Most charitable giving follows a familiar pattern: donors write checks to organizations with compelling missions, then hope their money reaches people who need it. Corporate executive Jack Truong took a different approach when addressing hunger in Chicago. He spent six months researching organizations before making his first donation.
The process revealed something striking about the nonprofit landscape. Many well-intentioned organizations lack the operational infrastructure to convert donations into meaningful assistance efficiently. Others burn through funds on overhead costs that would make any business owner cringe.
"For my wife and me, it took us six months to do a lot of research to really understand which ones we can help make the bigger impact. Rather than just a small donation, we want to be able to make a big donation, allow them to have a scale and scope," Truong explains.
The 90% Rule: Where Your Money Actually Goes
Truong's first criterion cuts straight to financial efficiency. He asks every potential charitable partner a simple question: What percentage of donations directly reach the intended beneficiaries?
"I think that I always ask when I work with different charities if that percentage of the donation actually goes toward the people that they target to help?" he says. "So that, typically, a very good organization, more than 90% of what you donate goes directly to the people who are in need."
This metric separates serious charitable operations from those drowning in administrative costs. Organizations that dedicate less than 90% of donations to their core mission often struggle with bloated overhead structures or inefficient processes that prevent meaningful impact.
The test eliminates organizations where donors inadvertently fund salaries, office space, and operational expenses rather than actual assistance. For donors seeking maximum impact, this single question filters out nonprofits that consume resources instead of channeling them effectively.
Operational Scale: The Infrastructure Test
Financial efficiency means little without operational capacity. Truong's second evaluation criterion examines whether organizations possess the infrastructure to sustain their mission over time.
"And then the second is that, does that have the scale to be sustainable in terms of does it have a good organization that allows it to continue to provide service to the community that is meant to do? Because those two are very, very important factors, because you don't want to support something that's not really sustainable," he explains.
Scale matters particularly when addressing systemic problems like hunger or homelessness. Individual acts of charity provide temporary relief, but systemic challenges require organizations capable of consistent, long-term intervention.
Truong discovered this firsthand when researching food distribution networks. Effective hunger relief requires sophisticated supply chain management to ensure perishable foods reach neighborhood pantries before expiration dates. Organizations lacking this operational sophistication often waste donated food or deliver products that recipients cannot use.
"You need to make sure that not only the food arrives at those pantries that are within the expiration date so that they're not spoiled and that they're still nutritious, you need to have a certain supply chain system to be able to take food from the donation," he notes.
The Research Process Goes Beyond Marketing Materials
Truong's evaluation method extends beyond reviewing annual reports or mission statements. He conducts site visits, meets with organizational leadership, and examines operational processes directly.
Truong visited the Chicago Food Depository and toured their facilities during his research into food security organizations. The visit revealed the complexity behind effective food distribution—receiving donations from restaurants and manufacturers, coordinating with neighborhood pantries, and managing logistics to ensure nutritious food reaches families who need it.
"When I took a tour of that, it dawned on me that to be able to distribute food to the pantries, so that those who need meals or food can go in and get it, you need to make sure that the food arrives at those pantries within the expiration date," he explains.
These direct observations provided insights unavailable through standard charity evaluation websites or promotional materials. Truong could assess whether organizations possessed the operational sophistication necessary to execute their missions effectively.
Local vs. National: The Community Impact Question
Truong advocates for balancing national charitable giving with local community investment. Many donors gravitate toward well-known national organizations while overlooking pressing needs in their immediate communities.
"I know that many of my friends and colleagues here in Chicago just need to be more aware of the situation. I think many of them support it at the national level, but I also like to always focus on where we live and the community we live in," he observes.
Local giving offers several advantages over national charitable contributions. Donors can personally observe impact, develop ongoing relationships with organizations, and address problems they encounter directly in their daily lives.
Truong's Chicago-focused approach allowed him to witness the growing poverty and homelessness problems firsthand while walking downtown. This direct exposure motivated his research into local hunger relief organizations rather than simply writing checks to distant causes.
The Multi-Year Commitment Framework
Effective charitable giving requires sustained engagement rather than one-time donations. Truong structures his philanthropic contributions as multi-year commitments that allow organizations to plan long-term initiatives.
"We gain more knowledge of the organization that we would want to make that a multi-year support," he explains about his relationship with food security organizations.
Multi-year commitments provide nonprofits with predictable funding streams necessary for planning. Organizations can hire staff, develop programs, and expand operations when they can rely on consistent support rather than scrambling for funds each year.
This approach also allows donors to track organizational progress over time and adjust their support based on demonstrated results rather than initial promises.
The Growing Need: Economic Context for Charitable Giving
Truong's philanthropic focus on hunger reflects broader economic trends that have increased demand for charitable assistance. Rising costs have eroded purchasing power for many families, even as nominal wages have increased.
"People are saying that inflation has gone up, but really, the purchasing power has gone down for most of those in need,” he explains.
This economic reality has expanded the population requiring charitable assistance beyond traditionally recognized groups. Families with steady employment may struggle to afford adequate nutrition, particularly for children whose developmental needs require fresh foods rather than processed alternatives.
"You probably would appreciate that with kids, their minds, brains, and bodies are still developing. And if they don't have certain fresh foods, that probably would be supplemented with some others, maybe canned food or processed foods, it can be a detriment to their development, and who knows what that's going to do to the next generation," Truong notes.
The Visibility Challenge: Making Local Needs Known
Even well-intentioned donors often lack awareness of pressing local needs. Truong attributes this to insufficient visibility for local charitable organizations compared to national nonprofits with sophisticated marketing operations.
"I think the more that these local charities can have more visibility within the community, we'd like to see more of those who can help in a big way to be more aware so that they can help the local folks, because we want to make Chicago a great city to live in," he suggests.
Addressing this visibility gap requires donors to actively seek information about local conditions rather than waiting for organizations to reach them. Truong's approach of walking through Chicago neighborhoods and observing conditions directly provided insights that guided his charitable priorities.
Implementation Puts the Blueprint Into Practice
Truong's vetting process offers a systematic approach for donors seeking maximum impact from their charitable giving:
Financial Analysis: Request detailed breakdowns of how donations are allocated between direct assistance and operational costs. Reject organizations that cannot demonstrate that at least 90% of contributions reach intended beneficiaries.
Operational Assessment: Evaluate whether organizations possess the infrastructure necessary to execute their missions effectively. Look for evidence of supply chain management, quality control processes, and sustainable operational models.
Direct Observation: Visit facilities and meet with organizational leadership to assess capabilities beyond marketing materials. Observe actual operations rather than relying on promotional descriptions.
Community Focus: Balance national giving with local community investment. Identify pressing needs in your immediate area that may lack the visibility of national causes.
Long-term Commitment: Structure giving as multi-year commitments that allow organizations to plan rather than survive year-to-year fundraising cycles.
The blueprint reflects Truong's business background, applying operational analysis typically reserved for corporate partnerships to charitable relationships. The approach treats philanthropy as a long-term investment requiring due diligence rather than an emotional response to compelling stories.
For donors frustrated with charitable giving that seems to produce limited results, Truong's systematic evaluation method offers a path toward organizations that move the needle on persistent social problems.
