{"items": [{"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1361934664623", "service": "gp", "text": "This strikes me as being analogous to the stock market, except with better information and less volatility. If I'm 80% confident that Charity A is best and 20% confident that Charity B is best, maybe I just divide my money 80/20 between A and B. More generally, diversifying your giving might reduce your upside, but might also avoid, say, donating everything to an organization that folds a year later, or is revealed to have been laundering money, etc. (e.g. the sorts of things that would be equivalent to a stock price crashing). A lot of it is going to be about how confident you are, and how risk averse.", "timestamp": 1361934664}, {"author": "Lee", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/341453609293582?comment_id=341464762625800", "anchor": "fb-341464762625800", "service": "fb", "text": "There is also the fact that my time is worth something: if I spend less time (and energy) annually only connecting with/funding one charity, I have that much more to spread good cheer throughout the known universe!", "timestamp": "1361934973"}, {"author": "Lee", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/341453609293582?comment_id=341465262625750", "anchor": "fb-341465262625750", "service": "fb", "text": "I have in fact cut my giving from about 40 charities, to only one: Charity:water, which fund-raises separately for all admin. costs, and my automatic monthly donation can go 100% to creating new clean water wells in developing nations.", "timestamp": "1361935115"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1361935174078", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n\u00a0\"A lot of it is going to be about how confident you are, and how risk averse.\"\n
\n
\nRisk aversion (or the lack of it) is key here. \u00a0Personally it make sense to be risk averse, but I don't think it does in charity.", "timestamp": 1361935174}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1361936317516", "service": "gp", "text": "\"Personally it make sense to be risk averse, but I don't think it does in charity.\"\n
\n
\nI'm not sure risk aversion is that overt- I suspect for most people, if they're risk averse about their personal finances, that will extend to charitable giving as well, since it will feel like a similar type of decision. Obviously you can be aware of that and adjust for it. But is that important? I'll grant that you don't \nneed\n to be risk averse in your giving, but is it actually harmful?", "timestamp": 1361936317}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1361942579475", "service": "gp", "text": "It's harmful to the extent that there's a difference in expected value between the different charities you're dividing between.", "timestamp": 1361942579}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1361997290900", "service": "gp", "text": "I don't have enough confidence in my analytical skills to pick a single charity that's doing \"the most\" good, since any formula for calculating that would be arbitrary. As long as you're giving large enough to avoid the contribution being eaten up by costs and small enough to avoid forcing changes in an organization to respond to the sudden influx of money, I see no problem with splitting gifts multiple ways, or picking charities, so long as they're effective, that reflect personal interests or quirks in your personality.\n
\n
\nFor example, malaria relief in the tropics might be more \"bang for the buck\" in terms of measurable material difference in people's lives than, say, music education in low income schools in the US, but if that's what someone is passionate about, it's better that they give enthusiastically to something that is still beneficial.\u00a0 If someone has enough money to support both causes, I don't see any need to force them to pare down their selection more is needed to avoid meaninglessly small donations. Even those can be done in a way that doesn't cost the organization much, such as dropping cash in a box.", "timestamp": 1361997290}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1362000216240", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0\"\u00a0As long as you're giving large enough to avoid the contribution being eaten up by costs and small enough to avoid forcing changes in an organization to respond to the sudden influx of money, I see no problem with splitting gifts multiple ways, or picking charities, so long as they're effective, that reflect personal interests or quirks in your personality.\"\n
\n
\nThere's a huge amount packed into \"so long as they're effective\". \u00a0Let's take your example of comparing music education in low income US schools to malaria relief. \u00a0Imagine that this is an unusually successful music education program where some students actually get a significant benefit out of it, forging a strong connection with a supportive and stable adult community member and growing their appreciation of music. \u00a0The competing option is distributing long-lasting insecticide-treated anti-malarial nets in Malawi and other countries where malaria is a big problem, preventing wasteful and tragic deaths.\n
\n
\nFor each of us there is some very rough ratio where we would say that some number students significantly benefiting from a music education program are about equivalent to some other number of people not dying of malaria. \u00a0Maybe it's 100:1, maybe 10,000:1, but if someone came to you and said \"I can't decide between helping X kids with music education or keeping one person from dying of malaria\" there's some value for X where you would switch from pushing this potential donor towards music vs anti-malaria.\u00a0\n
\n
\nNow we scale everything by its cost. \u00a0Imagine one in ten students gets this significant benefit and the program\u00a0costs $200/student/year when you include all expenses. \u00a0So for every $2000 you donate (on average) one additional student gets this musical and social benefit. For the anti-malaria charity GiveWell has already done the work for us and we see that averting a death costs about $1700. \u00a0So if X as you figured it above is much greater than 1, which it is for me, then donating to net distribution is much better.\n
\n
\nWhile people often use \"effective\" as if all charities are either effective or ineffective it's really a continuum. \u00a0And it's a very long continuum. \u00a0If you want to give to two charities that are close together on the continuum instead of just one, then go ahead. \u00a0But if you're comparing charities that are far apart, and you're giving because you want to help people and make the world better, then money you give to the less effective one is nearly wasted when you consider what it could do going to the more effective one.", "timestamp": 1362000216}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1362006453358", "service": "gp", "text": "Jeff, I picked that example because I suspected that it would fail that sort of analysis, but also because it illustrates the moral choices in giving.\n
\n
\nThere are some moral frameworks for charity that put a greater emphasis on ensuring that someone has a fulfilling life, rather than merely ensuring their survival.\u00a0 Maimonides, for example, said that the highest form of charity is giving someone enough that they become self-reliant.\u00a0 Similarly the Talmud has an anecdote about a Rabbi who, upon learning that a recipient of his charity was drinking fine wines, decide to increase his gift. If we apply the same framework to our anti-Malarial work in Malawi, it implies that we should invest in the economy of the country as well, so the children whose lives we save have the opportunity to raise their own children in prosperity, even if that means saving fewer lives overall.\n
\n
\nEven if you accept that the anti-malaria work is the best use of $2,000, it's not clear that giving the directly to that cause is the best use of the money.\u00a0 The Federal government spent about $800 million in FY2011 on direct anti-malaria work, plus additional indirect funding through global funds it supports. (See\n
\nhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41644.pdf\n ) Perhaps the money would be better spent donating to a Political Action Committee or a lobbying group dedicated to preserving and increasing this funding?\n
\n
\nLastly, many people believe that their money is better spent helping people in their own community. Again, this is a question of moral framework.\u00a0 Not everyone is going to have the same values for analyzing what is \"effective\".\u00a0 By telling them that they should use your criteria, rather than their own, you are encouraging this sort of response: \nhttp://xkcd.com/871/\n Allowing someone to personalize their giving to what they find most meaningful will encourage people to donate more generously.", "timestamp": 1362006453}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1362007541237", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm pretty sure that how many of your children/siblings/friends/etc die an early death of malaria will have a much bigger effect on having a fulfilling life than lacking music education.", "timestamp": 1362007541}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1362007757076", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm not. Many of best composers lost siblings to childhood illness. Only 7 of J.S. Bach's 20 children outlived him.\n
\n
\nThis isn't to say that I think all charity is equivalent. For example, having a palatial granite edifice with your name on it on a university campus is rarely a good use of money, even if your goal is to help that university.", "timestamp": 1362007757}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1362008207022", "service": "gp", "text": "\"Many of best composers lost siblings to childhood illness. Only 7 of J.S. Bach's 20 children outlived him.\"\n
\n
\nThat's both anecdotal and irrelevant. You would need to compare, for the same individual, quality of life with music education and without living friends/family members (as a result of malaria), vs. quality of life without music education and with living friends/family members. And I agree with David that it's pretty clear which would be preferable.", "timestamp": 1362008207}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1362008673242", "service": "gp", "text": "Most of our cultural institutions would not exist without charitable giving.\u00a0 The larger question is whether it's a higher charity to keep someone alive or make their life worth living.\u00a0 Personally I think both are acceptable and I appreciate that different people value different causes and support them passionately.\u00a0 I won't denigrate someone else's gifts that make the world more beautiful.", "timestamp": 1362008673}, {"author": "Mad", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/100533872344198336746", "anchor": "gp-1362056280633", "service": "gp", "text": "An analogy: Studying is great, right? But if you were memorizing the Pokedex I'm going to find that less praiseworthy than learning to code in R.", "timestamp": 1362056280}, {"author": "Philip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/341453609293582?comment_id=447235072048768", "anchor": "fb-447235072048768", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeff: Your giving is inspiring. I have made a donation to what you endorsed as the most effective non-profit organization:
http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities", "timestamp": "1386650256"}]}