The GiveWell Blog

Notes from November convening on our policy priorities

(updated on: ) | by Holden

Last November, we held a day-long convening in Washington, D.C. to discuss possible priorities for Open Philanthropy Project work on U.S. policy.

Our main goal was to present our picture of several policy issues, as well as to receive input to inform upcoming decisions about which issue(s) we should focus on. For each issue, we laid out what sort of change we’d like to see, why we find the issue especially promising for philanthropy, what the current landscape looks like (including other funders), and what possible strategies might look like. We sought feedback on all of these points, as well as ideas for promising issue areas and promising strategies that haven’t occurred to us.

We’ve now posted a summary of points raised at the convening, a partial list of participants, and the briefing materials for the convening here:

Page on Nov. 10 policy convening

Many points were raised at the convening, and it served as an input into our overall strategy setting on U.S. policy (which we will be writing more about). Some of the highlights, from our perspective, were:

  • We had a fair amount of discussion of active vs. passive funding. Our discussion reinforced the importance of finding people we’re comfortable giving unrestricted support to if possible, while being willing to make compromises and engage in some degree of “active funding” on particular issues.
  • Reactions to the causes we’re considering varied considerably. Participants were generally quite positive on macroeconomic policy (feeling that aspects of it are under-attended to) and criminal justice reform (seeing, as we do, a window of opportunity). By contrast, there was a much more mixed and hesitant reaction to some other causes we’re considering, such as labor mobility. We aren’t necessarily inclined to favor the causes that received a more positive reaction, since we see a great deal of value in working on issues whose value isn’t widely recognized. However, hearing the different reactions helped us understand which of our potential causes might present particular challenges in terms of communications and coalition building.
  • We discussed the goal of strengthening the general community that shares our policy priorities (in particular, prioritizing both economic efficiency and global humanitarianism). One idea that came up in this regard was that of funding scholarships and fellowships, in order to encourage people to get interested in issues we consider important early in their careers. However, the convening also reinforced our view that this sort of goal will probably be easier to work on after we’ve done more concrete work and gained experience, strengthened our networks, etc.
  • We got many suggestions for potential causes to look into.

GiveWell is hiring

(updated on: ) | by Sean

We’re resuming hiring to expand our ability to identify outstanding giving opportunities. Filling the roles below would make a substantial difference to our research.

If you follow GiveWell and want to help us out, please share this post with anyone whom you think might be a good fit for the jobs listed below.

  • Research Analyst. Research Analysts are GiveWell’s primary staff and work on all parts of our research process. We hope to add a few entry-level research analysts this year, and are open to hiring individuals later in their career.
  • Summer Research Analyst. We offer summer positions to students entering their final year of undergraduate or graduate school with the hopes that they will become full-time employees following graduation.
  • Outreach Associate. Outreach Associate is a new position we’re hiring for. The role will have some overlap with that of a Research Analyst, but has a particular focus on outreach and communication with donors.
  • Conversation Notes Writer. Conversation notes are a key part of our research process. Conversation Notes Writers listen to conversations conducted by GiveWell staff and produce summaries. This position is flexible: it can be done from anywhere in the world at any time of day, but we ask for people who can commit at least 10 hours per week. We are currently looking to find 1-2 additional Conversation Notes Writers.

Putting the problem of bed nets used for fishing in perspective

(updated on: ) | by Jake Marcus

A recent article in the New York Times describes people using insecticide treated bed nets for fishing instead of sleeping under the nets to protect themselves from malaria-carrying mosquitoes. The article warns that fishing with insecticide treated nets may deplete fish stocks, because the mosquito nets trap more fish than traditional fishing nets and because the insecticide contaminates the water and kills fish (“the risks to people are minimal, because the dosages are relatively low and humans metabolize permethrin [the insecticide] quickly”). We recommend donating to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), an organization that funds distributions of long-lasting insecticide treated bed nets, so we’d like to address the concerns raised in the article.

Net distributions funded by the Against Malaria Foundation

We have reasonably high confidence that most people properly use the nets funded by AMF, because AMF requires distribution partners to conduct follow-up surveys on net use. These surveys show that 80% to 90% of households have nets hung up 6 months after distributions (for more detail, see our charity report on AMF). The survey methodology also dictates that interviewers observe whether survey respondents have hung their nets by entering their houses rather than simply asking them if they’ve hung their nets. We believe that the concerns raised in the article largely don’t apply to net distributions funded by AMF.

The prevalence of unintended use of nets

For net distributions more generally, the best data available indicates that usage rates range from 60% to 80%. Surveys asking respondents if they use their nets generally show usage rates of around 90%, but respondents may not want to report that they use nets in ways unintended by donors. One small-scale study found a usage rate of around 70% based on spot visits to homes compared to a usage rate of around 85% based on asking people, so our best guess comes from adjusting the survey rates downwards to correct for overreporting (for more detail, see our intervention report on long-lasting insecticide treated nets). Even taking into account the fact that some people won’t sleep under their nets, the program remains one of the most cost-effective ways to save lives. Given the very large numbers of bed nets distributed, we do not find stories of unintended use in a few areas particularly surprising. We view the anecdotes related in the article as unlikely to be representative of a problem that would change our assessment of the program.

The evidence on possible harm to fish stocks

Besides the harm caused by some people contracting malaria because they don’t sleep under their nets, which we already account for in our cost-effectiveness analysis, the article warns that fishing with insecticide treated nets may deplete fish stocks. In making this case, the article cites only one study, which reports that about 90% of households in villages along Lake Tanganyika used bed nets to fish. It doesn’t cite any studies examining the connection between bed nets and depleted fish stocks more directly. The article states that “Recent hydroacoustic surveys show that Zambia’s fish populations are dwindling” and “recent surveys show that Madagascar’s industrial shrimp catch plummeted to 3,143 tons in 2010 from 8,652 tons in 2002,” but declines in fish populations and shrimp catch may have causes other than mosquito net-fishing.

It’s worth comparing the evidence presented by this article to the evidence available on the benefits of bed nets. Randomized control trials consistently show large declines in child mortality from distributing nets and trends in malaria mortality and net coverage rates also suggest that mass distribution of mosquito nets has contributed to major declines in the burden of the disease. This evidence comprises one of the most robust cases for impact we’ve seen. The article makes the case for a possible harm to fish stocks relying on highly limited evidence.

Malaria control in waterside, food-insecure communities

The article does highlight a potential need to experiment with alternative approaches to malaria control in waterside, food-insecure communities that have very low net usage rates. In these areas, people shouldn’t have to choose between malaria and hunger. But again, we see this as a likely isolated problem, and a much smaller one than the problem of insufficient nets for preventing malaria.

Conclusion

We generally like to see reporting on both the successes and failures of foreign aid. However, we felt the reporting in this case presented an unbalanced view of the magnitudes of the benefits and harms of distributing bed nets.

Organizations promoting generous, effective giving

(updated on: ) | by Holden

GiveWell focuses on doing high-quality research on where to give; we put relatively little effort into marketing, community building, or encouraging people to give more. We’d like to give a shout out to some organizations – most of them relatively young – that do focus on this important work.

Giving What We Can is an international society dedicated to eliminating extreme poverty. It provides a variety of resources to encourage people to give generously, including a membership pledge for lifetime giving of 10% of income, a “try giving” program for shorter and more flexible giving commitments, and a variety of local chapters currently in the U.S., U.K. and Australia. It also encourages people to give as effectively as they can, with a similar definition of effectiveness to ours, and its charity recommendations draw on our research. Giving What We Can is part of the Centre for Effective Altruism, which engages in a variety of projects around the ideas of effective altruism.

The Life You Can Save is an organization founded by the philosopher Peter Singer (who has been one of the most influential advocates for using GiveWell’s research). It spreads awareness of things people can do to fight extreme poverty through a blog, outreach events, and a worldwide network of regional community groups. The Life You Can Save also provides a list of charity recommendations that draws on our research and encourages people to pledge a percentage of their income to these charities (the recommended percentage scales with income level).

Charity Science aims to educate the public about the “science of doing good.” It aims to make research on good giving more accessible and entertaining, and encourages donations to our recommended charities. It does so by running small-scale experiments to see what works and what doesn’t in spreading the word. Experiments have included encouraging birthday and Christmas fundraisers, where people ask for donations instead of material possessions. Charity Science also provides education through write ups, infographics, and presentations.

Raising for Effective Giving (REG), a project of GBS Switzerland, is a community of poker players interested in making a positive impact. It encourages poker players to pledge at least 2% of their gross winnings (which REG states generally translates to 5-10% of net income) to its recommended charities. Its recommendations are a mix of GiveWell-recommended charities and effective-altruism-associated organizations. The first- and third-place finishers in the most recent World Series of Poker Main Event were REG members.

Update on GiveWell’s web traffic / money moved: Q3 2014

(updated on: ) | by Natalie Crispin

This post covers the first three quarters of 2014 and is being published late due to staff focusing on updating GiveWell’s charity recommendations in the fourth quarter.

In addition to evaluations of other charities, GiveWell publishes substantial evaluation of itself, from the quality of its research to its impact on donations. We publish quarterly updates regarding two key metrics: (a) donations to top charities and (b) web traffic.

The table and chart below present basic information about our growth in money moved and web traffic in the first three quarters of 2014 (note 1).

Money moved: first three quarters

Growth in money moved, as measured by donations from donors giving less than $5,000 per year, continued to slow in the third quarter of 2014 compared with the first and second quarters, and was substantially weaker than growth in the first three quarters of 2013.

The total amount of money we move is driven by a relatively small number of large donors. These donors tend to give in December, and we don’t think we have accurate ways of predicting future large gifts (note 2). We therefore show growth among small donors, the portion of our money moved about which we think we have meaningful information at this point in the year.

Web traffic through November 2014

We show web analytics data from two sources: Clicky and Google Analytics. The data on visitors to our website differs between the two sources. We do not know the cause of discrepancy (though a volunteer with a relevant technical background looked at the data for us to try to find the cause; he didn’t find any obvious problems with the data). (Note on how we count unique visitors.)

Traffic from AdWords decreased in the first three quarters because in early 2014 we removed ads on searches that we determined were not driving high quality traffic to our site (i.e. searches with very high bounce rates and very low pages per visit).

Data in the chart below is an average of Clicky and Google Analytics data, except for those months for which we only have data (or reliable data) from one source.

The raw data we used to generate the chart and table above is in this spreadsheet.

Slowing growth?

The above indicates that our growth slowed significantly in 2014 relative to last year (and previous years). It is possible that the numbers above are affected by the fact that (a) growth in the second quarter of 2013 was particularly strong due to a series of media mentions (as we previously noted) or (b) differences in the way that our recommended charities track donations (we would guess that this could explain a difference of a few hundred donors). Our guess is that both of these factors contribute but do not fully explain the slower growth.

Note 1: Since our 2012 annual metrics report we have shifted to a reporting year that starts on February 1, rather than January 1, in order to better capture year-on-year growth in the peak giving months of December and January. Therefore metrics for the “first three quarters” reported here are for February through September.

Note 2: In total, GiveWell donors have directed $3.76 million to our top charities this year, compared with $2.16 million at this point in 2013. For the reason described above, we don’t find this number to be particularly meaningful at this time of year.

Note 3: We count unique visitors over a period as the sum of monthly unique visitors. In other words, if the same person visits the site multiple times in a calendar month, they are counted once. If they visit in multiple months, they are counted once per month.

Google Analytics provides ‘unique visitors by traffic source’ while Clicky provides only ‘visitors by traffic source.’ For that reason, we primarily use Google Analytics data in the calculations of ‘unique visitors ex-AdWords’ for both the Clicky and Google Analytics rows of the table.

 

December 2014 update on GiveWell’s funding needs

(updated on: ) | by Elie

This post provides an update on GiveWell’s operating budget and funding needs. It is aimed at close followers of GiveWell, particularly those who have a high degree of trust in and alignment with us and are primarily seeking to make the highest-impact gift according to our (admittedly biased) opinion.

Our opinion is that for such people (as opposed to the bulk of our donors, who we feel place more emphasis on neutral recommendations, evidence bases, etc.), direct, predictable support of GiveWell represents the highest-impact giving opportunity.

Below, we provide more details on our current funding situation. For more background on our philosophy on fundraising, see our October 2013 post.

What are our current projected revenues and expenses?

We currently project 2015 revenues of $2.16 million and expenses of $2.33 million. We held $1.73 million in reserves at the end of October (the last month for which we closed our books before updating our budget forecast). Because we receive a large portion of our annual funding in December (approximately 40%), this tends to be the time of year when our reserves are lowest.

Our budget file (.xlsx) provides additional detail.

Our projected revenues include donations we expect to recur in the future (because donors have either explicitly told us that they would give again or because they have given consistently enough in the past that we expect their donations to recur) as well as some expectation that (a) some portion of lower probability donations recur and (b) organic growth in unrestricted revenues continues.

Our projected expenses include our best guesses about the number of staff we plan to add (erring on the conservative side — we’d prefer to project an additional hire we don’t make than lack the funds to hire someone outstanding) and the salaries we anticipate paying them.

How has our fundraising and budget situation changed over the past year?

Our staff grew substantially since the end of 2013. We made 7 additional hires in 2014 to bring our total staff size to 18. We also work with 7 conversation notes writers who produce high-quality summaries of conversations we have with experts.

We anticipate staff continuing to grow in 2015. We made several offers to summer research analysts, two of whom (so far) have accepted our offer of employment, and we project some additional hiring. In 2014, we also increased salaries for all staff who had been with us at least a year commensurate with their additional experience and contributions and GiveWell’s increased influence.

Some of this new staff has supported the Open Philanthropy Project, but most have primarily worked on our traditional work focused on top charities. We were able to produce in-depth reviews of significantly more charities than we had in the recent past while much of our senior staff time has gone to continuing our progress on the Open Philanthropy Project; this was made possible by the new staff we have brought on over the past 18 months.

Currently, we estimate that approximately 50% of our unrestricted funding supports the Open Philanthropy Project and 50% supports our traditional, top charities work. In addition, Good Ventures made a $675,000 grant in November 2013 to support research-related expenses for the Open Philanthropy Project.

At what point would we consider our funding gap closed?

At the point where we hit our excess assets policy, we would regrant any funds given to GiveWell to our recommended charities.

Using a conservative revenue projection (which we believe is appropriate when considering granting out funds), we project 12-month-forward expenses as of November 2015 (i.e., expenses we would incur from November 2015 to October 2016) of $1.76 million more than what we project holding in reserves. Therefore, we would require $1.76 million in additional funding before we would begin to grant out funds.

Under a different, less conservative revenue projection, we project 12-month-forward expenses as of November 2015 that are approximately $1.16 million higher than the reserves we project holding. Were we to receive $1.16 million more than we currently project, we would likely no longer encourage additional donors to give to us as strongly as we do today (e.g., via blog posts like this).

What will we do if we raise more or less funding than we anticipate?

If we raise more funding than we anticipate, we would likely reduce the staff time we put into fundraising. This is currently quite low but accounts for, on average, approximately 5 hours per month each from Elie, Holden, and Natalie, time that would otherwise be devoted to research. We currently plan to maintain this level of time commitment to fundraising and are optimistic that posts like this enable us to raise the funding we need without devoting more time to fundraising.

If we raise less funding than we anticipate, Elie and Holden would spend more time on fundraising. If this step didn’t succeed in raising the funding we need, we would consider the following options (likely in this order): (a) slowing or halting planned staff expansion, (b) requesting additional funding from Good Ventures, and (c) laying off staff. Note that we believe these scenarios are extremely unlikely given our current situation, but we require continued, growing support to ensure that we avoid them.

Are GiveWell’s projected operating expenses reasonable or excessive in light of its impact?

We anticipate 2014 money moved to top charities of approximately $25 million and project expenses in 2015 of $2.27 million. We previously wrote that we believe expenses that are 15% of money moved are well within the range of normal.

Good Ventures also directed an additional $8.4 million to funding opportunities identified by the Open Philanthropy Project. In 2014, we project spending approximately $300,000 of the Good Ventures’ research grant mentioned above.

What is our recommendation?

For donors who have a high degree of trust in and alignment with GiveWell, we recommend unrestricted gifts to GiveWell.

For donors who want to support our work because they value it but are otherwise primarily interested in supporting charities based on neutral recommendations, strong evidence, etc., we recommend giving 10% of their donation to GiveWell.

You can do this by sending us a check and filling out our check donation form (details on our donate page) with the allocation for your donation. If you’d like to give 90% of your gift to GiveWell for regranting to top charities and 10% to GiveWell unrestricted you can do so via this page: select the “grants to recommended charities (90%) and unrestricted (10%) option.