This post inspired by the upcoming Day Without Dignity online event

GiveWell’s current top-rated charities focus on proven, cost-effective health interventions. These interventions appear to solve certain problems (malaria, parasites) quite well, while making no direct attempt to solve other problems (economic growth, education, gender equity, and more). One of the common lines of objection we get to these recommendations goes something like: “Why should I put all my money into fighting malaria, ignoring other important problems? Isn’t it unethical to ignore the other essential needs?”

We believe this objection commits the common fallacy of viewing the developed-world donor as the only person who can improve things for the beneficiaries. One term for taking this mentality too far is “Whites in Shining Armor” - often, in the media and in nonprofits’ communications, global poverty is presented as a simple fight between local problems and developed-world heroes. The problem is that as outsiders, we often have very poor understanding of the true dynamics behind overseas problems - and by attempting to solve problems that we understand poorly, we can make things worse.

We fundamentally believe that progress on most problems must be locally driven. So we seek to improve people’s abilities to make progress on their own, rather than taking personal responsibility for each of their challenges. How can we best accomplish this?

A common and intuitively appealing answer is letting locals drive philanthropic projects. This answer has some appeal for us; we have written before about, and given a small amount of money to, “low-insulation charities” that seem adaptive, locally connected, and overall driven by local needs rather than donors’ plans. At the same time, we have noted some major challenges of doing things this way. Which locals should be put in charge? There are inherent risks that the people who least need help will be best positioned to get involved with making the key decisions. In our reflections on our visit to India, we noted that some organizations seemed to consist simply of local elites making ad-hoc decisions, and that to truly reach those who most need help seemed to require being “systematically bottom-up,” a more complex and difficult approach.

Another approach to “putting locals in the driver’s seat” is quite different. It comes down to acknowledging that as funders, we will always be outsiders, so we should focus on helping with what we’re good at helping with and leave the rest up to locals.

Here I think an analogy to helping friends and family is somewhat illustrative. I try to help my friends and family in domains that I’m relatively knowledgeable about (for example, computer issues) and I tend not to put much effort into helping in other areas I’m not so knowledgeable about (for example, picking clothes) even if the latter are more important issues for them. I know I appreciate when my friends and family deal with me this way, and I don’t appreciate people who are determined to help me in domains that they don’t understand very well (even if these domains are very important to me).

We believe that the track record of outside aid points to health and nutrition as the areas that developed-world outsiders understand best and are best-positioned to help with.

It’s not that we think global health and nutrition are the only important, or even the most important, problems in the developing world. It’s that we’re trying to focus on what we can do well, and thus maximally empower people to make locally-driven progress on other fronts.

One more approach to “putting locals in the driver’s seat”: give to GiveDirectly to support unconditional cash transfers. We feel that global health and nutrition interventions are superior because they reach so many more people (per dollar), but for those who are even more concerned than we are about the trap of “whites in shining armor,” this option has some promise.

We previously listed our five chief criteria for GiveWell Labs, an arm of our research process that will be open to any giving opportunity, no matter what form and what sector. This post further discusses the third of these criteria: “accountability.”

We’re OK with funding a project that might fail, but it’s very important to us that we be able to recognize, document, publicly discuss, and learn from such a failure if it happens.

This is the area in which we feel most strongly that current philanthropists are coming up short: they’re failing to learn (or at least, to help others learn) from their track records. For a simple example, take the issue of sustainability in developing-world aid.

• A common goal of a philanthropic program is to see the government - or another funder - take over at some point, leading to lasting impact that doesn’t depend on continued funding.
• We’ve seen many different approaches to accomplishing this. For example, VillageReach initially paid entirely for its own project, with the hope that the government would switch over to its model once the proof of concept had been established; now that that idea has failed to pan out, VillageReach is asking for more cost-sharing from the government up front as it re-implements its model.
• Yet there appears to be so little evidence on what sorts of projects have and haven’t achieved sustainability in the past that one paper by prominent scholars argues that the whole idea of sustainability is an “illusion” (an argument endorsed by William Easterly).

Most of the funders we’ve talked to don’t seem to have very clear senses even of their own organizations’ track records (both good and bad). Even if funders are learning internally and informally from their own failures, they aren’t learning from each others’.

We believe that we have an unusual commitment to public and documented discussion of whether our giving ends up accomplishing what we hope. We’ve been releasing regular updates on VillageReach, the organization we directed the most money to in 2010, and we intend to do the same with our current top charities. These updates are specific and honest about both good and bad news (and there has been a fair amount of the latter).

Read the rest of this entry »

I started work at GiveWell six months ago, just a few weeks after graduating from college. I had been following GiveWell pretty intensely for more than a year, since I had gotten back from my own trip to India. During that time, I had become a little obsessed: I had read the entire history of the blog and got really excited each time GiveWell finally posted the audio from the most recent board meeting.

Even as a serious GiveWell fan, though, there were a number of things that I didn’t know about the organization that I should have. These aren’t secrets or titillating stories about office politics, just some things that I’ve learned that I didn’t know before.

The biggest challenge remains “find outstanding giving opportunities” - not “get more eyeballs.” I wasn’t totally ignorant about the difficulty of finding outstanding giving opportunities, but I thought that GiveWell was clearly doing so better than anyone else working publicly, and that accordingly it should focus more on outreach, rather than improving research. As an outsider, I didn’t have a good sense of how much went into the recommendations or all the work that goes into charities that don’t end up receiving recommendations. I didn’t think it was easy, but it seemed like Holden and Elie pretty much had it under control, and that there was lots of low-hanging fruit on the outreach side.

As far as I can tell now, neither of those things are really true.

On the outreach front, GiveWell had already tried or looked into many different strategies, even if they hadn’t blogged about it. And because our users generally aren’t typical donors, a lot of the things that charities normally do to cultivate donors might be actively harmful for us. (But we definitely haven’t thought of everything, so please do let us know or comment if you have ideas for how we could “sell” our research better.)

On the research front, although it isn’t very hard to come up with better recommendations than other charity evaluators, we face two problems I hadn’t fully considered:

• Room for more funding. Because a number of large funders are scooping up excellent funding opportunities in global health, many good chances to help people are already taken. We need to find charities that are good bets, but not so obviously good that they have all the funding they can productively use.
• Our competition isn’t other charity rating organizations. This is about the baseline that GiveWell’s recommendations are compared to, rather than the competition for funding opportunities. For a long time, it has seemed natural for people to compare GiveWell to Charity Navigator or Philanthropedia, but as we continue to grow, I think that comparison becomes less and less salient.

  As we raise our ambitions with projects like GiveWell Labs, we will be “competing” not with other charity evaluators but with foundations. Because some foundations are extremely strategic, well-resourced, and focused on the same goal of doing as much good as possible, finding better giving opportunities than they do is a much higher burden.

Both of these problems become harder as GiveWell grows, because we’ll need to create more “room for money moved” and will more naturally be compared to foundations rather than other charity evaluators.

Read the rest of this entry »

We’ve written before about a couple of consistent worldview differences we encounter:

• Our default assumption is that a charity isn’t succeeding; most people’s default assumption is that a charity is succeeding.
• We think that helping people is hard; most people seem to think it’s easy.

When discussing any specific charity, I can usually think of specific reasons that the charity’s mission is difficult, and specific ways that it might be failing. Here I’m going to try to give a more general argument for why it’s hard to accomplish a lot of good with your donation. I’m not presenting this as a rigorous, evidence-backed argument; I’m just further clarifying my worldview and where I’m coming from.

When you want to help people as a donor, you have to get in line behind all of the groups below:

• For-profit companies. I believe that most of the things you can do that make strangers’ lives better are things you can get paid for. Every day people help each other send packages, prepare food, recover from illness, etc. via market transactions. This may seem like a trivial and obvious point, but it’s the reason we are so focused on helping the very poor. When you’re trying to help people who aren’t poor, you’re competing with for-profit enterprises.

  And even the very poor get a lot of help from for-profit services. For example, when people started realizing that cellphones could be useful to the very poor, the result was expansion of for-profit cellphone service into the developing world. There were some nonprofit attempts to contribute to this dynamic, but we’re skeptical that they added much value on top of the profit-driven ones.

  I am certainly not saying that all profit-making enterprises are helpful, nor that all forms of help are profitable. But a lot of the easiest help to provide - even for the poorest - is already being provided by people who are doing it to make money.

• Governments. When a market failure is clear and severe, the government often steps in. Many feel it does not step in enough or that it does more harm than good, but the fact remains that much of the “lowest-hanging fruit” for helping people where markets won’t is covered by governments. Low-income people in the U.S. get free education with high teacher attendance rates, free emergency medical care, and cash among other things. People in the developing-world get far less from their governments, but most governments still provide a good deal of free medical care.
• Local philanthropy and community. When it comes to market failures that the government has failed to address, there are still often local nonprofits - and just local people - who are well placed to step in quickly and effectively. This is not an endorsement of small community-based organizations as giving opportunities for individual donors outside the community. If you’re outside the community you’re trying to help, you’re going to have trouble figuring out what the real problems are and who ought to be funded to address them; the people in the community will often be better placed to help, by donating and otherwise, than you are.
• Big foundations. There are opportunities to help that are missed by for-profits, governments, and locals. There are many extremely well-funded and well-staffed foundations looking for just these opportunities.
• Other donors. If you want your donation to have an impact, you need to find opportunities that have been missed not only by all the groups above, but by other individual donors. Our focus on room for more funding is an attempt to deal with this situation.

In my view, the wealthier the community, the more effective the first three items above (for-profits, government and locals) will be in addressing their problems. Therefore, if you want to find opportunities to provide help that isn’t already being given, you probably need to look at the world’s poorest communities - but doing that probably means helping people who are very far away and very culturally different from yourself, and you have to find opportunities that haven’t already been found by the big foundations or other donors.

When a donor says, “I have $1000 that I’d like to use to help someone,” it may not sound like they’re asking for much. But on reflection, I think they’re really saying, “I’m looking for someone who needs help that they can’t get from a company, their government, their community, or any other donor big or small - and I expect to provide this help just by sending a $1000 check, despite having very little experience or knowledge of the situation.”

Put this way, the donor’s request sounds somewhat exorbitant, and it seems that we shouldn’t expect them to be able to accomplish much with their $1000. Yet as it turns out, I believe that (if they take the rare opportunities that we highlight at GiveWell) they can often use that money to save a life. I think this is a somewhat shocking observation and that it reflects serious problems with the nonprofit ecosystem.

I also think we shouldn’t expect this to be the situation indefinitely. I hope that as the world gets better at providing help to those who need it, all the opportunities to save a life for $1000 will be snapped up more quickly. That will leave GiveWell customers - individual donors looking to help people they’ve never met and know little about - with much less exciting options, and that’s how it should be.

We ask you, as a donor, to turn down some great pitches – “Your interest-free loan will help this person escape poverty forever,” “You can give a cow to a poor family for Christmas,” etc. – and give instead to charities that aren’t terribly good at storytelling. Why?

It comes down to this. We think that most of those stories are just that – stories. (For more, see our summary of recent posts on “big-name” charities, which we feel are representative of the full set of charities we’ve reviewed.) But if you give to one of our top charities, you really can save (or dramatically change) a human life.

It hasn’t been easy to find charities that we can honestly say this about. That’s what our process is built around and where most of our energy goes. This week we’ve blogged about the best we’ve found, VillageReach and Stop Tuberculosis Partnership. There is plenty of room for doubt even with them, but overall we think there is a strong case - even for the skeptic - that your donation to them can save a life.

What do we mean when we say “save a life?”

By “you can save a life,” we don’t mean anything as simple, concrete, or easy to grasp as the stories charities usually tell.

• Your gift can’t literally be linked to an individual. It will help an organization that, all things considered, is achieving a lot of impact for what it spends.
• If you must know what “your” dollars are doing, it’s likely that they’ll be sitting in reserves to ensure financial stability, or enabling a slightly larger travel budget for evaluators, or something similarly unexciting.
• It’s even highly possible that your donations will be wasted, and that the charity you give to – even the best you can find – will fail. We don’t think there are true guarantees in aid.
• Even if these charities are succeeding, it’s very likely that your donation won’t ultimately result in the charity doing anything differently. It’s pretty hard to think about how $1000, by itself, could really change anything about Stop TB Partnership’s plans for next year.
• Yet donations add up. 50-100 of these donations could mean a significantly larger grant, more people getting tuberculosis treatment … and that could mean families staying intact instead of being struck by sudden death.

The truth is that it takes a lot of abstraction and analytical thinking to really think about how your donation saves a life. The life you can save is an “expected” life (”expected” in the sense of probabilistic expected value) - it isn’t a person we can point to or show you a picture of. More than with typical charities, you have to use your imagination. But more than with typical charities, your impact is real.

With opportunity comes responsibility

In The Life You Can Save (which prominently features GiveWell and which we have reviewed), Peter Singer writes:

By donating a relatively small amount of money, you could save a child’s life … we all spend money on things we don’t really need, whether on drinks, meals out, clothing, movies, concerts, vacations, new cars, or house renovation. Is it possible that by choosing to spend your money on such things rather than contributing to an aid agency, you are leaving a child to die, a child you could have saved? (pg 5)

Our corollary: is it possible that you are leaving a child to die when you choose to donate to a charity with a “feel-good” story rather than a charity with a great case for real impact?

It is true that, as our critics often point out, a charity can be impactful without being demonstrably impactful. But when one charity proves itself and another leaves you guessing, it seems clear to us which one offers the “better bet” – and more “expected lives saved” – given the information available. When you have the option of giving to an outstanding charity that demonstrably can save a life, how do you justify giving to a charity whose true impact is essentially a big question mark?

I’ll leave this blog’s last words for 2009 to Natalie, a relatively recent GiveWell hire (she has been working full-time on research since July).

Sometimes I’m almost tempted to give to a charity I know less about. I’ve been over VillageReach and I’ve seen how complex the situation is and how many questions there are. If I gave to some charity I know nothing about, I could just think about the story they tell and feel good and not have these nagging doubts. But I’m not going to do that – in the end it’s more important to me that I really make a difference.

One person who’s more critical of charity than we are or than David Hunter is is the economist Robin Hanson. He has stated that “charity isn’t about helping” and spelled out this view somewhat in a post about the founder of Rite Aid:

when folks like Alex spend their later years trying to “do good” with the millions they were paid for actually doing good, they usually end up pissing it away. We already have too much medicine and academia, because such things are mainly wasteful signals. We didn’t need and shouldn’t be thankful for more hospital wings or lecture halls. Imagine how much more good could have been done instead via millions spent trying to make more innovative products or organizations.

Of course most innovations attempts fail, and that wouldn’t have looked so good for Mr. Grass. I’m sure those hospital wings and lecture halls came with grand ceremonies attended by folks in his social circle, saying what a great guy he was. And I expect people in his social circle are more likely than most to actually use those hospital wings and lecture halls; he was showing loyalty to his clan by buying such things.

But when I think of all the good that could be done by philanthropists who actually wanted more to do good than to look good, it makes me sad. At it doesn’t make me sympathetic toward the tax deductions and other social support our society offers for these wasteful signals.

Prof. Hanson tends to imply that charitable giving should be essentially ignored in favor of pro-poor causes like allowing more immigration.

What response can the nonprofit sector marshal to arguments like this? I must say that, in fact, much of the nonprofit sector fits incredibly better into Prof. Hanson’s view of charity as “wasteful signaling” than into the traditional view of charity as helping.

• Donors often prefer to “give local.” This makes no sense if you’re trying to help those in need (if you have a lot of disposable income, chances are your community is one of the ones that needs your help the least) but lots of sense if donating is primarily about impressing your acquaintances.
• Foundations generally try to exist in perpetuity, which makes no sense if they’re trying to maximize good accomplished but makes lots of sense if they’re all about their funder’s legacy.
• Donors and charities tend to deny the basic concept of triage. This makes no sense if you’re trying to help people; lots of sense if you’re using charity as a way to signal that you find certain causes important.
• Even analytical hedge fund types seem much more interested in basing their giving on social events than on information.
• And as we’ve argued at length, charities fundamentally behave as though they’re serving donors, not clients.

Perhaps ironically, if you want a good response to Prof. Hanson’s view, I can’t think of a better place to turn than GiveWell’s top-rated charities. We have done the legwork to identify charities that can convincingly demonstrate positive impact. No matter what one thinks of the sector as a whole, they can’t argue that there are no good charitable options - charities that really will use your money to help people - except by engaging with the specifics of these charities’ strong evidence.

Valid observations that the sector is broken - or not designed around helping people - are no longer an excuse not to give.

Because our Bayesian prior is so skeptical, we end up with charities that you can be confident in, almost no matter where you’re coming from.