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

Our mistakes

Transparency

Careers

Donate to Giving What We Can

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

Owain Johnstone

 of posts on how we define and address social problems, today I want to consider how the communities to which we belong can shape our thinking about such problems.

The community or communities to which we feel that we belong can affect what we see as problematic and how we perceive those problems.

Our immigration theme offers a nice example of this idea – whether you care about immigration and what you think of it owes much to your community. As a crude empirical illustration, I looked at three newspapers local to Oxford (where I am based) – one conventional and two run by students at Oxford University. I searched the websites of each paper for the terms 'immigration' and 'immigrants' between 22nd November and 22nd December 2014.

The number of results returned was as follows:

Oxford Mail | Cherwell | Oxford Student | | Immigration | 437 | 8 | 1 | | Immigrants | 46 | 8 | 0 |

I'm not claiming that this is particularly rigorous, but it does give us an indicative starting point. There is clearly a significant difference in coverage between the three papers, even if we take into account the greater overall amount of content produced by the Oxford Mail.

I think the most likely explanation is that the differences in coverage reflect the differential importance of immigration as an issue – as a social problem – to the communities served by these papers.

You might be thinking it's a pretty obvious point that student newspapers aren't concerned with in-depth coverage of national political issues to the extent that other media outlets are – and it is, but it's important to ask why this is the case.

Any newspaper, while of course having its own agenda, is expected to cover news of interest to those reading it – otherwise it would be a poor business proposition. (The two student newspapers are free – but nevertheless they need to be read to obtain advertising revenue and continue to justify their existence).

The interests of a geographically defined community like Oxfordshire are naturally diverse. That community contains a large number of people from a range of age groups, ethnicities and social backgrounds. The things they're concerned about touch on a very wide set of topics.

By contrast, the interests of a more tightly defined community like that of Oxford University students (and in this case predominantly undergraduate students) are narrower. When an undergraduate, you are rarely personally affected by taxes, welfare, business investment – or any of a wide range of other issues, including immigration (with the single exception of student visas, which can of course be important).

What the numbers above suggest is that, as we might expect, the Oxfordshire community is one that cares about immigration quite a lot, while the Oxford University undergraduate community cares quite a bit less. 

The nature of the community influences the kind of problems likely to be seen as important.

Now this certainly doesn't mean that just because you are a student you don't care about immigration – or any number of other issues that might not affect you or your student community directly. Students can and do care about these things. 

The communities we belong to do not determine our thinking – they only influence it.

Partly this is because we are capable of thinking for ourselves – we don't automatically follow the herd – and partly it is because of a couple of more general caveats we must make about the idea of a 'community' (which I have deliberately understood in broad terms).

First, a single individual can clearly feel part of multiple communities. There may be students at Oxford who are intensely concerned about the provision of adequate transport links between Oxford and Abingdon. Those transport links will not be the subject of much interest amongst most undergraduate members of the university, however – and to the extent that students do worry about them we can suggest that it is because they also feel part of the geographically defined community of Oxfordshire residents.

A second thing we can say about communities is that they can be defined in different ways – by geography, certainly, but also by shared status, ethnicity, gender, age, etc.

So not only do you have the ability to think for yourself, but the community influences on your thinking may be many and varied.

 Despite this, we should nevertheless acknowledge the influence of our environments, however complex that may be. The environments in which we find ourselves lend themselves to some problems being seen as more salient than others, and being presented in particular ways.

As obvious as this point is, it is one that we often overlook.

This is particularly evident when – as is often the case – we talk in general terms about whether situation X is a problem or not, and in what ways. We rarely stop to consider whether what appears to be problematic from one perspective may be less so (or may be problematic for different reasons) from another. In other words, 

we need to ask who exactly it is a problem for and why.

Immigration is a great example. Often the debate is reduced to a crude 'more or fewer', 'good or bad' argument and left at that.

I think this is because the community that is often implicitly the most prominent in such discussions is the national community. A national community has sovereign borders – hence must consider immigration and related issues – and it is consequently (largely) at national level that policies on responding to such issues are set.

I won't touch on debates about whether this is the most suitable level at which to consider immigration. What I want to emphasise is only that other perspectives are available. And the choice of perspective can significantly influence the shape and character of immigration as a social issue. Stop for a moment and consider it from the point of view of a particular town, ethnic group, profession or age-range. How does it affect them?

While there may be no single 'best' perspective for considering immigration – or any other issue – it is important to consider what different perspectives can contribute to our understanding of a given problem.

In particular, we should be aware of what perspectives we may be implicitly or unconsciously adopting, perhaps as a result of the communities in which we find ourselves.

We may not be fully conscious of the perspective we are adopting when discussing a particular issue – but we should be. As long as we are aware of the perspectives we adopt we can ensure that we do not simply default to their assumptions.

This can be a useful exercise, providing an important check on what problems we choose to pay attention to and how we consider them.

This line of thinking has two obvious implications for questions of charitable donation.

First, when choosing which charities to donate to – that is, when choosing which social problems to address – it is worth thinking carefully about what communities we are part of and how they may be influencing our perceptions of the salience and character of particular problems.

That in itself can ensure that we think carefully about the presentation of charitable options.

It also suggests the importance of actively constructing communities in order to promote particular perspectives. The more widespread and cohesive the effective altruism community is, for example, the greater the influence it is likely to have over the problem-thinking of its members.

Second, because asking about problem perspectives entails asking the question 'who is this a problem for?' it also has implications for the assessment of charitable effectiveness.

If we do not fully understand who a particular problem affects, and how its effects are felt, then we will struggle to provide any meaningful assessment of efforts to address that problem.

Particularly when it comes to broadly defined problems, like poverty, we need to think carefully about exactly who is affected and in what ways. Setting out to learn more about the lives and needs of those we seek to help – for example in terms of international development – is an essential step in appropriately designing charitable interventions.

In short, then, the communities to which we belong can influence what problems we think about and how we think about them – and if we stop to question that it can open out new ways of thinking that can lead to better identification of, and solutions to, particular problems.

Why community matters in thinking about social problems

Tom Ough

It’s the equivalent of offering to unload the dishwasher when secretly you know full well your mother has already done it. All the brownie points, none of the dirty hands. As a student member of Giving What We Can, you’re only expected to give 1% of your money to effective charities: perfect. See you in Heaven. And pass the beer.

So the first thing to bear in mind if you’re a student who wants to get involved is that it’s not all that daunting. Giving 1% is more about feeling part of the community and getting in the habit of giving regularly: 10% can wait till you’re a big dog graduate who wouldn’t dream of being part of the zombie-like horde which descends nightly, greedily on the Itsu closing-time sale.

If you’re already tucked in that proud Venn diagram overlap of sushi lover and bargain hunter, I have nothing to teach you. You are the Übermensch: gorge your cultured self on the Orient’s finest and spend the savings on malaria nets.

But if you’re an average schmuck who splashes out one week and can’t pay your library fines the next, listen up. You can make a difference without sacrificing the filthy drunken lifestyle to which you’re accustomed. Here’s how.

You’re not going to be wiping out schistosomiasis with a student loan (and if you are, for the love of God get in touch). So maximise your donation. There’s some 

 over how effective it is to take part in a matched giving scheme, but in general this is a good avenue to go down.

Particularly in universities, campaigns like the 

 – “You give ten pounds, and we’ll give ten pounds” – raise awareness and cash like nobody’s business. Rope clubs and societies in. Try getting university staff on board. It’s said that in life you get out what you put in, but with matched giving, you get double. Easy. And don’t forget that university is a great opportunity to get people thinking about the most effective ways of helping people: you’re surrounded by open-minded idealists with big futures ahead of them.

Military marksmen practise reloading their guns every day. Not because they’re worried Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is going to rush out of the showers, but because it ingrains the habit into them so that they don’t even have to think about it in a warzone.

This must be your approach to charitable giving. Get used to giving away a very small proportion of your earning as soon as you get them. However many bullets seem to riddle your bank account later in life, you’ll be spared some of the trauma of charity if giving comes naturally. And remember: regular donations are charities’ lifeblood. Everyone wins.

 to suggest that giving makes you happier. So if you’re not convinced that curing someone of a tropical disease for 50p is a good use of your money, it might interest you to know that donating will warm your black little heart enough to significantly increase your wellbeing in a variety of ways. We’re not very good at predicting how money will impact our individual happiness, but what we do know is that as long as you’re earning an average amount, getting more won’t make you feel much better – giving some of that money away is a much surer route to better health and happiness. It’s 

The Ineffective Altruist: doing good when you’re a student

Olga Kuznetsova

When the Ebola epidemic spread through West Africa in 2014, humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross stepped in to help combat the outbreak. However, in some regions they were greeted with mistrust and hostility. In rural Guinea for instance, many believed that the Red Cross had fabricated stories about Ebola in order to steal body parts, and did not co-operate with advice on hygiene and safe burial practices [1]. In Liberia, there were rumours that Ebola had been intentionally brought to Africa by Western countries [2]. As a result, efforts to halt the spread of the disease were slowed down.

This is just one of many examples of mistrust towards Western aid workers, which both undermines ongoing health programs, and makes any programs planned for the future difficult to successfully implement. In order to tackle this attitude, it is first necessary to understand the often complex factors that cause it. This article will present several examples of the circumstances that breed mistrust, and discuss ways to move forward from this and develop a positive rapport with aid recipient countries.

Suspicion of Western health workers does not arise without reason. Cases of medical malpractice, unethical drug trials and espionage have bred mistrust in many parts of the world. We begin the discussion with a focus on Africa. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, there have been several high-profile examples of Western health workers deliberately harming or even killing African patients under the pretence of carrying out research, with some perpetrators going unpunished [3].

More recently, in 1996, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer went into northern Nigeria to carry out a trial for a new drug, named Trovan, against meningococcal meningitis. However, Pfizer faced allegations of ethical misconduct, including not warning African patients of potential side effects and carrying out the research without permission from an ethics committee [4]. An “illegal trial of an untested drug” damaged the reputation of Western pharma in Nigeria, and may have made the population mistrusting of future interventions, such as the polio vaccination campaign.

In 1996, the “Kick Polio Out of Africa” campaign set out to eradicate the disease by 2000, but despite intensive immunisation, surveillance and education, the campaign faced an obstacle. In 2003, religious leaders in northern Nigeria issued a boycott of the vaccination, claiming that the vaccine was contaminated with chemicals that cause infertility, cancer, and HIV [5]. The predominantly Muslim community in the north of the country was wary of Western motives after the war in the Middle East following the September 11 attacks, which they interpreted as a war against Islam. Incidentally, the boycott took place in the same region where Pfizer carried out the Trovan trial.

Another factor contributing to the mistrust is the shortage of even the most basic medicines in Nigeria, and the costs incurred in purchasing them. In such circumstances, an offer of free vaccination combined with an aggressive campaigning strategy was regarded as highly suspicious.

In a similar situation to that in Nigeria, a polio vaccination program in Pakistan was compromised in 2012-13, after Taliban leaders claimed that the program was a plot by the C.I.A. to sterilise Muslims. Some vaccination delivery teams faced violent assaults, including bomb attacks [6]. The hostility towards the vaccinators was also reflected in public opinion. Among the Pashtun ethnic group in Karachi, which displays a disproportionately high polio incidence, 28% of parents of under-fives did not participate in the polio immunisation, most of them due to the belief that the vaccine was harmful or unnecessary [7].

The suspicion arose after it was revealed that in 2011, the C.I.A. had sent a Pakistani doctor to Osama bin Laden’s compound to obtain blood samples from inhabitants under the cover of hepatitis B immunisation [8,9]. After the plot was exposed, the doctor was jailed for 33 years. However the damage was done, and the resulting setback in the polio program contributed to an increase of polio cases in Pakistan from 32 in 2007 to approximately 600 in 2012 [10]. Considering that global polio eradication was scheduled for the year 2000, the examples of Pakistan and Nigeria show how a single incident (or a compromised drug trial) can potentially reverse many years’ worth of progress.

A final example presented here is that of a political agenda gone wrong. From 2009, under the guise of various health and civic programs including an HIV prevention workshop, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) sent young Latin Americans to Cuba to mobilise potential political activists to stir up rebellion, destabilising the socialist regime [11].

In parallel, USAID funded a Twitter-like social network named ZunZuneo to allow easier communication in Cuba, a country where information and communications are severely restricted. Following allegations of covert operations, USAID, more known for providing humanitarian aid and disaster relief, responded that their actions had to be discreet to protect their staff in a politically-sensitive region, but were not illegal [12].

In all the cases presented above, mistrust towards Western health workers arose due to a lack of communication with native populations about the purpose and importance of the health program, or through a ‘boy who cried wolf’ scenario: a health intervention being used as a cover-up for espionage, breaking the trust for future projects. In the latter scenario, it is important to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. Indeed, the C.I.A. has already issued a statement promising to stop using vaccination programs to gather intelligence [11].

In the case of the Ebola outbreak, hostility towards the Red Cross workers eventually subsided after the workers started encouraging families of the victims to take part in the burials. Giving the families of the deceased a sense of autonomy and participation eased the tension and helped to build trust [1]. Additionally, it has been shown that mobilising trusted community health workers to talk to local populations and refute any conspiracies helped in improving cooperation [2].

The polio elimination program has had success in a number of countries, most notably India, which was declared polio-free in March 2014. Like Pakistan, India is a vast country with a large number of remote, difficult-to-reach communities that have in some cases refused the vaccine [10]. The success of the India immunisation program was partly due to the extensive social mobilisation, and engagement of community and religious leaders. In a study carried out in the Uttar Pradesh state in the north of India, it was shown that such activities resulted in increased vaccine coverage, lower rate of refusal, and a substantial drop in polio cases. An improvement in attitudes towards the vaccine was also observed in Pakistan after social mobilisation campaigns.

To conclude, a number of incidents caused by Western governmental organisations and large pharmaceutical companies have harmed the reputation of Western aid workers in the developing world. Governments and intelligence agencies must be fully aware of the ramifications of using health programs as cover-ups for gathering information. Likewise, tighter control of pharmaceutical trials would reduce incidents of malpractice that could damage the perception of Western aid.

In every case, extensive dialogue with aid recipient populations is essential to ensure understanding and cooperation, and this is best achieved through the engagement of community and religious leaders, who are in a position of trust and authority.

Science Daily: Returning West Africa researcher says distrust of health workers made ebola worse

Oxfam: Mistrust and confusion are allowing Ebola to thrive in West Africa

New York Times: why Africa fears western medicine

British Medical Journal: Pfizer accused of testing new drug without medical approval

PLOS Medicine: what led to the Nigerian boycott of the polio vaccination campaign?

The Independent: Taliban renews assault on Pakistani polio vaccination teams, killing two

Parental perceptions surrounding polio and self-reported non-participation in polio supplementary immunization activities in Karachi, Pakistan: a mixed methods study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2012;90:822-830

New York Times: C.I.A. Vaccine Ruse May Have Harmed the War on Polio

New York Times: Fallout of Bin Laden Raid: Aid Groups in Pakistan Are Suspect

Achieving polio eradication: a review of health communication evidence and lessons learned in India and Pakistan. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2009;87:624-630

The Guardian: USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion

How to combat mistrust of Western health workers?

Jess Whittlestone

In the first few days of January each year, people around the world set resolutions - things they’d like to change, start doing, or stop doing in the new year to come. The beginning of a new year provides a nice opportunity to take a step back and reflect on our lives. It provides a feeling of a “fresh start” - a renewed sense of hope that we can make positive changes, that we can do things differently.

Whenever I stop to think about how my life is going, I also try to remember to put it in perspective. While I might not have done as much exercise as I’d like this year, I am in the richest 5% of the world’s population. The fact that I’m able to worry about whether I should be shifting to a low-carb diet, or whether I should be doing more high-intensity exercise, is a sign of just how well-off I am. Because you know what I don’t have to worry about? Getting enough food to eat, or keeping a roof above my head, or catching malaria. If these worries so much as peaked their heads into my day-to-day life, I’d certainly be worrying a lot less about how much time I was spending meditating.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that we’re wrong to think about these things, or that our problems are trivial. I think striving to improve yourself in every way is awesome, and that many people in the developed world face genuine struggles. But it’s also important to recognise that in most ways we are in an incredibly privileged position in the world. The fact that we are even able to set New Year’s resolutions is a sign of that.

an excellent video made by Cambridge University students

taking the Giving What We Can pledge as their New Year’s resolution

 - pledging to give 10% of their income over their life to the most cost-effective charities. For most of us, donating just 10% of our incomes would barely change our own lives - I’d still be in the top 6% of the world’s population, for example. And in fact, 

research suggests that giving actually makes our own lives happier

 - making giving more to charity a great resolution for improving your own life in 2015, too.

As with any New Year’s resolution, though, it’s important to make a commitment you’ll actually feel motivated by and be able to stick to. If you haven’t exercised once in the past year, resolving to go to the gym every day in 2015 might be a bit unrealistic. Similarly, donating 10% of your income might feel like too big a leap straight away. But it needn’t be all or nothing. When we’re building new habits - and donating to charity is in many ways like any other habit - initially it’s important to focus on small goals you’ll actually meet and feel good about. So if it feels more realistic to you to start by donating a smaller percentage, and to commit for a shorter period of time, 

 might be the perfect resolution - pledging to donate a percentage you choose for a certain period of time.

We needn’t face a choice between improving our own lives and improving the lives of others, because we can do both. So this January, as well as resolving to get fitter, eat better, and be more productive, I’m resolving to use my incredible position in the world to help others more - especially those who don’t have the privilege of being able to set New Year’s resolutions.

New Year's Resolutions and Giving

Roxanne Heston

2014 has been the best year yet for Giving What We Can! To celebrate all of the collective progress we’ve made, here’s our year in review.

We have skyrocketed to over 800 members. That’s more than double the number we had at the end of last year, when we ended with 391! To put this in perspective, this is twice the already rapid speed of growth we experienced in 2013 when we grew over 50% in one year. Accordingly, the amount pledged has also risen from $147 million to $344 million. We have expanded from 15 chapters to 26, with additions appearing Europe, America, and worldwide. You can find the full list 

Our online presence has grown as well, with an ever-increasing number of likes on 

, and a similarly high newsletter subscribership. We published nearly 100 posts in 

a conversation with Alix Zwane of Evidence Action

, enabling members and non-members alike to give automatically to top-rated charities of their choice. Over its first year, over £300,000 was donated to it.

In April we launched our new website, complete with an updated 

 where anyone can keep track of donations. June took us to Wales for the third annual Weekend Away with the largest turnout yet, and July to All Souls College for the effective altruism-focussed 

, with a range of speakers from writer Larissa MacFarquhar from The New Yorker to researcher Jeremy Lauer of WHO-CHOICE.

We held our large September internship for two weeks, producing a range of new content and organization-building thanks to the efforts and new perspectives of the interns. After lots of discussion and input, we amended the wording of the pledge new members will be taking moving forward. In light of this change, members Ravi Patel and Luke Llott spearheaded 

 to encourage more members to join the community this December, resulting in unprecedented membership growth in the last month. We’re very grateful for their efforts, and those of the amazing team of students who worked with them!

We’ve had some personnel changes. We’ve been very lucky to be joined by Jonathan Courtney as Director of Community. As well as welcoming all our new members and reaching out to interested people, he’s been 

making videos about our recommended charities

 and travelling the country to visit Chapters and present on topics from the psychological effects of giving to charities combatting climate change. We’ve been sorry to lose Steph Crampin as our Director of Communications, who’s off to Bangalore to learn programming.

With events happening all around the world, local and remote 

, and loads of online content, there is a way for everyone to become more involved. If you haven’t already, we hope you join our community by 

 or contact us if you have questions or concerns. If you don’t yet feel ready to take the Pledge, 

 provides an opportunity to challenge yourself to give an amount of your choosing and see how it feels.

Thanks to all of you for your commitment to making a difference in the lives of others. Together we have already donated more than $5 million, helping hundreds of thousands worldwide. Here’s to another year of progress towards eradicating extreme poverty!

Giving What We Can 2014 Year in Review

Stephanie Crampin

2014 has seen the rise and success of many innovative and engaging campaigns encouraging people to donate to, and raising awareness of a range of charitable interventions. With mainstream charitable advertising proving lacklustre, these campaigns show social media, blogging and youtube can be used to create a huge driving force for good.

By far the most successful (and surprising) campaign of the year was the ubiquitous Ice Bucket Challenge. Over an incredibly short space of time, over one million people took part, raising over $100 million for the ALS association. The premise is simple: you dump a bucket of icy water on your head in front of a camera, donate to the ALS association, and nominate friends to do the same.

Bill Gates taking the ice bucket challenge. Source: Youtube.

It is already the stuff of legend how this phenomenon actually started. However, consensus falls on it being initiated by a crowd of friends, who challenged each other publicly to donate, and filmed themselves dumping cold water on their heads as a penalty if they failed to do so. As it took off, nominees began to both donate (an amount of their choice) and dump the water. Only later did the ALS association begin its official involvement.

The way in which the ALS association can capitalise on this is to engage and sustain the commitment of the donors that came to it through the Ice Bucket Challenge. Over half of the donors were new to the organisation, and if their generosity is sustained, it would spell an even more monumental success for the ALS association in the long term.

One other way the challenge can be said to have made a meaningful difference is the public discussion it started about the worthiness of the cause raised for. 

 with his critique of the good done by participating in the campaign, and others followed suit, even choosing other charities than ALS to give their Ice Bucket contributions to.

Another very successful challenge, with an even simpler premise. You snap a photograph of yourself with no makeup on, post it to facebook, and nominate your friends to do the same. The campaign raised £8 million for Cancer Research, and was all in all considered a great success. Again, this campaign was started between friends before being adopted by the charity they were supporting.

The #nomakeupselfie campaign was not short of criticism however. Some of the more damning remarks labelled it as 

, as well as being inherently sexist. The Independent writes that “From superfluous ‘no filter’ reminders to boasts of being bare faced in a profile pic, the pretence these images are for anything other than an onslaught of ‘natural beauty’ acclamations, coupled with pats on the back for ‘fighting the cause’ makes the no makeup selfie mania even harder to stomach.”

Blog

Why community matters in thinking about social problems

The Ineffective Altruist: doing good when you’re a student

How to combat mistrust of Western health workers?

New Year's Resolutions and Giving

Giving What We Can 2014 Year in Review

The Best Charitable Campaigns of 2014

GOOD READS: 6 Books, Poems, and Essays Inspiring Thoughtful Giving

The effective altruists of the Nobel Peace Prizes

Quadruple your donation to AMF- in praise of donation matching

Making the most of seasonal giving