Russell Agricultural Society

It spent $34,160 more than it took in, drawing down the difference. Neither is good or bad on its own — charities hold reserves, run capital campaigns, and spend down endowments, and the return does not say which.

• Charitable programs70.8%
• Management and administration14.5%
• Fundraising14.7%

Russell Agricultural Society reported spending 70.8% of its expenditure on charitable programs. Among the 74 charities registered under agriculture that reported the same line for 2024, the middle of the range is 82.2%, and this charity sits at the 32th percentile — below 68% of them.

That is a position in a distribution, not a verdict. Charities allocate costs differently on the same form, and a lower share often reflects how a return was filled in rather than how the money was spent. The cohort counts only charities that reported this line — about a quarter of the register does not, and they are not in the comparison at all.

Canadian charities report how many of their ten highest-paid positions fall in each pay band. Not who they are, and not what any one person earns — the return does not collect that, and it cannot be worked out from what follows.

• 1$1–39,999

1 position reported in total. The form asks only about the ten highest-paid, so a smaller number means the charity reported fewer compensated positions than that.