5 ms·
That point about cost effectiveness is what always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when donating. I didn't realize people put lists of recommendations togethe
by read_if_gay_ 6y ago
That point about cost effectiveness is what always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when donating. I didn't realize people put lists of recommendations together, that's nice to see.
But how would you go about verifying any stated claims?
- brundolf 6y agoThis site ranks charities based on their finances, with breakdowns on different axes: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ https://www.charitynavigator.org/
- yboris 6y agoOverhead is a bad thing to look at: http://overheadmyth.com/ http://overheadmyth.com/ If an organization cures blindness for $20 through cataract surgeries in developing nations, and another spends $40,000 to train a seeing eye dog for a single individual, we are looking at ratios of 1:1000 in terms of effectiveness. The amount spent on 'overhead' is irrelevant!
- FeepingCreature 6y agoGivewell's process is detailed at https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/process It's very plausible to disagree with some of their choices. For instance, you might be interested in efficient charitable giving within your country, and bite the bullet of "this means I value starving africans a lot less." The important part is to prompt charities to document costs and outcomes in general (preferably to a scientific standard), so that people can make more informed choices about their donations no matter their values.