Boys and Girls Club of Durham

It spent $204,278 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 programs94.4%
• Management and administration3.5%
• Fundraising0.5%
• Not allocated to a line1.6%

The reported lines do not add up to the total. The difference is spending the charity did not assign to any of them — the CRA return treats these lines as optional components of the total, not as a complete breakdown of it.

Boys and Girls Club of Durham reported spending 94.4% of its expenditure on charitable programs. Among the 8,947 charities registered under organizations relieving poverty that reported the same line for 2024, the middle of the range is 89.0%, and this charity sits at the 69th percentile — above 69% 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.

• 9$40,000–79,999
• 1$80,000–119,999

10 positions reported in total.

Charities that hold significant property not used in their programs must spend a minimum amount each year — the disbursement quota. Boys and Girls Club of Durham files this schedule; most charities do not.

Charities may also carry a disbursement excess forward for five years, so a single year is a slice of a longer calculation rather than the whole of it.