Comments on: Can choosing the right charity double your impact?

By: Holden

Holden — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:17:04 +0000

Sam, I’m not sure I follow. When we write that Haiti earthquake relief seems less cost-effective than other charitable options, we are speaking from the perspective of an everyday donor, not an aid agency. We are not saying that there should be no relief effort, but rather questioning the impact of marginal donations to it.

Julian, thanks for the kind words, but to be clear, GiveWell generally tries to focus on reviewing existing research – incorporating what can be known today into our decisions as well as we can – rather than conducting original research. As far as I can tell, existing research doesn’t shed much light on the question of whether aid fosters dependency (I will probably write more about this in the future).

By: Julian Brelsford

Julian Brelsford — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:30:14 +0000

Elie & Holden – you guys are doing some amazing work here. You challenge non-profits on tough issues and I’m convinced you guys are getting some very real, very valuable results. More important than the money you’ve raised, I think, is the potential for others to follow your lead in doubling (or far better than doubling) the impact of their donations.

I also think there are unanswered questions (questions that folks like you are well-positioned to help us answer)… Does or doesn’t aid create more dependency on aid? It’s not an easy question to answer on a macro level. What becomes of someone who is saved from malaria but is still desperately poor and lives in an overpopulated country?

Unanswerable questions? I doubt it. Questions that Givewell can’t answer? I doubt it.

By: aram

aram — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:22:52 +0000

MSF doesn’t spend most of their money on disaster relief as far as I know (unless you count complex humanitarian emergencies). They are one of my favorite NGOs, since they are deeply self-critical, and hold academic-style conferences in which they discuss their programs in detail. So I’d love to see your site do a detailed analysis on them.

Also, Evan can probably ask his law firm to consider adding other charities to the list. Even very large companies are often receptive to these requests.

By: Ian Turner

Ian Turner — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:02:25 +0000

Sam, I think Elie’s point here is that if your focus is on saving lives then you would do well to avoid disaster relief.

By: Sam Gardner

Sam Gardner — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:19:45 +0000

While it is definitely true that the choice of charity will double the impact, you compare development and disaster settings. This is unfair.

In a disaster, nearly all lives are saved during the first 24 hours after earthquake. The American Red Cross will typically support the national chapter of the Red Cross. If (IF) this chapter is even only marginally efficient, as they are trained and massively there in nearly every neighborhood, they will be exhausted from saving lives by the time the “competition”, other humanitarian agencies fly in and act as if they own the place. Of course, saving lives through deworming in Africa is more effective, but not relevant here. Humanitarian response is a moral choice. We should look for the best within a particular choice.

If you would fund the American Red Cross for supporting local chapters for capacity building in disaster response, your money will get a sevenfold raise in effectiveness compared to disaster response.

The element respect for local civil society and initiatives does not figure in your rating at all. This means that your champions could be like a contractor, moving in and out again.

I happen to know that Doctors without Borders were active for years already in Haiti, so, while they are always strangers, they are well aware of the local situation too.