Qatar Charity, the King Hussein Cancer Foundation, Médecins Sans Frontières and BRAC each offer specific practices worth studying. These are examples for learning and comparison, without ranking them or treating their inclusion as an endorsement of every aspect of their performance.
In my work on institutional development, I find the most useful question is: which practice can we understand, verify and adapt to our own organization’s needs?
Arab and international examples
Qatar Charity makes financial statements for several years available on its website. These disclosures provide material for examining how resources and expenditure are presented, how accessible the information is and whether readers can compare it over time. The lesson is the value of financial information that stakeholders can consult. [1]
The King Hussein Cancer Foundation in Jordan offers an example of fundraising around a defined health issue. Its work includes raising funds locally, regionally and internationally, and providing financial and psychological support to eligible patients admitted to the King Hussein Cancer Center. Its experience can inform discussion of specialization, partnerships and how to explain needs to donors. [2]
Médecins Sans Frontières, or Doctors Without Borders, publishes international activity reports alongside audited combined financial statements. These materials show how an organization can present expenditure, operations and challenges together, helping readers understand resource use in complex humanitarian settings. [3]
BRAC, founded in Bangladesh, describes programs covering livelihoods, education, health and skills development in its annual reporting. Its experience provides material for examining connections between different forms of support and what economic inclusion requires beyond providing an asset or a grant. [4]
Learning from a specific practice still requires attention to reporting limitations and operating context. An organization’s account of its own work also needs critical assessment when making a funding or partnership decision.
Five areas to examine
- Funding diversity and suitability. Examine reliance on major donors, grants, public giving and other available sources. Distinguish a funding source from a collection channel: online donations may come from the same donors and do not, by themselves, diversify the funding base.
- Delivery quality and results. Review timing, budgets, service quality, participant feedback and measured outcomes. The number of completed projects needs to be interpreted alongside their scale, complexity and contribution to change.
- Transparency and communications. Ask how the organization explains its use of funds and handles questions, complaints and delays. Communications budgets should reflect objectives, costs, expected returns and funding restrictions. A single spending percentage will not suit every organization.
- Financial resilience. Examine cash-flow planning, reserves and funding concentration risks. Endowments, investments or mission-related income may contribute where the relevant arrangements allow, but require governance and risk management. They do not guarantee financial self-sufficiency.
- Technology suited to the work. Assess whether systems provide reliable data, support coordination and protect information. A simple project and supporter management system may be sufficient, while a larger organization may need more integration. Start with operational needs and the team’s ability to use the system.
A small local organization may achieve strong results within its area of work. Budget size alone cannot establish its value, and media visibility does not demonstrate delivery quality. Define what you want to learn, then seek evidence that allows you to assess it.
Sources
[1] Qatar Charity Published financial statements
[2] King Hussein Cancer Foundation Fundraising and development
[3] Médecins Sans Frontières Reports and finances
[4] BRAC Overview of the 2025 Annual Report
Next article
What makes writing for nonprofits meaningful?