{"items": [{"author": "Ben", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/616245167622?comment_id=616245437082", "anchor": "fb-616245437082", "service": "fb", "text": "There might be incentive reasons to want to name and shame (though I agree these are stronger at the top)", "timestamp": "1371129278"}, {"author": "Chelsea", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/616245167622?comment_id=616248161622", "anchor": "fb-616248161622", "service": "fb", "text": "NAMI Vermont is an AWESOME charity! We have four dedicated staff members supporting over 75 volunteers in communities across vermont. We provide support groups and education to people living with mental health challenges and their families. We educate providers about the roll of families in mental health and engage in legislative advocacy. We also have a committed warmline (yours truly). To join my stigma stomping team at this year's walk or to help me meet my goal for this September's walk viist: http://namiwalks.nami.org/csmiley - - - As one of the dedicated staff members I can honestly say that your funding will go directly toward making quality programs possible in a slim and highly functional organization - Huge bang for your buck!", "timestamp": "1371131190"}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103129674171633306089", "anchor": "gp-1371137524642", "service": "gp", "text": "A premise embedded in your use of \"effectiveness\" \u00a0is that if one's goal is to alleviate human suffering globally, one will never give to organizations that assist citizens of the rich world. A premise embedded in this premise is that our \"moral topography\" should be flat.\u00a0\n
\n
\nYou can't convince people of your effectiveness argument until they buy into these two premises. This is where the rubber meets the road.", "timestamp": 1371137524}, {"author": "Fred", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/616245167622?comment_id=616260761372", "anchor": "fb-616260761372", "service": "fb", "text": "So true.", "timestamp": "1371139575"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1371156897097", "service": "gp", "text": "@David\n\u00a0I don't see why someone should matter more just because they happen to be physically nearer.\n
\n
\nEven if you do value unevenly based on proximity, however, the effectiveness argument still applies. \u00a0Most charities working in your community are likely to be much worse than the few best ones, and without some research it's hard to know which. \u00a0People can run social programs for years but most of the time if you rigorously evaluate a program you'll find it has weak to negative effects. [1][2]\n
\n
\n[1]\u00a0\nhttp://blog.givewell.org/2008/12/18/guest-post-proven-programs-are-the-exception-not-the-rule/\n
\n[2]\u00a0\nhttp://www.givewell.org/giving101/Social-Programs-That-Just-Dont-Work", "timestamp": 1371156897}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1371158899445", "service": "gp", "text": "Jeff, both of your example focus on programs that try to help kids do better in school, or otherwise try to improve conditions for low income children.\u00a0 You cannot infer a general statement about the effectiveness of charities in other areas from that.\u00a0 If your doing some sort of complex program that tries to make lives better in indirect ways, it's important to measure whether it works, but you don't seem to apply similar rigor to direct relief.\u00a0 Saving someone from illness or hunger is not analyzed in terms of its long term social impact.\n
\n
\nI imagine the effectiveness curve depends greatly on your objectives.\u00a0\u00a0 If I want to say, support art museums in the Greater Boston Area, do you really think there's a similar distribution, where the Peabody Essex is orders of magnitudes more effective than the Isabella Stuart Gardner?\u00a0 Similarly, if I wanted to support food pantries, while I'm sure there's some variation in waste and impact, I'd would be greatly surprised if the effectiveness of the best distributor of\u00a0 emergency food aid in Boston was more than twice the median.\n
\n
\nWithout the relative income differences in different parts of the world, (which I'm not denying makes a strong case for global charity), it's not clear at all to me that you would get that sort of curve.\u00a0 And that's, again, a case of choosing your objective.\u00a0 Among charities that are, say, curing cataracts in Ethiopia, I would guess the distribution of effectiveness is much flatter.", "timestamp": 1371158899}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1371159644937", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0Your objectives seem very tightly bounded. \u00a0How did you decide you were interested in supporting art museums in particular? \u00a0Food pantries? \u00a0If you think through how much you value different outcomes and try to get charities doing very different things to where you can compare them, I think you'll generally find that what you get for your donation varies dramatically between various \"causes\". \u00a0Which means it's important not to just choose a cause that looks interesting, but instead to figure out which one does the most good by your values.\n
\n
\n(I think there is some variation within charities working in the same focused area (curing cataracts in Ethiopia) but I agree that it's much smaller than the variation between the different areas you might decide to focus on.)", "timestamp": 1371159644}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1371160302707", "service": "gp", "text": "Right, exactly.\u00a0 I was more supporting what +David was saying.\u00a0 The way most people think about charity is, \"I want to do something about 'x', what's the best way to solve that?\"\u00a0 Clearly you're trying to get people to think more broadly, but x is never going to be minimize global suffering for most people, so such things like charity ratings still come in handy.", "timestamp": 1371160302}, {"author": "David", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103129674171633306089", "anchor": "gp-1371162407011", "service": "gp", "text": "My point is not that proximity matters, but rather to raise the notion that any charity in the developed world is bound to be \"bad\" according cost-effectiveness calculations. Note that I'm not revealing my own views -- just pointing out what's implicit.", "timestamp": 1371162407}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/616245167622?comment_id=616297278192", "anchor": "fb-616297278192", "service": "fb", "text": "As other commenters have mentioned, for people that view donating to charity differently than you do identifying bad ones might make sense. I generally am more interested in giving to a charity that has a specific objective I care about that might not be saving lives in the poorer parts of the world. For example, maybe there is a very rare disease that it doesn't make sense from a public health perspective to spend money trying to cure because it is so rare but I feel a particular connection to people with that disease because I know some of them personally. Or a charity that is engaged in some sort of advocacy for convicted felons who have finished serving their prison terms but doesn't have goals with easily/cheaply measurable outcomes. In that case, using wastefulness as a proxy for effectiveness isn't ideal but might be the only realistic option.", "timestamp": "1371163749"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1371182520995", "service": "gp", "text": "(this is a response to the post, not any of the previous comments)\n
\n
\nI agree with the substance of your point, but I also think there's a big moral difference between a run-of-the-mill ineffective charity and the scam charities on this list. \u00a0Civil society depends on trusting other people to do what they say, especially when money is involved. \u00a0By undermining that trust, cheats and liars do harm far beyond the cash they divert. \u00a0It's good to call them out.", "timestamp": 1371182520}, {"author": "Emma", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115602548480887547202", "anchor": "gp-1371231679485", "service": "gp", "text": "@David\n\u00a0Ditto any healthcare targeted at people who are well and aren't at risk of becoming sick. Ditto financial help to rich people. Ditto education to the literate.\u00a0\n
\n
\nNot that these people are less valuable. Indeed by flow though effects they're likely more valuable. Just they're not who you help \nif you care about health/wealth/education in aggregate\n.", "timestamp": 1371231679}]}