Thanks for the thoughts. We agree that it is important for charities not to mislead donors, and we understand your wish to clarify that DonorsChoose does not have the same issue that people are concerned about with Kiva. However, we hoped that the question of impact was not lost in the focus on the narrower point.

As the author of the post in question on Tactical Philanthropy, I thought I’d respond. The recent debate about Kiva has centered not around their effectiveness, but about their honesty in portraying how an individual donor’s dollars are spent. Kiva implies that a donor’s actions help determine which individuals receive loans. This is not the case.

I of course applaud the work that Kiva has done for poor people around the world, and its transparency relative to others in international development, as you point out. I’m concerned that when some donors find that they have been misled, they may stop giving to an excellent charity.

A purely rational donor would, as you point out, want her donations to go to the most effective and efficient use. But donors aren’t purely rational beings, because donors are human. One might decry the use of emotional appeals based on “tracing dollars to a specific individual,” but it’s Kiva that has used this as a marketing strategy.

For the most part in the Kiva debate I’ve been 1) reporting on the debate, 2) agreeing that Kiva’s communications about their process has been misleading and 3) commenting on the debate itself and how Twitter is changing the dynamics of the debate.

Personally, I generally believe that funding high performing nonprofits is the best way to create impact. I agree with you that it is likely that Kiva does more to change lives than DonorsChoose. I highlighted the comment form the DonorsChoose ex-employee because it offered a perspective that post-funding dispersal was viable.