(MONEY Magazine) – Just three days after India's killer quake struck last September, Anne-Lise Brown, 30, a project director for the AmeriCares Foundation in New Canaan, Conn., was winging to Bombay. Her mission: to supervise distribution of $875,000 worth of emergency supplies. "We had to ensure they went to those who truly suffered," says Brown. Such efforts mark any charity that wrings maximum value from contributions. And AmeriCares does that best of all. The 11-year- old medical-aid group spent, on average, 99.1% of its income ($100.6 million in 1992) for programs over the past three years, making it tops in MONEY's fifth annual ranking of the nation's 100 largest charities. This year, we judged the organizations on their long-term efficiency -- that is, the average percentage of income spent on programs over the past three years. As in the past, the NonProfit Times ($8.95 for its NPT 100 issue; 190 Tamarack Circle, Skillman, N.J. 08558) gathered the data. The list excludes the United Way because it doesn't consolidate figures for its 2,100 chapters. Also, research hospitals and charities that derive less than 10% of income from the public -- CARE, for example -- have been dropped. Our rankings also note whether a charity meets the standards of the leading watchdog groups: the Council of Better Business Bureaus listed first, and the National Charities Information Bureau.

Social service groups need careful screening -- These 40 helper charities make up the largest and most diverse group we scrutinize. Their missions range from curbing drunk drivers to aiding disabled athletes. And as the table testifies, their financial performance varies just as widely. At the top end is United Jewish Appeal -- Federation of Jewish Philanthropies (UJA), which has spent an impressive 95% of its donations on good works over the past three years. Its largesse aided nearly 4 million Jews in 50 countries with a spectrum of needs ranging from AIDS to immigrant absorption. UJA also boasts the lowest administrative costs in our group (0.6% of income). But the achievement hasn't come pain-free: The charity had to cut its staff by 5.4% over three years to rein in overhead. By contrast, Cal Farley's Boys Ranch rated worst of all our top 100 for the second year in the percentage of income spent on programs. It shelled out just 36% of income on current projects, thus failing an NCIB standard that limits the amount of unspent funds a charity can retain while continuing to solicit the public for more money. "We've been collecting for a $6.4 million expansion program that will be finished in the next six months," explains administrator Don Abston. In addition, two other groups don't pass muster with the watchdogs. NCIB faults the YMCA's national office for not producing a comprehensive annual report. The "Y" says it will comply next year. (The group also doesn't provide the NonProfit Times with consolidated data for its 2,000 local chapters.) Christian Relief Services (CRS) fails to supply enough data for NCIB to evaluate it. That's fine with CRS, which says that it doesn't want an NCIB evaluation on the grounds that its staff is too small to handle the paperwork. Fund-raising costs range from 0% (for New York Association for New Americans, which helps refugees resettle) to more than 28% for Disabled American Veterans. A spokesman for DAV of Cold Spring, Ky. says the group must spend such a high percentage of its $71 million in income on fund raising ( because its average donation is small -- under $10.

Steep fund-raising costs dog medical caregivers -- Our 21-member health-care category is where you'll find many familiar names, including the American Cancer Society and the March of Dimes. You may also notice that most of these institutions spent less than 80% of their income on programs during the 1990-92 period. Fund-raising expenses are often high for health charities because the organizations rarely attract the unsolicited donations that pour in to other groups during crises like earthquakes and famine. The exception is our No. 1 charity, AmeriCares Foundation, the $100.6 million (in income) medical-aid organization that also specializes in crisis relief. After the recent India earthquake, for example, prospective donors tied up the group's toll-free line (800-486-4357) for days. With good reason: As noted earlier, AmeriCares topped all other charities, with an average of 99.1% of income spent on good works. Tight financial controls have helped draw luminaries to the New Canaan, Conn.-based charity's advisory committee, including Peter Lynch, the legendary investment ace who piloted Fidelity's Magellan Fund. AmeriCares fields a lean team that is known for moving fast in an emergency. "Red tape kills," says Robert Macauley, 69, a paper-industry entrepreneur who founded AmeriCares in 1982. "We don't break laws, but we break a lot of rules -- and we never give in." Macauley and a paid staff of 45 (just 4.3% of the staff size of the $100.3 million Muscular Dystrophy Association) even tap world leaders to cut through the bureaucratic maze of landing rights and customs. And they aren't shy about begging companies for gifts, especially for children. While medical supplies are the key cargo, AmeriCares frequently delivers welcome fun and games donated by manufacturers, like Snickers bars, Barbie dolls and Slinkies. Following close after AmeriCares in the ranking are two regional charities. The California Family Planning Council (97.9% spent on programs) of Los Angeles oversees free clinics throughout the state (except in L.A. County); it registers zero fund-raising costs because member clinics chip in needed cash and affluent clients make donations. In third place is Northwest Medical Teams International, based in Portland, Ore., with 97.1% spent on a globe-spanning menu of health services. Since the gulf war, the group has devoted special attention to Kurdish refugees in Iraq. ) All but two in the health group get the watchdogs' nods. The National Mental Health Association hasn't submitted data to NCIB, though administration director Doug Waterstreet hopes to have the information for the group "in a few weeks." The Alzheimer's Association failed two CBBB fund-raising standards. "Both problems have since been corrected," says chief operating officer Connie Rivera, "and we plan to resubmit our materials for approval next year."

The more for relief, the less for development -- When disaster erupts, these 13 groups are often the first helpers on the scene. Leading the caregivers in economic efficiency is MAP International of Brunswick, Ga., founded in 1954 as Medical Assistance Programs. The interdenominational Christian group spent 95% of its 1990-92 income on its work at more than 650 clinics and hospitals in 118 countries, aiding people of all faiths. Recently MAP has been airlifting medical supplies to Bosnia, earmarked particularly for the so-called underground hospitals originally built into mountainsides to serve as refuges against nuclear attack. A close No. 2 is Catholic Relief Services (CRS) of Baltimore, with an average of 94.6% spent on programs over the past three years. This year, CRS has pumped $32.5 million of aid into the former Yugoslavia and $14 million into Somalia. The American Red Cross, by far the largest relief and development charity in America ($1.56 billion in income in 1992), ranks in the middle of the pack: It spends 88.2% of its income on programs. These outfits have two distinct mandates. "We're tagged as a disaster organization because that's the most visible work we do," says MAP president and CEO Larry Dixon, "but long-term development is what we're really about." Unfortunately, the more resources that go to relief projects, the less that's available for development efforts that don't make national headlines. Relief and development groups are among the most efficient charities on our lists, with an average of 86.3% of their income spent on programs in 1990-92, vs. about 80% for all 100 charities. Administrative costs tend to be low, since these charities are staffed typically by volunteers or led by low-paid religious workers. Similarly, fund-raising expenses can be kept down when groups solicit through networks of churches. "Links to Catholic dioceses across the country enable us to reach out in a very cost-effective way," says Kenneth Hackett, executive director of CRS. By contrast, secular relief and development groups such as Habitat for Humanity International of Americus, Ga., which builds homes with low-income families, don't have ready-made congregations of contributors. Therefore they often spend a hefty chunk of today's dollars to raise tomorrow's -- for example, 14.6% of income in Habitat's case. Only two of the 13 agencies on this list failed to win endorsements from the watchdogs. Feed the Children/Larry Jones International Ministries steadfastly refuses to supply information to NCIB. "We provide three other national organizations with data, and that's sufficient," says spokesman Brenda Jones. Habitat for Humanity failed to meet the CBBB standard on excessive fund- raising pressure by not specifying in 1992 that donations were not required in mailings sent to new Habitat homeowners. A Habitat spokesman says the group now makes it clear that recipients are under no obligation to make gifts.

Christian groups lack watchdog okay -- All five of the biggest groups devoted to religious proselytizing are evangelical Christian organizations; this is the first year we have included such charities in our rankings. The most efficient religious group, Campus Crusade for Christ International, which spends an average of 84% of its income on programs, has long since moved from college out into the world. It now has 283 members working in the former Soviet Union, for example. Campus Crusade has 11,800 paid staffers worldwide -- but some 9,400 of these raise the money for their own salaries through missionary work. NCIB declines to evaluate any of the religious charities since the groups don't file tax forms as other charities do. CBBB faults the Billy Graham charity for not presenting adequate information in its financial statements and for not sufficiently documenting how it uses its funds. Spokesman B.J. Durston says the group has no comment.

Conservation spends a lot raising money -- Overhead tends to be steep in this category. For example, though our top- rated conservation group, World Wildlife Fund, puts an enviable 83.7% of income into preserving species and habitats in 140 countries, the North Shore Animal League, of Long Island, the largest "no kill" shelter in the U.S., devotes a startling 29.1% of income to fund raising -- the highest of our 100. "We get no government grants and minimal corporate support," says controller Barry Giaquinto. As for the watchdogs' views, the National Audubon Society doesn't meet a CBBB standard that requires fund-raising solicitations for products to specify what portion of the purchase price will go to charity. The society says that information will be provided from now on. NCIB questioned the Humane Society's 1990 fund-raising expenses, but the group vows to pass muster next year. Greenpeace, which didn't supply data to NCIB, told MONEY it simply could not meet the deadline.

In-kind groups rate in a class by themselves -- This trio presents astonishing numbers. The leader, Brother's Brother Foundation, the largest U.S. distributor of donated textbooks, spent an average of 99.9% on its programs in 1990-92, closely followed by Second Harvest, which supplies soup kitchens and shelters, at 99.7%. Even NAEIR (the National Association for the Exchange of Industrial Resources), which passes on corporations' excess inventory, weighs in with a meaty 96.8%. So what's the deal? Companies make their contributions "in kind" -- in goods instead of in cash, which could be siphoned off for administrative costs. In addition, corporate donors often give their products in large quantities, thereby keeping fund-raising costs exceptionally low. Because of this unique structure, MONEY ranks in-kind groups apart from other charities -- and holds them out of the running for the most-efficient list.

Education struggles in raising funds -- Our winner among these 10 charities is the Population Council, which works with developing countries to hold down birth rates. It achieved an 80.5% rate of spending on programs. But that score is exceptional for this category, which averages only 66.9%, the lowest of all the groups we measured. The problem is that education charities don't get donated products and many have limited institutional aid. Museum Associates (MA), for example, which supports and operates the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, spends 16.9% of its funds on administration, in part because its funding from L.A. County has declined. MA, the lone museum-related group on the list, insists that it should be compared only with museums. But it's the only one the NonProfit Times analyzed that meets its 10% rule -- more than 10% of its funding comes from public donations. And that makes its finances a public concern.

BOX: THE SIX LEADERS

Program spending as a % Category / charity of income 1. HEALTH: AmeriCares Foundation 99.1 2. SOCIAL SERVICES: United Jewish Appeal 95.0 3. RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT: MAP International 95.0 4. RELIGION: Campus Crusade for Christ 84.0 5. CONSERVATION: World Wildlife Fund 83.7 6. EDUCATION/CULTURE: Population Council 80.5

Gift-in-kind groups, whose spending is not directly comparable with that of other charities, are ranked on page 138.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE CREDIT: NO CREDIT CAPTION: SOCIAL SERVICES RANKING HEALTH RANKING RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT RANKING RELIGION RANKING CONSERVATION RANKING IN-KIND RANKING EDUCATION/CULTURE RANKING