• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Give-Well and Deciding who to Give To

    July 5th, 2010
    giving, money  [html]
    Once one determines that one has a responsibility to help people who are less fortunate, and decides to do this by donating money, an important question is "where will my money be best used?". [1] One organization that tries to answer this question is givewell.

    When you donate to one charity instead of another, you care about the relative impacts. By far the biggest source of differences in relative impact is how effective the charity's programs are. GiveWell appears to be the only organization publishing efficacy evaluations. [2] Some organizations, like charity navigator, make an attempt to rate charities based on the IRS form 990, but there is insufficient information in that form to do more than rule out obviously ineffective charities. [3] Pretty much the only usable information on the form, and the only information that charity navigator displays prominently, is the funding breakdown between fund-raising, administration, and programs. When people use these simple statistics to decide between charities, it forces the charities to compete on a bad metric. Julia confirms that oxfam pays a lot of attention to the program expenses as a percentage of the budget statistic. If they're intentionally keeping overhead down not because they want to have more money to spend on programs but because they want to look good on this statistic, they're not helping as many people as they could be. GiveWell understands that spending money on administration can make programs more effective and so this statistic is largely useless at identifying the best charities.

    GiveWell's goal is to find the most effective charities, not to come up with a ranking of all charities. They make heavy use of heuristics in filtering out charities that are probably not that good or that they would not be able to evaluate effectively. This means that 95% of the charities they evaluate get a 0 star rating. This is primarily because very few charities have done any kind of systematic analysis to determine if their programs are effective. And it turns out, many programs, when carefully evaluated, are not actually effective. So if you go look at their rating page and see some charity you think is doing good work has a rating of 0, that's likely because they have no good evidence to convince GiveWell that they are effective. How have they convinced you that they are effective? Why are you confident in them? Should you be? Reading about GiveWell has convinced me that we should be pushing the charities to which we give to either run more studies of program efficacy or, if they already do so, make the results public. [4]

    [1] The way Julia and I originally figured out where to give our money was pretty simple: Julia did some research online and decided that oxfam america is an effective charity. Six months or so after deciding to donate (all) our money to them Julia started working there, and she still agrees with her initial asessment.

    [2] Large foundations such as the gates foundation must be doing this kind of research to determine where to give, but they don't make this research public.

    [3] For example, the charity navigtor review of the America-Israel Cultural Foundation which shows them spending only 14.4% of their budget on program expenses, does tell us that they are a very ineffective charity.

    [4] A difficult aspect of this is that it is important that studies showing programs to be ineffective be made just as public as ones showing efficacy. This is sure to be unpopular with charities.

    Update 2010-07-05: Jonah Sinick writes that GiveWell rewards admitting failures:

    In our experience, charities are very rarely willing to share evidence of disappointing impact. We believe that any charity that does so is being unusually honest about the challenges of international aid, and unusually accountable to donors. We expect that charities capable of spotting, documenting and sharing disappointing results are better positioned to improve our time.
    ...
    If your organization is listed on the GiveWell site and you want to improve your ranking, publish a case study of a program you ran that failed. As usual, we.re not looking for marketing materials, and we won.t accept .weaknesses that are really strengths. (or reports that blame failure entirely on insufficient funding/support from others). But if you share open, honest, unadulterated evidence of failure, you.ll join a select group of organizations that have a GiveWell star.

    Comment via: facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    More on the Deutschlandtakt

    The Deutschlandtakt plans are out now. They cover investment through 2040, but even beforehand, there’s a plan for something like a national integrated timetable by 2030, with trains connecting the major cities every 30 minutes rather than hourly. But the…

    via Pedestrian Observations July 1, 2020

    How do cars fare in crash tests they're not specifically optimized for?

    Any time you have a benchmark that gets taken seriously, some people will start gaming the benchmark. Some famous examples in computing are the CPU benchmark specfp and video game benchmarks. With specfp, Sun managed to increase its score on 179.art (a su…

    via Posts on Dan Luu June 30, 2020

    Quick note on the name of this blog

    When I was 21 a friend introduced me to a volume of poems by the 14th-century Persian poet Hafiz, translated by Daniel Ladinsky. I loved them, and eventually named this blog for one of my favorite ones. At some point I read more and found that Ladinsky’s …

    via The whole sky June 21, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact