspect?
What did it cost?
Can spending be connected to the intervention in a way that makes sense for this cause, without pretending overhead alone proves effectiveness?
Do the records agree?
Do public filings, audits, program reports, and other available records describe the same scale of activity, period, and population?
Why cause context matters
No Halo does not rank every charity with one universal impact formula. The evidence that matters depends on what the organization is actually trying to accomplish. Financial stewardship and governance still matter, but impact evidence should be judged against the intervention, not against an unrelated charity's metrics.
When a source cannot support a conclusion, the report says so. Missing evidence does not automatically count against an organization, but it does limit how much confidence a donor should place in a claim.