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 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

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

Fundraisers

Community

Donate now

Best charities

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Donate

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Pledge

My giving

Top Navigation

Jesse Schnall

'I had never felt like this before. I wasn’t just sick… I was dying.' This is 

 of Ann Paisley Chandler, a Peace Corps volunteer who, following a tour in West Africa, fell ill with flu-like symptoms.

What initially appeared as a minor bout with the common virus quickly escalated into toxic shock, anaemia and emergency kidney dialysis. The diagnosis came in one shattering word: malaria. Her chance of survival? 5-10%. And yet, one coma and two weeks in an intensive care unit later, Chandler was blessed with a new lease on life, and left with a sobering reminder of what might have been.

Ann’s is but one episode in an estimated 219 million global cases of the tropical disease. While not often afforded the same status as HIV, Tuberculosis and other prominent illnesses endemic to the developing world, the mosquito-borne parasite was responsible for roughly 

Yet armed with long pants, insect repellant and a toiletry bag filled with anti-malarial drugs, western travellers often underestimate the catastrophe of malaria. Despite its significant mortality rate, many in the developed world appear to have given the illness a back seat in the hierarchy of infectious diseases.

The reality however, could not be further from the truth. Chandler’s ordeal paints a picture of a far more devastating illness, one that begins with vomiting and fever and, all too often, ends with organ failure and death.

The vivid experience of Mariama Jones*, a Sierra Leonean living in the United States, testifies to this grim fact.

Pregnant with her first child, Jones was advised not to take anti-malarial therapy on a trip to her hometown, and ultimately fell ill with the parasite. Cruelly, it was her very desire to protect her baby that ultimately led her to miscarriage only three days after reaching hospital. The bereaved mother would go on to survive the illness, 

 to avoid malaria, 'especially if they are pregnant women.'

It is vital that such stories be heard for two equally important reasons. Firstly, so that we might begin to comprehend the pain and helplessness of those who endure malaria, and secondly, so that we are made aware that with proper care and treatment, they can survive.

Crucial to our understanding of this disease is the fact that it is both readily treatable and easily preventable, making it an optimal target for aid.

For sufferers, mosquito nets as cheap as $5.30 

, preventing the illness from even entering the body. Antimalarial drug regimens, on the other hand, require greater effort and expenditure, and only act to suppress the illness after infection.

Like most in the developing world however, the six-year-old victim of cerebral malaria lacked access to this basic preventative tool. While fortunate to survive the most serious strain of the disease, Rael can now look forward to a life in which she is 

 to walk, feed herself or communicate. [6]

Our donations, put towards causes like the Against Malaria Foundation – one of 

 – can help reverse a cycle that inflicts a devastating economic, emotional and human cost. For only the price of a Starbucks coffee, a young girl’s future might have looked more like that of our own children.

Tragedies like Rael’s need not be a reality for millions. Give now, and help make malaria a thing of the past.

Living Through Malaria

Larissa Hesketh-Rowe

This year, after much procrastination in 2014, I saw in the New Year by taking the 

 pledge with Giving What We Can. I have pledged to give 5% of my income to effective charities throughout 2015. It was a big step for me but I can’t imagine ever looking back.

The effective altruist philosophy of giving to the most effective charities seeped into my consciousness in early 2014. Having been aware of 

 from my university course (which steered a once fussy eater toward becoming a vegetarian enthusiast) I listened to his 

 when it made it’s way into my podcast queue. I also accidentally stumbled across an inspiring Development Drums 

 about the principles behind Giving What We Can.

These ideas really resonated with me. Why should the fact that someone is miles away as opposed to right in front of me diminish my desire to help them? What must it be like to know that any day I, or my family, could get sick just from drinking water? Uncertainty at work makes me nervous but I know I always have family, even the state, to fall back on; what must it be like to know one bad harvest means loan sharks or starvation?

I gave money to charity previous to signing up to Try Giving, but based on the most emotive stories in TV. advertisements and the friendliest phone calls from volunteers, not on what cause would be the most effective. Yet when I really thought about it, about the individuals at stake and the extraordinary opportunity I had to help, how could I settle for that?

I also did the maths on my philanthropy. I thought I was quite generous with my donations each month, yet it turns out I was donating 0.01% of my income. Ouch.

We hear a lot in the news still today about how the richest 1% will soon 

 than the rest of the world's population. It’s hard to comprehend. How can this be right? Why doesn’t somebody do something? And yet even average young professionals like my boyfriend and I fall within the 

 of the world! That shocked me. A lot. Maybe I should act.

Yet I have to be honest and say it still took me a while to act. It’s easy to procrastinate and make excuses. I have a very busy job, I’m trying to save to buy a house, there’s always a birthday or a bill or something coming up. Maybe when I’m a bit older. Maybe when I earn more.

As they say, why put off something until tomorrow that you can do today?

Fortunately for me I have a brilliant mechanism for encouraging myself into action. I have a 

. This is a list of 1001 things to do in 101 days - like a bucket list but with a time frame long enough to complete big projects, and short enough that there is some urgency to act. I added task 11 “Donate 5% of my income to charity for at least a year” and clarified to myself that it must be before tax income and should ideally be to one of Giving What We Can’s 

So I did it. I put aside 5% of my income each month, went online and pressed ‘donate’.

Do you know what the funny thing was? After that it was easy. Having made the decision I no longer spent time making excuses to myself and devoted that energy instead to making it happen. From then on I really started to feel part of a wider community. A community full of passionate and compassionate people just looking to make the most difference they can in the world.

. It was frequently mentioned as a top effective charity but it didn’t seem to receive the attention of the Against Malaria Foundation for example. While the rationality of making the most difference possible appeals to me I have to admit I’ve been slightly swayed in a preference for SCI by enthusiastic, personable and regular emails from Alex in their team. She sends me regular updates on the latest data on the most effective interventions in Neglected Tropical Disease and provides that human element we all connect to, some information on the people it made a difference to. Effective Altruism hasn’t meant no longer caring about that emotive story: if anything I feel all the closer to others having given my donations so much conscious thought.

Yes I could have waited until I was able to give 10%, until I’d bought my house, got a better job. But what would that have meant for the specific people who received treatment now? Would they have gotten sick instead? Would a little boy have missed the chance to start school last year? Would a mother have gone blind?

I still plan to donate 10% and maybe I just need to take the plunge on that now too. Either way Try Giving gave me the perfect step to make a difference now. Why put off something you can do today? Why wait around to make the most difference possible when you can make an amazing difference right now?

Just Try Giving

Giving What We Can

. ACE is a US-based charity dedicated to finding and promoting the most effective ways to help animals. They do this by analysing research on methods of helping animals in order to provide research of interventions and top-charity recommendations. They offer suggestions on being a more effective animal advocate by providing career, charity, and volunteering advice, and also plan on working with other organisations to help them conduct their own research.

Update: We are offering a $1,000 donation to the animal charity of your choice if you bring us an applicant that we otherwise didn’t know about that we end up hiring for the position. Some of our best candidates in that past have come from referrals, so please think about anyone in your network who might be a good fit, and send them our way!

Are you looking to help animals as effectively as possible? So are we! At Animal Charity Evaluators, our mission is to find and promote the most effective ways to help the largest amount of animals. We do this through our research and outreach programs, and by making recommendations to donors on where to give and what to do. In 2014 alone, we influenced over $141,000 in giving to our recommended charities!

We are looking for qualified individuals to help our research department take the next step in finding the most effective ways to help animals. We offer an intellectual and challenging environment that can provide great stimulation and satisfaction as you see the results of your efforts impact animal advocacy groups and advocates from around the world. Our work structure is especially flexible, and we can adjust to almost any schedule. If you’re looking to join a dynamic and engaging team, including a diverse 

 that spans the globe, read more about the 

Not interested in this position? Do us a favour and share this with anyone who you think might be a good fit!

Animal Charity Evaluators is Hiring! Researcher Position Available

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

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.

Blog

Living Through Malaria

Just Try Giving

Animal Charity Evaluators is Hiring! Researcher Position Available

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