3 ms·

I usually follow Givewell's recommendations as they do a ton of research into which charities have the most impact (the maximum lives saved per $). I also like

I usually follow Givewell's recommendations as they do a ton of research into which charities have the most impact (the maximum lives saved per $). I also like to give to some far future stuff, usually those associated or endorsed by the Effective Altruism movement just in case AI risk becomes a reality https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.givewell.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

cphoover 7y ago
What are your thoughts on https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/?
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  Charity Navigatior and many similar sites fixate on unhelpful stats like the percent of the budget "wasted" on admin expenses and overhead to an unhealthy degree. To operate effectively charities need to spend money on high quality leadership and support staff, and while doing good motivates many to accept lower pay they can still be pricey. Furthermore, the more complicated what the charity is doing the more it generally costs to hire competent employees. If a charity wants to hire employees to rigorously evaluate whether their interventions are working, this will also add to overhead. More controversially, I think the fixation on charity CEO pay is also misguided. They still generally earn less than they could working for similar non-charitable organizations, and being good at CEO-ing is a difficult skill. Hiring a bad CEO can tank an organization. (It's definitely also possible to spend a lot of money on a bad CEO, it's not a guarantee of quality.) In fact, higher overhead (a negative factor in Charity Navigator's score) correlates with a better Givewell recommendation. > The mean of the fundraising expense ratio for charities (the money spent on fundraising divided by the total expenses of the entire organization) that earned a gold, silver, or notable rating by Givewell (41 charities) is 0.073, while that of the charities reviewed by Givewell but not ranked well (253 charities) is 0.054 (p-value of 0.05, i.e., statistically significant at the 95% level). The mean of the administrative expense ratio for charities that earned a gold, silver, or notable rating by Givewell is 0.102, while that of the charities reviewed by Givewell but not ranked well is 0.092 (p-value of 0.35). Adding administrative and fundraising together, the mean ratio for charities that earned a gold, silver, or notable rating by Givewell is 0.174, while that of the charities reviewed by Givewell but not ranked well is 0.147 (p-value of 0.11). (Note that I weakly suspect this person might be misusing p-values, and should be less confident in the causal nature of this correlation. However, that is still sufficient to prove that overhead isn't inherently evil) http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-administrative-expenses-is-a-bad-idea/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-...
- jlebar 7y ago
  > What are your thoughts on https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/? Not really the same thing as GiveWell's analysis. To use the first example I checked, compare https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3809 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... to https://www.givewell.org/International/charities/Heifer-Project-International https://www.givewell.org/International/charities/Heifer-Proj...
psim1 7y ago
As an analytical person I understand the value of maximum economic efficiency and value measured in these terms. On the other hand when it comes to humanitarian concerns, the human element can be somewhat more expensive and less efficient than (for example) airlifted bags of grain, but far more valuable and encouraging to the recipients. Programs like child sponsorship with letter-writing are expensive and not nearly as efficient as straight up meal delivery, but the impact, as evidenced by the children’s handwritten replies, seems to be significant in non tangible ways.
- Tyr42 7y ago
  I think the cannonical "efficient" charity would be incenticide treated bug nets. Against Malaria Foundation distributes them to entire villages, but the largest effect is for children 5 and under, for who catching malaria is much more likely to be fatal. Grain has some potential negative effects, squashing local food industry, etc, but it's not like domestic bug net companies and a key part of the economy in the same way farming is. I dunno, I feel like stopping kids from dying is better to focus on first compared to letter writing. But I'm a bit of a Utilitarian, and an aspie, so perhaps I undervalue the human element.
  - psim1 7y ago
    I’m for a both-and approach. But if you can only do one thing, save people through “utilitarian” means.
- jlebar 7y ago
  I don't think GiveWell would rule out a charity because it considers the human element in a way that makes it less economically efficient. The question is just, is it overall more efficient at broadly "bettering people's lives" in a way they can measure? That's it. If you can show that letter writing is a worthy trade-off by e.g. looking at long-term impacts, I'm sure they'd be for it. Perhaps you object to the fact that they require measurement. Fair enough, the best things in life are free. But the "bags of grain" (really, "bags of malaria pills") approach is already at a disadvantage to the "give someone a flock of chickens" approach, because the latter tells a story and tugs at our hearts. That doesn't mean it's worse, but I think GiveWell's thesis is, that also doesn't mean it's better.
alexhutcheson 7y ago
I just give to GiveWell and let them distribute the money. I believe in their research and their approach, and I trust them to allocate donations efficiently.

cphoover 7y ago

What are your thoughts on https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/?

iudqnolq 7y ago
Charity Navigatior and many similar sites fixate on unhelpful stats like the percent of the budget "wasted" on admin expenses and overhead to an unhealthy degree. To operate effectively charities need to spend money on high quality leadership and support staff, and while doing good motivates many to accept lower pay they can still be pricey. Furthermore, the more complicated what the charity is doing the more it generally costs to hire competent employees. If a charity wants to hire employees to rigorously evaluate whether their interventions are working, this will also add to overhead. More controversially, I think the fixation on charity CEO pay is also misguided. They still generally earn less than they could working for similar non-charitable organizations, and being good at CEO-ing is a difficult skill. Hiring a bad CEO can tank an organization. (It's definitely also possible to spend a lot of money on a bad CEO, it's not a guarantee of quality.) In fact, higher overhead (a negative factor in Charity Navigator's score) correlates with a better Givewell recommendation. > The mean of the fundraising expense ratio for charities (the money spent on fundraising divided by the total expenses of the entire organization) that earned a gold, silver, or notable rating by Givewell (41 charities) is 0.073, while that of the charities reviewed by Givewell but not ranked well (253 charities) is 0.054 (p-value of 0.05, i.e., statistically significant at the 95% level). The mean of the administrative expense ratio for charities that earned a gold, silver, or notable rating by Givewell is 0.102, while that of the charities reviewed by Givewell but not ranked well is 0.092 (p-value of 0.35). Adding administrative and fundraising together, the mean ratio for charities that earned a gold, silver, or notable rating by Givewell is 0.174, while that of the charities reviewed by Givewell but not ranked well is 0.147 (p-value of 0.11). (Note that I weakly suspect this person might be misusing p-values, and should be less confident in the causal nature of this correlation. However, that is still sufficient to prove that overhead isn't inherently evil) http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-administrative-expenses-is-a-bad-idea/ http://freakonomics.com/2011/06/09/why-ranking-charities-by-...
jlebar 7y ago
> What are your thoughts on https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/? Not really the same thing as GiveWell's analysis. To use the first example I checked, compare https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3809 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... to https://www.givewell.org/International/charities/Heifer-Project-International https://www.givewell.org/International/charities/Heifer-Proj...

psim1 7y ago

As an analytical person I understand the value of maximum economic efficiency and value measured in these terms. On the other hand when it comes to humanitarian concerns, the human element can be somewhat more expensive and less efficient than (for example) airlifted bags of grain, but far more valuable and encouraging to the recipients. Programs like child sponsorship with letter-writing are expensive and not nearly as efficient as straight up meal delivery, but the impact, as evidenced by the children’s handwritten replies, seems to be significant in non tangible ways.

Tyr42 7y ago
I think the cannonical "efficient" charity would be incenticide treated bug nets. Against Malaria Foundation distributes them to entire villages, but the largest effect is for children 5 and under, for who catching malaria is much more likely to be fatal. Grain has some potential negative effects, squashing local food industry, etc, but it's not like domestic bug net companies and a key part of the economy in the same way farming is. I dunno, I feel like stopping kids from dying is better to focus on first compared to letter writing. But I'm a bit of a Utilitarian, and an aspie, so perhaps I undervalue the human element.
- psim1 7y ago
  I’m for a both-and approach. But if you can only do one thing, save people through “utilitarian” means.
jlebar 7y ago
I don't think GiveWell would rule out a charity because it considers the human element in a way that makes it less economically efficient. The question is just, is it overall more efficient at broadly "bettering people's lives" in a way they can measure? That's it. If you can show that letter writing is a worthy trade-off by e.g. looking at long-term impacts, I'm sure they'd be for it. Perhaps you object to the fact that they require measurement. Fair enough, the best things in life are free. But the "bags of grain" (really, "bags of malaria pills") approach is already at a disadvantage to the "give someone a flock of chickens" approach, because the latter tells a story and tugs at our hearts. That doesn't mean it's worse, but I think GiveWell's thesis is, that also doesn't mean it's better.

alexhutcheson 7y ago

I just give to GiveWell and let them distribute the money. I believe in their research and their approach, and I trust them to allocate donations efficiently.