What happened?
What concrete output or outcome is the organization claiming, and is the term defined well enough to measure?
Environment and conservation
Land trusts, habitat restoration, water quality and climate organizations.
The evidence standard
What strong evidence looks like here
Post-project ecological monitoring published on a schedule. Easement acreage in audited statements. Federal grant compliance without Single Audit findings.
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.