Comments on: Update on the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative: our current #2-ranked charity

By: Alan Fenwick

Alan Fenwick — Thu, 03 May 2012 19:20:24 +0000

Thank you Jason for this question.
We will use a high percentage of Givewells donor funds in the year they are given because I believe that donations from Givewell donors should be used for the purpose we advertised, to treat children and those at risk. If you have donated on this recommendation from Givewell you want your money to be used – not sat in SCI’s bank account. Our premise is that we have a good model and that by treating children in more and more countries we will in fact attract more funding, – success brings success. If Givewell decide to change their recommendation in 2012 we will lose one of our income sources so yes we are taking a risk, but if that happens we will use our other sources to comsolidate rather than expand our coverage further. Infected children need treatment and we want to accelerate coverage rather than be cautious. However as I have often said we have a flexible policy and so will watch the income rate closely. Alan Fenwick

By: Jason K

Jason K — Thu, 03 May 2012 12:04:01 +0000

Hi GiveWell,
Would it be possible to get a response from SCI regarding the single-round expenditure of 85% of their funds? Perhaps their donation projections allow them to operate in this fashion, but I was wondering if there was any continuing dialogue to confirm this?

On a side note, it is really refreshing to see an organization like yours be honest about miscommunications and other imperfections. It gives me the confidence to trust your recommendations.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:11:08 +0000

Caroline: SCI continues to be our #2 overall recommended charity, and we still recommend unrestricted donations. We didn’t mean to call that into question.

By: Caroline Fiennes

Caroline Fiennes — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:06:17 +0000

So you still recommend giving SCI unrestricted money?

By: Tom Ash

Tom Ash — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 07:38:03 +0000

It's great to have such detailed updates on where our SCI money is going - including Alan's comment (direct responses are always illuminating). I'm also appreciating SCI's newsletters, which contain some substantial information on programs alongside fundraising news and suchlike.

By: Alan Fenwick

Alan Fenwick — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 05:21:23 +0000

I am sorry if we never communicated why treating adults in Burundi was deemed necessary. It is because we have found a small area in Burundi where adults are infected and a recent paper by Charles King and colleagues has shown that people with schistosomiasis (adults or children) need treating because of the chronic effect on their organs – Thus while treating children protects them from future illness, treating adults is still very beneficial. We are in the business of reducing suffering and therefore we are prepared to be flexible with our resources and treat anyone who needs treatment. Indeed flexibility is our guiding principle which is why we sometimes change plans as different resources and requests hit our desk. Alan