The first question I have for any charity is, “What do you do?” Not “What are you trying to accomplish?” (example: “Fight AIDS”) but “What activities are you carrying out and where?” (example: “School-based education programs emphasizing protection in Mozambique”).

It’s a simple question, and an obviously important one: as the Disease Control Priorities Report makes quite clear, some program types have strong track records and some have none (or negative) track records.

But at least in the area of international aid, “What do you do?” can be a difficult question to answer.

Example: Africare

Take Africare for example. Go to the homepage and you’ll see press releases from scattered programs. Click Programs and you’ll see goals/categories (“HIV/AIDS,” “Health,” etc.) Clicking Learn more for HIV/AIDS takes you to an overview of the problem of HIV/AIDS. Now an “Africare Programs” tab appears at the top, giving you the following list:

• HIV prevention
• HIV/AIDS counseling and testing
• Treatment, palliative care and other support for people living with HIV, AIDS and TB/HIV
• Support for AIDS orphans

The 2nd and 3rd of these are fairly clear (though these activities do come in different “flavors” – for example, ART treatment with and without supplementary feeding). The 4th eventually links to another page with more detail. But “HIV prevention” can mean many things: abstinence education, prevention education, peer-based/school-based/media-based programs, condom distribution, circumcision and more. And, we still don’t know where any of this takes place.

In Africare’s case, the answer to my question turns out to be on pages 19-22 of the Annual Report. Africare runs a dizzying array of programs, each sponsored by a particular set of donors. To me it appears to be almost a “subcontractor” organization, carrying out what its major donors want rather than pursuing any particular strategy of its own. (More on this idea in a future post.)

No help from the Form 990

The IRS Form 990 is supposed to be the source for basic public information on a charity. But while it tells you plenty about revenues, expenses, and assets, it rarely answers the “What do you do?” question. Charities are asked only to provide only a brief, overarching mission statement.

As a result, you can’t find out what Africare does from its GuideStar report (free registration required) or its Charity Navigator report.

Creating a database

We wish there were a database that told us what activities charities carry out and where. Such a database wouldn’t, by itself, answer the “Where should I donate?” question we’re eventually trying to get to. But it would be a huge help, and it doesn’t exist right now.

So we’re trying to create it. We’ve found that you can usually uncover what a charity does with enough digging (as in the above case). Now we’re trying to capture this information for all or nearly all international aid organizations that are (a) relatively large (b) US-registered public charities.

This is the main work we’re looking for a prospective new hire to do.

Nicholas Kristof chimes in. Our previous coverage here.

We want to thank the people who have invested the most of their own time and/or money to date. We’re lucky to be working on a project that brings out the passion and energy of such great people.

Our donors and GiveWell Pledgers. Now including not only former coworkers, but ~60 people with no previous connection to us who have donated or pledged. These “early adopters” are putting big chunks of their charitable budget behind our research – adding evidence, one donor at a time, to the notion that proving effectiveness can be a fundraising strategy.

Our Board of Directors, which has significantly stepped up its involvement and commitment this year.

Omar K, Gordon S, Tom R, and Ari H, who have been particularly aggressive – and successful – in getting us in front of potential donors and pledgers.

Simon K, Nick B, Brian S, Ron N, and Damian B, our strongest volunteers. They’ve done valuable work for our developing-world research.

Rob S and Phil S, who have taken on “mentor” roles, providing regular feedback on our plans and progress.

Peter Singer, Matthew Bonds, and Molly M, who act as “research advisors”: people with significant on-the-ground aid experience and/or significant knowledge of relevant literature, who provide regular feedback on our ongoing research.

Miriam M, Teddy K, David C, and Jordan of Fresh Milk Design for their feedback on our marketing materials and efforts.

Our friends and family for continuing to put up with us.

We are looking to hire a Research Analyst to help us collect and analyze data on several hundred international charities, and ultimately identify the ones that can best use donations to change lives. If you believe you are a good fit – or know someone who is – please send a resume to info@givewell.net.

About the role

We are currently conducting an in-depth examination of international aid charities. At first, the Analyst will focus on helping us to collect information from charities’ websites and annual reports about what sorts of programs they run; we will match this information with academic literature on which sorts of programs are highly cost-effective, in order to identify charities with the greatest potential to have a real impact. Over time, the Analyst may become a permanent member of our research team, with broader responsibilities.

This is an entry-level, full-time position. The start date will be on or before Jan. 1. You must have permission to work in the U.S.

No particular experience or skills are required. Instead, we are looking for a quick learner and independent thinker, with genuine passion for our mission and interest in our work.

The Analyst will be our third employee. The first two are located in New York City and Boston. The new employee can work from anywhere as long as s/he is accessible via phone and IM. This role is full-time, but will be terminated within a few months if the fit is not good. It is not a good fit for someone whose primary concern is job security. It is an excellent fit for someone who is genuinely passionate about our vision of a world where charities raise money not just by traditional marketing techniques, but by truly demonstrating their ability to change lives.

Philanthropy Action (co-maintained by Board member Tim Ogden) has an interview up with Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, principals of the Poverty Action Lab (one of our favorite groups). This quote (from Esther Duflo) particularly resonated with me:

There is no evaluation yet of the impact of a microfinance loan – we have the first preliminary results ever of the impact of a plain vanilla, group lending microfinance model. That’s it. It is not as if there have been mixed results before now. The studies don’t exist. And that is microfinance, where there are already a hundred economists studying it.

Microfinance fortunately did not go out of fashion before [randomized evaluation] came into fashion, so we have a chance to have a meeting of minds here. But other things did. Take fertilizer subsidies: at first they were fashionable, now they are unfashionable. In the meantime we have not learned what fertilizer subsidies do. They might be good or bad, at this point I don’t know. They’re coming back in fashion, by the way. All of this without a single piece of evidence about whether a subsidy changes the demand for fertilizer. This is just one example of what to me is the biggest mistake, which is doing the same things over and over and over again without learning from the experience, whether it is fertilizer subsidies or microfinance.

I recommend the whole thing.