Blog

Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

Donate

Pledge

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our values

Our members

Our events

Transparency

Our mistakes

Our impact

Donate to Giving What We Can

Careers

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Sitemap

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

DONATE

topNavigation

Best charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Our research & approach

Comparing charities

Evaluating evaluators

Our approach

Giving guides

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Hesitations about charitable giving

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

The 🔸10% Pledge

🔹Trial Pledge

Company Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Connect with our community

Sharing our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Fundraisers

Community

Donate now

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Australian page

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Top Navigation

Simon Jenkins

Giving to Charity – A Pain in the Eye?

Giving What We Can put me in hospital. I was only a few steps from the postbox after posting my signed pledge back to GWWC. I’d been toying with the idea of becoming a member for something like a year, during which time I’d been agonising over a Masters dissertation on the very topic of how far our obligations to those in the developing world stretch. So after all this time, I was pleased with myself for having finally mustered up the courage to sign the pledge. I had felt a certain gravity and importance in the action of signing it and closing the envelope. I had gone to the letterbox, presumably with some kind of spring in my step, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I’d let out a resounding “ahhh” as I posted the letter into the slot.

But I can’t quite remember now, because a few seconds later I was stumbling around in pain. I was marching down the hill from the letterbox when some debris flew from a nearby building site and caught me in the eye. I’ve made this sound more serious than it is – whatever it was was tiny and there was no permanent damage. At any rate, I found myself in A&E that evening.

I can only speak for myself, but the juxtaposition of these two significant events made it feel natural to consider whether there was a connection between them. It felt like the universe was putting me in my place for being too self-satisfied about my increase in charitable giving. Or maybe it was trying to balance out the suffering that I’d averted.

Of course, the real answer is that it was just a coincidence. Really I don’t believe the universe works like that, and I only entertain these karmic ideas for fun. (There isn’t much to do in A&E, and you have to think about 

It was at this point, or somewhere thereabouts, that I realised how awful I was being. Sure, my eye hurt. Rather a lot. But there I was, sitting in a huge hospital, waiting for free (I’m a tax-dodging student) healthcare from some professionals who, from a global perspective at least, were top of their game. My suffering (and that even seems like too strong a word for it) was miniscule compared to everything else that goes on in the world.

This idea that we in the developed world are all so lucky and privileged and so on is of course not new. It’s a downright cliché that we’ve all heard millions of times, starting from when we were reminded of the “starving children in Africa” by our irate parents as they tried to get us to eat whatever wittles they’d put in front of us. You may even have rolled your eyes at my use of this cliché. But I suggest you roll them back. Yes, we’ve all heard thousands of times how minor all the bad things that happen to us are compared to the plight of billions the world over. But the very fact that this concept has become a cliché is absolutely appalling. My own mother (sorry ma) changes the channel whenever a charitable appeal comes on the telly because she finds them boring. 

. Imagine if you were starving to death (another cliché I suppose) and somebody came upon you, only to comment that your misery was, to them, merely yawn-inducing. “Seen it before, mate. Try something new”. You’d be absolutely aghast, if you weren’t too busy suffering to pay them any attention.

We’d do well to remind ourselves that, to the people who are affected, the situation is far from cliché. When I was growing up, it was just one of those facts of life that there were loads of people dying all around the world. I don’t think I felt powerless, I just don’t think it occurred to me to do anything about it. Now it has, and the hospital incident has descended into nothing more than a fun (maybe) story and a catchy (possibly) opening line for a blog entry. The eye pain is long gone. But the good feeling remains.

how we can help those living in poverty here.►

Ben Hoskin

Problems with “Overhead Costs” as a metric

This blog aims (among other things) to explain the methods we employ in our research at Giving What We Can. In that spirit, we’d like to start by explaining an important way in which we differ from many charity evaluators.

, there are also persistent myths about how to evaluate charities. One of the most prevalent, and most damaging, of these is that we should just look at the amount the charity spends on advertising, or salaries, or broader administration in order to decide which charities to donate to – supporting those which spend most of their revenue directly on the programs they operate.

if we assume the program has a certain value

, every dollar spent on admin is indeed a dollar not spent on the program. But the value of programs varies dramatically, and dollars not spent directly on programs can be used to improve the program, or raise even more money: we need to take these into account.

thousands of times more effective than others.

 If one charity A spends slightly more on administration than charity B, but operates a program that's ten times as effective, then overall it will still be much more effective. As overall effectiveness is what we care about, it would be misleading to focus on overhead costs.

The variance in charity effectiveness means there's great room for improvement. Improving the efficiency of its operations means a charity can achieve much more - but this requires spending money on gathering data, analysing it, producing a new strategy and implementing it. This is extremely beneficial, so it doesn't make sense to punish the charity for it - and yet that's exactly what the 'overhead' metric does.

Secondly, money raising is a valuable activity! If my $100 donation funds a media campaign that raises $200, then I've helped twice as many people as if my money was spent directly. As advertising generally raises more money than it costs, it's no bad thing for a charity to be undertaking. Obviously 

 of the money has to be spent on the program, but as long as investments in advertising is yielding more money to spend on interventions, it's a very good thing.

So while there is a grain of truth to the anti-administration argument, there are powerful considerations on the other side. The solution is to look at an overall metric, like 

. Since ultimately we want to help as many people as possible, and only care about the charities as a means to this end, it makes sense to look at QALYs instead. QALYs/dollar takes into account both the internal structure of the charity, their relationship with donors 

 the impact their intervention has. It allows us to avoid the messy question of judging the organisational structure of charities, and focus instead on 

William MacAskill

Welcome to the Giving What We Can Blog

It’s my great pleasure to write the inaugural blog post on our 

This blog will allow those involved with Giving What We Can to communicate more freely with the rest of the world. In the coming months, we’ll have plenty to tell you about. We’ll use this blog as a means to explain some of the core ideas surrounding our approach to giving, and our approach to assessing which charities to give to — ideas like ‘QALYs,’ ‘fungibility’ or ‘precommitment’. We’ll update you all about our current thinking in the course of our research into charity cost-effectiveness, and start discussions on issues related to the methodology of ascertaining cost-effectiveness. We’ll discuss important issues in developing world current affairs. And we’ll share stories about our members, our chapters, and the general goings-on within the community that has formed around Giving What We Can.

In other news, Giving What We Can has recently matured as an organisation, and now has three paid staff who form the core Giving What We Can team. The new updated website would not have been possible without them, and it’s my pleasure to briefly introduce them:

Michelle Hutchinson is the new Executive Director. Michelle has been a long-term volunteer, and is just finishing up her PhD in moral philosophy from Oxford University.

Tom Ash is the new Director of Operations. Tom gained his undergraduate degree in philosophy from Cambridge and his research Master’s from Oxford, after which he worked for the not-for-profit magazines 

Robert Wiblin is the new Director of Research. Rob graduated with Honours in economics and genetics from Australia National University, and has worked for the Australian Treasury and the 

Toby Ord will remain as President of Giving What We Can, and I as Vice-President. And, of course, we will continue to be indebted to the small army of dedicated volunteers who have done such an enormous amount to help grow Giving What We Can.