4 ms·

One doesn't need to do better, just less than 21% worse: http://files.givewell.org/files/ClearFund/Clear_Fund_Form_990_2016_Redacted.pdf http://files.givewell.o

• myroon5 9y ago
  any further explanation? Not sure what we should be looking for in these 40+ pages
  • math_and_stuff 9y ago
    The first page (no snark intended) shows that about 21% of the income goes to salaries, and 79% passes to charities. Regardless of what one's conclusions are on whether this is an acceptable overhead, it is an important consideration in how "efficient" it is to donate through GW rather than directly to your favorite charity.
    • myroon5 9y ago
      They also publicly list their chosen most effective charities, so you can always donate to those directly instead of through GiveWell. I'd imagine this is common, and a lot of additional external donations result from their research. They try to estimate their overall impact here: https://www.givewell.org/about/impact https://www.givewell.org/about/impact. Also, feel free to disagree, but you might find their argument that expense ratios should not be the most important charity metric interesting: https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a-charity/ https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/01/the-worst-way-to-pick-a...
      • TeMPOraL 9y ago
        Exactly. It's literally the first time I hear of giving to GW. I always thought everyone uses them as a ranking of what charities to give directly to.
• gowld 9y ago
  21% overhead doesn't say how effective their program spend is.