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

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!

Blog

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our members

Our events

Our mistakes

Donate to Giving What We Can

Transparency

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

topNavigation

Recommended charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Comparing charities

Choosing a cause

Inclusion criteria

Trusted evaluators

Our approach

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Myths and misconceptions

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

The Pledge

Trial Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Sharing our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Careers

Community

Donate now

Best charities

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Donate

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Pledge

My giving

Top Navigation

Erwan Atcheson

In about 2011, feeding my insatiable need for podcasts, I came across a 

 by Toby Ord. He asked a question that caught my attention: if we want to make the biggest possible difference to the world, what is worth more: our time, or our money?

, doing so much good per dollar donated, his answer was money. Toby Ord seemed to be saying that volunteering for virtually any cause or charity could not possibly do as much good as just earning money – for the same number of hours of work – and then giving it to SCI to deworm children.

His argument was very persuasive. If I decided to pledge 10% of my future income to these highly cost-effective charities, this decision would almost certainly cause more good than any other action I could ever take in my life, by far.

But what Toby said at the end of his talk had even more influence on me. He said:

I thought that my time spent volunteering could never be worth as much as my donated salary. But then I realised that by setting up this organisation and publicising these ideas and so forth, I could have much larger impact because ... [there] is actually a multiplier effect, getting other people to try doing the same thing ... I had already raised more money over the last year than my entire future income. So time can, in some cases, be worth more than money.

Mental arithmetic told me that, if I persuaded just one other person to take the pledge, I'd double my impact on the world. And if I could persuade one more person each year for the rest of my life, I'd increase my impact about 50-fold. That, it seemed to me, was the way to go about it.

So I decided to start a chapter at my university. For two years I tried all sorts of things. Finally one got started in Belfast and I also got involved setting one up at Glasgow. Both these chapters are successes, run by enthusiastic, energetic volunteers packing in event after event. Huge credit has to go to Beth Malcolmson, Kevin McNicholl, Sinead O'Gara and Carla Ní Chéarnaígh in Belfast, and Irene Tortajada Querol, Anna Viceconti, Lovisa Jakobsson and Bradley Ford in Glasgow, for the incredible work they've done running those chapters.

Setting up a new chapter has the potential to be very high-impact. About half of volunteers in Glasgow and Belfast hadn't heard of effective altruism before, and most have said they'll pledge 10% of their income when they begin full time work. It's also great fun and will grace any CV. Now I'd like to give my advice on setting one up, in the hope that it might inspire and help you to do so.

Let as many people as possible know that you are trying to start up a chapter. Social media (Facebook, Twitter) and emails are an easy place to start. For instance, start a Facebook page and join as many local groups as possible. Then post in those groups "Here is a page you might be interested in: stay up to date on cost-effective ways to end global poverty," with a link to the page. You might get about 100 likes; you can then post to that page about setting up the chapter and inviting people to help out. Asking academics or schools to send out emails about the new chapter is also a very good way to reach potential comrades.

10-15 are likely to get in touch with you following all this. Make good links with these people. Reply quickly and reliably. Befriend people on Facebook. Above all, try to meet up face-to-face or by video call. From 10-15 people, 2-3 might be enthusiastic enough to form the core group of the chapter. That's all you need.

You can even try this by yourself, as a way of spreading the word and attracting members. Setting up an event can appear daunting at first. But once a venue is sourced, and a speaker obtained (for a lecture event), the bulk of the work is promoting it: the whole thing can be done with less than eight hours work. Promotion is the key and much can be done via social media: posting on Facebook, Twitter, and mailing lists. Lecture shout-outs and putting posters around campus can also help. For a first event, collaborating with an existing society (for instance, 

Students for Global Health — formerly Medsin

At each event the main aim is to encourage more people to join the mailing list, to tell people about the pledge and about effective giving, and to encourage people both come to future events and help run the society. Be approachable and easily contacted. Above all, if people express an interest, get them involved and encourage all and any ideas.

As an indication of what kind of events you can run, Belfast have had Alan Fenwick of SCI speak, and will host Peter Singer for a video conference soon. There is a debate and a concert planned. Glasgow obtained a huge audience for Peter Singer and ran a highly successful charity pub crawl amongst other events.

Setting up a new chapter is, I believe, as simple as it seems. It needn't be hugely time-consuming. An event can take as little as six hours to prepare for (including promotion). 20-30 hours work over a period of several months, or roughly an hour or two a week, can be sufficient to set up a sustainable and vibrant chapter.

Jonathan Courtney (the Director of Outreach at Giving What We Can) and I believe that chapters are extremely important and we want to help new chapters as much as possible. To this end we are trialling a mentoring scheme: someone experienced in running a chapter will give hands-on help for up to a year or more. So if you are interested in starting a new chapter, contact me or Jonathan and we'll help you get started.

You may fear there isn't sufficient interest in your local area to sustain a chapter. But with this enterprise taking just an hour or two a week for a few months and with the potential gains so high, it is worth the risk, no matter where you are. Nor will you be alone; contact us and let us help.

Why haven't you set up a chapter yet?

Owain Johnstone

 have discussed how we come to identify and define social problems. Once we have identified and defined them, we then need to decide who should solve them.

 reported in the Guardian can help us understand how we go about doing that.

UK donors respond much more willingly to natural disasters than to war or conflict

. This trend appears more prevalent amongst older donors than younger ones.

It might not be obvious at first glance, but this finding can shed useful light on how we attribute responsibility for problem solving.

The survey's main finding is fascinating, but it does not make clear on the surface why the attitudes it identifies are held. We can suggest a couple of plausible reasons.

Why do people care more about natural disasters than war or conflict?

 possibility is that the emotional impact of natural disasters is greater than that of other issues because we could potentially be affected by the same phenomenon, wherever in the world we live. We can therefore empathise more readily with those suffering. Their emotional impact and their sudden appearance also lend themselves well to media headlines.

By contrast, other problems have complicated local contexts which, while difficult to understand, suggest that we're probably OK as long as we stay home. A local war is unlikely to affect us unless we actively seek to get involved. Poverty in a distant country isn't something that's going to cause us harm. In essence, this explanation is about self-interest – we help people out when we think we might one day need helping out ourselves in similar circumstances.

I think there's some truth to this explanation. But it's easy to come up with counter-examples. Some natural disasters are mostly local or regional occurrences (like hurricanes or droughts), affecting some parts of the world more than others – but that doesn't necessarily affect our willingness to donate to relief efforts.

 plausible explanation is to do with human agency. Natural disasters are not caused by us – there is very little that we can do about them (at least in the short-term; long-term, human impacts such as on climate change are important). Problems that have an obvious short-term human cause, on the other hand, must surely be soluble – if we can provoke them, then we can stop them happening.

 makes, quoting an official from the Charities Aid Foundation as saying: '...There seems to be a perception that the victims of human-caused tragedies are less worthy recipients of their donations.'

Without wanting to simplify too much (our motivations for charitable giving are many and complex), I would suggest that 

this question of human agency or responsibility is key to understanding how we react to these different kinds of charitable cause

This is where working out who should solve particular problems comes in. If we accept that the degree of human responsibility involved is important in determining charitable donations to a particular problem, then it's a short step then to suggest that 

we're more likely to donate to the solution of problems where there is no-one obviously placed to solve it themselves

Turning that around, if we can say that a particular problem is someone else's fault, we're more likely to leave them to solve it.

Agency, responsibility, and solving social problems - a look at immigration

Adopting this perspective can shed some interesting light on our approaches to existing complex social problems – immigration, to continue our theme, is a good example.

In its most basic terms, immigration is about people moving from one country to another in search of some advantage – maybe they want physical security, a better job, to be with their family, etc. Which means that people only move if they have a reason to do so. That reason might be anything from conflict to poverty to a dearth of sufficiently attractive jobs and so on. Immigration is therefore a response to, or symptom of, underlying issues.

Another key aspect of immigration is the degree to which attitudes towards it differ so widely. The debate around immigration – particularly in a net-recipient country like the UK – is fiercely polarised.

One reason that might be the case is because 

attitudes towards the the conditions that motivate people to migrate differ

. In particular, I think they probably differ 

with regard to who we think ought to be responsible for addressing each of those issues

If we extrapolate from the survey findings, we should expect that we are more welcoming towards immigrants who are fleeing natural disaster than we are those who are fleeing conflict. Adopting the human agency explanation, that would be because there's nothing you can do about a natural disaster – it's no-one's fault.

We should also expect that we are generally more receptive to refugees (from whatever cause – natural or manmade) than we are to economic migrants – because the former seem to have less control over their circumstances than the latter. When we get to economic motivations I suspect there is a general tendency to think that there's nearly always something you could have done – worked that bit harder, searched more for a better job, or even just elected a government more competent at creating jobs in the first place.

I don't know if either of these predictions are true, by the way – I'll leave that for others more expert than I am. But the second, in particular, would be an interesting finding since it would support the human agency argument. Plenty of refugees come from situations that are not particularly salient in the media, which means that if our attitudes towards them do differ from our attitude towards other groups of migrants then there must be some other reason at play.

You might have spotted at this point that I've been a bit inconsistent in how I've defined agency. Initially I was implicitly talking about governments and the extent to which they could be expected to solve a particular problem. Now, with immigrants, I'm talking about the individuals feeling the effects of a problem in some way.

This nuances the idea of human agency somewhat. It reveals an important point – 

we don't just assume that whoever caused a problem should be responsible for solving it

. Sometimes we'll place that responsibility elsewhere, at least in part. An example is someone who migrates looking for a better job. We might (hypothetically) think that the government of the country of origin caused the lack of decent jobs there. But equally we might think that the individual concerned could have done something towards addressing that problem – such as searching harder or being more entrepreneurial.

In other words, there are three kinds of people to whom we can attribute responsibility for solving a problem: 

those who caused it in the first place, those affected by its consequences, and those who observe it from a distance (i.e., in this scenario, us)

Whose feet we decide to lay a particular problem at depends in part on the degree of agency involved. If it's no-one's fault, it makes sense to help out. If it looks like the government should have done something, then they probably ought to. If the people caught up in the problem could do something about sorting it out, maybe we should expect them to.

Obviously this is a substantial simplification. But if we all agreed about the agency involved in particular problems we would all presumably agree (or at least agree more than we do) about immigration. There are many reasons why we do not, but I would argue that one reason is our disagreement about the agency attached to the different issues underlying immigration.

In other words, when it comes to any particular cause of immigration – whether that be conflict or the desire for a bigger salary – we disagree about who exactly is responsible for solving the problem.

When it comes to controversial categories like economic migrants in particular, there is likely a spectrum of opinion about the degree to which an individual really had 'no choice' but to try to come to the UK for work. If you think there was more they could have done to find work in their home country you're probably less likely to welcome them into this one. Correspondingly, if you think they were a victim of circumstance and had no option but to migrate, you're probably more likely to receive them with open arms.

This disagreement relates to a much more fundamental issue – the degree to which we think of ourselves as controlling our own actions as opposed to finding them determined by our surrounding circumstances.

At this point I'll step back, lest we risk getting sucked into larger philosophical questions. The important point is that the ways in which we go about addressing particular problems (or not) have a lot to do with how we attribute responsibility for solving those problems.

When it comes to charitable giving, we may find that 

one key factor in determining the causes commonly thought of as appropriate to donate to is what we assume about the human agency involved

 – who we think of as responsible for addressing those causes. Giving money to a particular charity is in effect to say: 'I think I am in some way responsible for addressing this problem.'

Obviously the responsibility question is not the only factor involved. But it can shed light on certain patterns of donation which aren't necessarily inevitable. For example, it can suggest one reason why (in the UK at least) our 

 revolve around medical research, children and animals, while we give quite a bit less, for example, to the homeless. The first three involve groups which are perceived to have little control over their circumstances, while the narrative around homelessness is less clear cut and often attributes some amount of blame to the individual concerned.

If this idea is correct, then it should inform how we go about influencing people to donate to one cause or another. The effective philanthropy community often argues in terms of how influential a given donation can be. That's a very powerful argument, but it assumes a willingness to give – the question it addresses is how to leverage that willingness.

What it tends not to address is how people's preferences for different charitable causes are affected by other factors – of which the attribution of responsibility is one. You're unlikely to be able to convince someone to contribute to addressing a particular problem unless you can persuade them that there's no-one else at whose feet we can lay the responsibility for solving it.

So, next time you're trying to persuade people of the value of a particular cause, it might be worth explaining why they should feel some responsibility for solving that problem in the first place.

Whose fault is it? Attributing responsibility for solving social problems

Larissa Hesketh-Rowe

On Sunday 22 February I am running the Brighton Half Marathon, 

. I’m combining my two passions, two journeys in one; fitness with effective altruism, a health journey with a...spiritual one?

It’s only thirteen miles, but in my book that’s a pretty long way! It will be the furthest I’ve ever run. I’m quite fit and healthy now but I didn’t used to be, so I’m still playing catch up.

Back in 2012 I couldn't run for two minutes without stopping so this run is quite a symbolic challenge for me. I don’t plan on stopping after this one either, all being well. I want to make fitness part of a lifelong journey.

Fundraising for the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI) is part of a another journey for me, one I’ve more recently started. One I also hope will be lifelong. I’m not necessarily a spiritual person, but I suppose you could say this one is about my spiritual health.

If you had told me three years ago that I would enjoy running I would have laughed my head off! But it’s an established part of my routine now - I go almost every other day and I love it. I hope that in three years' time donating to effective charities will be as natural and enjoyable to me. Fitness has been about doing something for myself, getting more out of my life, challenging and improving myself. Giving is also about challenging and improving myself but more than that it’s about helping others reach their potential. It’s a different sort of challenge but even more satisfying and meaningful. It is true what they 

 to charity, it doesn’t just make others happy but you as well. I enjoy running, but it is a different kind of enjoyment when you keep it all to yourself. Giving feels bigger, more satisfying somehow and I wonder if that is because I’m sharing my joy with others.

There are other parallels between these two endeavours. For example, I’ve got my initial training programme 

 to ease me in and help me make giving a part of my life.

I’m in that early phase of a journey at the moment; eager to learn everything I can, this time not about healthy eating but about the most effective charities. What are others doing? What community is out there? What is most effective?

My advice to those starting such a journey would be to start small. You can’t change everything overnight. Find something that you enjoy and that makes sense to you and build from there.

 to support. They appear in the top charities for 

This made them a sensible place to start for for a beginner.

They treat Neglected Tropical Diseases, a range of common infections that are easily treated but not well known and so underfunded. Treating them can be done at a low cost and often within the community, teaching simple techniques and empowering local communities to help themselves.

The diseases may be neglected by the effects can be devastating. These diseases can cause anything from vomiting blood to paralysis to blindness. They can also contribute to malnutrition and in children can lead to arrested development and learning difficulties.

I am still learning about effective charities and exploring different ways to make more of an impact with my donations but this feels like the right place to start for me. I find the work they do really impressive.

One of the biggest factors in my success at improving both my health and fitness and my giving has been the support of others. I’ve have a lot of support from communities like 

 as I've started this journey. I’ve had encouragement from the volunteers at the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative as I’ve begun donating and they’ve helped me see some of the difference I am making. I’ve set up a 

 and many friends have asked about the charity I’m raising money for, and supported my efforts.

All of that support means a lot whenever you’re starting something new. Thank you to everyone who's supporting me.

When I was on my health journey the support of my friends meant everything to me. Now that I am on my effective altruism journey your support will mean everything to me and the people we help. Please 

 if you can and wish me luck on Sunday 22 February when I hope to take two important journeys that little bit further.

Running for SCI - support a new journey

Kat Steiner

I recently made the commitment to donate 10% of my pre-tax income to the most effective charities in combating extreme poverty, from now until I retire. It was something I’ve been considering for several years, but it was a big decision and not one I take lightly. Giving What We Can has shaped my opinions on charitable giving, altruism, and effective charities for nearly five years, and I wanted to share a little of my journey to finally Pledging.

When I first heard about Giving What We Can, I was a student, living with some people involved with it. There were Centre of Effective Altruism meetings in my living room, late-night discussions about the latest 

 report, debates over the problems with deworming figures. I remember attending a talk by Toby Ord and Peter Singer in the Exam Schools in Oxford, and loving the positive, quantifiable numbers they were quoting about how much has been done and can be done to fight extreme poverty. I am proud to have introduced some family and friends to 

 both as a charity and as a really effective charity, and I’ve been delighted by their responses to my sporadic fundraising efforts.

 before now? Many of my friends did so as students, but I held back. I was cautious about making a commitment to give money when I didn’t know how much I would have in the future. I was still a student, had never had a proper job, had never had to support myself on its income. I was worried about failing further down the line when I found I had more immediate needs for my money: children, emergencies, end-of-life care, travelling the world. I decided to take another look when I had been in employment for a while, and see how things stood.

Around the start of this year, Giving What We Can had revamped their website and set up 

, a way of tracking your donations without signing the pledge outright. Now in steady employment in Oxford, I gave it a go. It’s nearly the end of the year, so I took stock, and was surprised. I’d been topping up my donations each month to the 10% mark, when I’d got my paycheque and paid my rent, and I hadn’t had to change my behaviour or spending to accommodate it. All that I had was a deep satisfaction each month that my money was winging its way to charities that are making a real, personal difference to people’s lives.

Having been on the periphery of Giving What We Can for ages, I know the great community they’ve fostered. When I started Try Giving, I felt more involved in the Oxford chapter, but still on the outside looking in. I couldn’t feel like a fully paid-up member until I’d pledged. You can’t really say you’re committed to a group like Giving What We Can until you’re committed to giving in accordance with your beliefs. And my experiences with fundraising and learning about effective altruism make me keen to do more or at least see what life on the other side of the fence was like.

So when Ravi Patel in Cambridge created a 

 inviting people who were thinking of Pledging this holiday to take a picture of themselves and share it, this felt like the perfect time. I was being invited to join what I knew was a very special community. And there were lots of pictures of people doing the same. So I went for it. I’m delighted to hear that Ravi’s event has been instrumental in getting more pledges in December than any other month – over 40 at least! That’s a serious amount of money earmarked for the most effective charities.

I would definitely recommend anyone thinking of pledging but feeling cautious to check out Try Giving. You may be surprised how much you can give without any negative effects (and lots of positive ones!) And there’s absolutely no pressure to keep going – times are hard for a huge number of people in the UK right now and I don’t feel happy telling anyone what to do with their money. I just want to take responsibility for mine, and join an awesome, welcoming community of people doing the same, all over the world. Thanks for reading.

Why I finally took the pledge

James Snowden

Doctors without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF) is an international medical and humanitarian organisation which “provides assistance to populations in distress, to victims of natural or man-made disasters and to victims of armed conflict.” (Activity Report 2013)

Last month I considered switching my regular pledge donation to MSF. The ebola outbreak in West Africa has put medical volunteers in the spotlight and MSF seemed to be at the forefront of the response[1]. Reading accounts written by medical volunteers,[2] I was struck by just how awesome they are. MSF’s own cautionary notes about working overseas[3] demonstrate the high level of sacrifice involved, and incidents in the Central African Republic[4] and Somalia[5] remind us that the risk is very real.

MSF seems a bit like a global emergency response team. An ambulance service on a massive scale. If I was President of the World and choosing how to spend my budget I’d definitely have an ambulance service. So MSF is a good thing. But is it the best thing I could do with my donation? I felt compelled to donate, but first I did some research.

This article is meant to outline some of the factors I considered and hopefully provide some helpful information for others making a similar decision. It should not be taken as either a positive or negative rating of MSF.

MSF is a large organisation, currently operating in around 60 countries worldwide

In 2013, the three largest country programmes were in Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Haiti

MSF runs short term health programmes in response to armed conflicts, epidemics, famines and natural disasters

It also runs longer term health programmes, targeted at ongoing health crises

MSF doctors treat a diverse range of problems, including malaria, HIV, mental health and cholera

Much of MSF’s work is in response to natural or man-made disasters. A 2006 report by the Disease Control Priorities Project concluded that “the highly emotional and sensationalized climate of disaster response has long prevented the adoption of a cost-effectiveness approach in decision making.”[11] The effectiveness of disaster relief efforts is difficult to evaluate but it seems likely that it is less effective on objective measures than other modes of intervention. You can read an excellent blog post on disaster relief here.[12]

MSF works in a number of areas which have been identified as particularly cost-effective and scalable. This includes mass vaccination programmes[7] and bednet distribution.[8] They were also instrumental in founding the Drugs for Neglected Tropical Diseases Initiative (DNDI) which has a very high potential upside[9].

MSF also works across a broader range of equally worthy but less well understood or less cost-effective interventions, including HIV treatment and mental health. For this reason, Givewell decided to deprioritise them as a ‘top charity’.[10]

As MSF undertakes such a variety of programmes it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the charity as a whole. However, it seems safe to say that MSF enjoy a good reputation in their field. The British Medical Journal praised MSF for “leading the world’s response to Ebola” and chose MSF for their winter charity appeal in 2014.[13] Their global presence means they are often in a good position to respond to disasters quickly.[14] Both Givewell[15] and Giving What We Can[16] have recommended MSF as a top charity for disaster relief.

90% of MSF funding comes from private individuals[17]. Non-affiliation with governments allows MSF to work in politically sensitive conflict zones such as Afghanistan and DRC. It also insures independence from political goals, meaning programmes are prioritised based on need alone.

MSF undertakes regular critical evaluations of their programmes and have published a number of negative conclusions of their own programmes. These reports are freely available here[20]. Givewell concludes that while MSF is “more transparent than the vast majority of charities we have considered, it is not as transparent as the most transparent charities we have found.”[21]

In 2013, MSF held slightly over €600m in cash and equivalents[18]. This should not necessarily be interpreted as no room for more funding as the nature of MSF’s work means the flexibility to start programmes without delay is crucial. MSF has a good track record of making sure funds are used in the most efficient way, closing their 2004 tsunami appeal after just 6 days as it was sufficiently funded.[19]

In the end, I concluded that the reason I found MSF particularly compelling was as much because of my admiration for the doctors and nurses, as the effectiveness of their work. While MSF didn’t seem to be as effective as the Giving What We Can recommended charities, they are doing good work in a way which I find personally inspiring and a donation seemed appropriate.

I therefore decided not to switch my regular pledge donation from the 

 but to make a small regular donation to MSF in addition to my pledge.

Voa News: Ebola Crisis Puts Doctors Without Borders in the Spotlight

Blog

Why haven't you set up a chapter yet?

Whose fault is it? Attributing responsibility for solving social problems

Running for SCI - support a new journey

Why I finally took the pledge

Médecins Sans Frontières: a brief review

What values do we need to keep in mind about the DALY? Part I

What values do we need to keep in mind about the DALY? Part II

Evidence Action in the last quarter of 2014

Tips on starting warm winter conversations about effective giving

Why community matters in thinking about social problems