3 ms·

If someone wanted to donate, which are the top organizations you'd recommend and which are the top ones you'd avoid given your knowledge on efficiency and grift

If someone wanted to donate, which are the top organizations you'd recommend and which are the top ones you'd avoid given your knowledge on efficiency and grifting?

zozbot234 5y ago
GiveWell and other "Effective Altruist" organizations are generally the most widely-trusted source for these recommendations. If you're OK with their starting principles and assumptions (which you should familiarize yourself with!) they seem pretty solid overall.
nazgulnarsil 5y ago
As other commenter mentioned, EA is a useful framework for thinking about giving (what is my dollar really buying and is that a step change in something like foundational research). But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. Find small groups of people doing speculative stuff and fund them for exploratory research.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. I have to partially disagree with this, because EA organizations do select causes with a decent amount of "room" for more funding. It hardly matters that they're getting billions, your money will still easily contribute 100× or plausibly 1000× to society-wide benefit compared to just spending it on yourself. Of course some people might be aware of some kind of neglected opportunity with even larger returns, but that's surely not that typical. And efforts like the Open Philanthropy Project exist to focus on higher-variance causes than what GiveWell deals with, that for this reason might not appeal to mainstream donors.
  - nazgulnarsil 5y ago
    This is a common misconception. The only reason e.g. Against Malaria has a 'funding gap' is because the EA funds don't want to fill it out of fear of 'crowding out' individual donors which is a sketchy proposition.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      This may have been true for some time in the past, but it seems that new funding opportunities/causes have cropped up which are competitive with AMF, so that the EA funds are once again constrained by the overall amount of funding.
  - nazgulnarsil 5y ago
    You can also review OpenPhil's grant database and see that they don't really fund moon shots. They fund shovel ready, track record approved low-variance plays mostly.
dougmwne 5y ago
To add to the other good comments, I think the best strategy is to find a really small organization with a laser focus, just a few million in run rate and less than a few dozen key staff. A small number of focused and passionate people can move mountains, just like in a startup. One you have vetted them, give them just enough to reach their next level of effectiveness, but with lots of strings and accountability. Think like a VC, is this team capable of getting the job done? Can their work be scaled with more capital? There are good giant charities, but you're too small a fish for them. The "membership" programs at most charities are just lead gen pipelines for major gifts and breaking even on marketing cost is pretty normal no matter what the little expenses pie charts say. If you are wealthy enough that the CEO of MSF is talking to you then you then disregard what I just said and consult your staff who runs your personal foundation.

If someone wanted to donate, which are the top organizations you'd recommend and which are the top ones you'd avoid given your knowledge on efficiency and grifting?

zozbot234 5y ago

GiveWell and other "Effective Altruist" organizations are generally the most widely-trusted source for these recommendations. If you're OK with their starting principles and assumptions (which you should familiarize yourself with!) they seem pretty solid overall.

nazgulnarsil 5y ago

As other commenter mentioned, EA is a useful framework for thinking about giving (what is my dollar really buying and is that a step change in something like foundational research). But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. Find small groups of people doing speculative stuff and fund them for exploratory research.

zozbot234 5y ago
> But don't give to the mainstream EA causes, they already are sitting on billions. I have to partially disagree with this, because EA organizations do select causes with a decent amount of "room" for more funding. It hardly matters that they're getting billions, your money will still easily contribute 100× or plausibly 1000× to society-wide benefit compared to just spending it on yourself. Of course some people might be aware of some kind of neglected opportunity with even larger returns, but that's surely not that typical. And efforts like the Open Philanthropy Project exist to focus on higher-variance causes than what GiveWell deals with, that for this reason might not appeal to mainstream donors.
- nazgulnarsil 5y ago
  This is a common misconception. The only reason e.g. Against Malaria has a 'funding gap' is because the EA funds don't want to fill it out of fear of 'crowding out' individual donors which is a sketchy proposition.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    This may have been true for some time in the past, but it seems that new funding opportunities/causes have cropped up which are competitive with AMF, so that the EA funds are once again constrained by the overall amount of funding.
- nazgulnarsil 5y ago
  You can also review OpenPhil's grant database and see that they don't really fund moon shots. They fund shovel ready, track record approved low-variance plays mostly.

dougmwne 5y ago

To add to the other good comments, I think the best strategy is to find a really small organization with a laser focus, just a few million in run rate and less than a few dozen key staff. A small number of focused and passionate people can move mountains, just like in a startup. One you have vetted them, give them just enough to reach their next level of effectiveness, but with lots of strings and accountability. Think like a VC, is this team capable of getting the job done? Can their work be scaled with more capital? There are good giant charities, but you're too small a fish for them. The "membership" programs at most charities are just lead gen pipelines for major gifts and breaking even on marketing cost is pretty normal no matter what the little expenses pie charts say. If you are wealthy enough that the CEO of MSF is talking to you then you then disregard what I just said and consult your staff who runs your personal foundation.