{"items": [{"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/285740654776079?comment_id=285763658107112", "anchor": "fb-285763658107112", "service": "fb", "text": "I believe that in individual cases you are correct, but taken as whole you are not. As with start-up companies, as the organization moves up the resource ladder, most often people get more comfortable, and have to stretch less. They stop buying used furniture, small perks become expected, and most importantly money substitutes for creative thinking. Only very well managed organizations with very determined management mange to keep the sense of urgency and mission that made them so effective with limited resources in the first place. Then there are the plain bad organizations that spend most of the donated money on raising money, which is really the filter that is being applied. It is not so much to weed out the good from the great, as to avoid the terrible, and the not very good. After that, if you want to know more, you need to see the charity in action and know the people to make the next grade of evaluation (which will also be very subjective based on what you as the donor thinks is an important mission and what aspects about the mission are important).", "timestamp": "1315577429"}, {"author": "Miranda", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/285740654776079?comment_id=285781758105302", "anchor": "fb-285781758105302", "service": "fb", "text": "Do you read the blog Good Intentions are Not Enough? She's written a lot on this topic: http://goodintents.org/bad-donor-advice/cost-efficient-aid, http://goodintents.org/.../dont-choose-a-charity-based-on..., http://goodintents.org/.../overheads-at-fast-food..., and more.", "timestamp": "1315580090"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/285740654776079?comment_id=285820158101462", "anchor": "fb-285820158101462", "service": "fb", "text": "@Miranda: I think the problem with the \"cost efficient aid is not effective aid\" post is that their meaning of \"cost efficient\" is off. Real cost efficiency is how much good you can do for your dollar, all costs and benefits included. They write that \"several aid agencies built houses without kitchens or bathrooms after the tsunami to get the biggest bang for the donor\u2019s buck.\" But this only counts as cost effective if you compute effectiveness as \"houses per dollar\" or something silly. Houses without bathrooms or kitchens are less useful to their occupants, so constructing them is less effective (though possibly still cost-effective if they are enough cheaper).
I would say that cost efficient aid is maximally effective aid, as long as you're accounting cost efficiency properly.", "timestamp": "1315585082"}, {"author": "Miranda", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/285740654776079?comment_id=285849968098481", "anchor": "fb-285849968098481", "service": "fb", "text": "I think that author of that post agrees with you, Jeff, and she is pointing out that poorly-thought-out aid with low overheads and low costs is not the same as good aid. So unless you're making a point that's different from that, we all agree.", "timestamp": "1315589376"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/285740654776079?comment_id=285863358097142", "anchor": "fb-285863358097142", "service": "fb", "text": "I think we do agree, Miranda, but I'm unhappy with them accepting the misuse of \"cost efficient\" which hides that, properly used, \"cost efficiency\" is the goal. This is kind of minor, though.
(this new tagging with first names is fun)", "timestamp": "1315591279"}]}