For donors who want a sourced No Halo view of one charity.
Professional research
The research team your practice does not have.
A client says: we want to give $100,000 to organizations fighting childhood cancer, help us decide where. You know tax strategy, estate planning and donor-advised funds. You should not have to become a charity investigator to answer the next question.
Start with national coverage
Connecting to current No Halo coverage…
Coverage updates as public IRS source files are processed.
Then go deeper where the decision warrants it. No Halo is built as a fact-based adversary: search aggressively for material problems and contradictory evidence, but never create an issue that the evidence does not support.
Pricing
Clear starting ranges for decision-grade research.
For a relatively straightforward charity and a defined giving decision.
For deeper entity, transaction, regulatory, legal, audit, or reconciliation work.
For comparing several organizations around a donor objective and explaining the evidence behind the strongest fits.
Final pricing varies with scope, organization complexity, source availability, number of organizations, and turnaround requirements. Institutional monitoring is planned as a recurring product and is not yet priced publicly.
What the public report does
It investigates a specific charity against six donor questions: what the money actually does, financial strength and capital use, whether the core work works, whether major claims and numbers reconcile, what material concerns surfaced, and what another donated dollar is likely to accomplish.
What commissioned research adds
Human review, a decision-specific scope, deeper source work, expanded entity and legal research, more intensive reconciliation, direct written questions when warranted, and a deliverable built for the giving decision in front of you.
Available capabilities
Research built around the decision, not a badge.
Public-source research
Start with the charity’s legal identity, IRS record, detailed filings, schedules, status history, original source documents, current disclosures, and independent evidence the automated system can establish.
Research reports
Open or build a sourced No Halo report that tests six donor questions, separates reported claims from evidence, reconciles material differences, and shows what genuinely remains unresolved.
Forensic reviews
Commission deeper human-reviewed work on one organization, scoped around the size and purpose of the contemplated gift and the material issues the evidence raises.
Comparative research
Compare organizations addressing the same donor objective using the evidence that matters for that intervention, not a generic popularity ranking.
Source-backed deliverables
Receive research that can be traced back to the underlying record, with uncertainty, contradictions, and important limitations stated rather than hidden.
Right of reply
Material questions can be put to an organization in writing and its response incorporated into the record when the scope calls for it.
The forensic review
Go beyond the standard report.
You name the organization, the contemplated decision, and what matters to the donor. Depending on the organization, scope, and records available, the review can examine multiple years of Form 990 filings and schedules, audited financial statements and Single Audits, compensation, related organizations, interested-person transactions, major contractors and professional fundraisers, government funding, regulatory and court records, public claims, and independent impact evidence.
We are looking for issues. That does not mean assuming one exists. The research is designed to challenge the easy story, identify material problems when the record supports them, reconcile apparent discrepancies before calling them concerns, and report strong evidence just as plainly when it survives scrutiny.
Every engagement is scoped and quoted individually because a $25,000 local gift and a seven-figure institutional decision do not require the same research depth.
Independence
The client can choose the question. Not the answer.
Professional customers pay for research. They do not influence its conclusions. A client who commissions a review of an organization they favor receives the same treatment as a client who is skeptical of it. Fees never depend on the outcome.