On Thursday 5th December I attended a panel discussion on what makes a charity effective, hosted by the African Development Project at Imperial College London. The speakers included the directors of two of Giving What We Can's top charities: Rob Mather of the Against Malaria Foundation and Prof Alan Fenwick of Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, as well as Caroline Fiennes of Giving Evidence; an organisation which advises donors and charities on improving performance by making evidence-based decisions.
The discussion began with each speaker talking about what makes an effective charity, before opening to questions from the floor.
Should we donate in the future when we have more information rather than right now? If we put off donating, we miss out on important benefits like Gift Aid and commitment to giving. But there is a way to get these benefits, while putting off the decision of which charity to donate to - putting your money in a charitable trust.
This Sunday, GiveWell released their official update of their top recommended charities for the giving season 2013. The most recent charity to make the list is a Giving What We Can recommended charity, Deworm the World. Schistosomiasis Contol Initiative remained a top charity supported by GiveWell, as has GiveDirectly.
By Ruth McElhone and Robert Wiblin | Posted November 21st, 2013
Iron deficiency, or getting insufficient iron, is a large problem, affecting approximately two billion people worldwide. Iron deficiency contributes substantially to global death and disability, particularly in developing countries. But this could be treatable. Interventions to reduce the health burden associated with iron deficiency, such as fortification and supplementation, have been claimed by some organizations to significantly reduce mortality and the risk of disease within a population. But are they correct? While not all of the information located fell neatly into our defined parameters, it was evident that simple interventions can have a major impact on health.
By Ben Hoskin and Peter Hurford | Posted November 20th, 2013
Suppose you donate $100 to SCI. By doing so, you're saying that SCI is the best use of your $100. Now suppose you donate another $100 to AMF instead. By doing this, you’re saying that AMF is a better charity to donate to. This can only be true if your past donation to SCI was a mistake or the $100 you gave to SCI fulfilled all their need for funding. But SCI has lots of room for more funding. So either your second donation should have gone to SCI, or the first should have gone to AMF. Either way, all your money should be going to the same place. Yes, we have many different values. But at any given time, one of these will be the most pressing and that's the one we should concentrate on. By focusing all our resources on one cause, we have the greatest chance of accomplishing it!
By Giving What We Can Oxford | Posted November 17th, 2013
Today, Giving What We Can: Oxford is launching the Big Match campaign! Every time you donate to the Against Malaria Foundation on their fundraising page, until early December, the Oxford Committee and many generous society committees from Oxford University will match your donation!
On Thursday 21st November, at 7pm at Freud's in Oxford, Giving What We Can is launching its first joint event with The Funding Network, and simultaneously launching its Oxford Big Match Campaign, which will be matching donations up to £10,000 for AMF in the next week.
As mentioned in an earlier blog post, GWWC research is winding up a preliminary investigation into climate change charities. Today, I'll tell you briefly about the search and what we found. Our most confident recommendation among the climate change charities is currently Cool Earth. We also looked at The Sierra Club's Beyond Coal initiative, SolarAid, vegetarianism promotion, and Sandbag.