Shuswap Agricultural Association

It spent $103,227 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.

This filing does not add up. The reported components come to $721,218, more than the $483,856 total they are supposed to be part of, so no proportional breakdown is shown. The figures above are exactly as the charity filed them. This is a data-entry problem in the return, and not in itself a finding about the organisation.

Shuswap Agricultural Association reported spending 50.0% 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 15th percentile — below 85% 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$40,000–79,999

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.