Presentation by Kate Ruff of Charity Intelligence at the ANSER Annual Conference in Montreal on June 3, 2010. The presentation reviews Ci’s 2009 analysis of Canadian social enterprises, focusing on successes and challenges, and briefly looks ahead to the 2010 analysis.

2. These are some descriptive statistics from our 2009 report. 435 charities + SEs were contacted. These 435 either were suggested to us by those working in our target sectors or self-selected into our process. Ci does not strive to analyze every Canadian charity. We do strive to cast a wide net so that the pool that we contact includes all those that are regarded by peers as excellent charities. 2009 Recommended Charities (including SEs) 435 charities contacted 103 charities submitted materials 97 in-depth analyses performed 32 charities recommended for 2009

3. Selected KPIs Ci is growing quickly. These are some of Ci’s KPIs, comparing 2009 with the first three quarters of 2010. Donations to Recommended Charities 2009 $50,896 2010 (Q3) $332,185 Clients 39 92 Charities analyzed – cumulative 122 213 Unique website hits – trailing 12 months 9,890 22,554 Ci operating costs – trailing 12 months $129,085 $179,493

4. Social Enterprise Ci started looking at hybrid organizations in 2009.

5. Identify SEs Initial list of: “anything that anybody had ever called a social enterprise” 1,161 SEs identified by end of research cycle. Screen for “serving Canadians in need” (Ci’s core mission) Environment, animal welfare, recreation, culture, heritage, arts, international. Screen for estimated low to moderate funding needs (fit with Ci’s clients) Housing Screen for established organizations (Ci chose to avoid start-up capital for start-up SEs) Not yet / not longer in operation Screen for mission-centric, integrated SEs (Business and social analysis combined into a single entity - to broaden beyond this Ci would have had to analyse the business, and the charities that the business distributes surplus to, and then address the question, ‘does the donor get more value for his/her donation by giving to the SE than s/he would giving directly to the recipient charity?’)) Thrift / resale, profit distribution Prioritize homelessness (Dovetail analysis with Ci’s other 2009 target sector.) Result 91 SEs run by 87 orgs invited to participate.

6. 91 Invited, 27 Participated No time 3 Not a social enterprise 3 Didn’t need money 3 No financials and/or no social metrics 4 Not operational 4 Interested, but never submitted 9 Did not want to be analysed 12 No response after e-mail + 3 calls 26

8. 27 Analysed, 4 Recommended Theory of change (Choice of industry, unclear career progression) 7 Management (High turn over, vague SE strategy) 6 Screened (Mistakenly passed initial screen) 6 Irregular financials (Nothing dramatic; small errors that made it difficult for Ci to analyse the SE fairly.) 4

9. Metrics “ What metrics do you use to assess Social Enterprises” Ci is humble about our metrics. We gather a lot of data, we use that data to help us ask penetrating questions during the management interview and to think precisely about the SEs. There is no single metric, no algorithm that determines which SEs get recommended. The analysis relies heavily on both quantitative and qualitative information. Our analysis is robust enough to identify outstanding from ‘not outstanding’. We feel confident that anyone looking at the same set of SEs would identify the exact same set of outstanding SEs. We do not score or rate charities or social enterprises. Ci uses analysts to make careful, studied, nuanced comparisons. At Ci, we spend a lot of time on metrics, but we do not rely solely on metrics. Ci does not rely on a spreadsheet or an algorithm to generate an answer. Metrics are necessary and insufficient. The metrics that Ci looks most carefully at are published in the 2009 Recommended Charities; download a copy at http://www.charityintelligence.ca/

10. Successes and Challenges

15. At Ci, our goal is to put excellent opportunities in front of social investors, so that results, more than marketing budgets, drive how much capital funding an organization receives. We seek to be flexible to offer a broad range of funding opportunities - across different sectors of social impact and different types of funding from donations to equity and loans. If you know of a charity, social enterprise, or community investment fund that you think is outstanding, please refer them to us! If you run a charity, social enterprise or community investment fund that you think is outstanding, please contact us!

16. Kate Ruff Social Enterprise Analyst [email_address] Charity Intelligence Canada 416.363.1555 405 – 30 Church Street Toronto, ON M5E 1S7 www.charityintelligence.ca Charitable registration number 80340 7956 RR0001 Note: this presentation was modified June 12, 2010, to work as a stand-alone document and to respond to comments that came up in question period. Further questions, comments, suggestions and critiques are welcome!