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

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

Donate

Pledge

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our values

Our members

Our events

Transparency

Our mistakes

Our impact

Donate to Giving What We Can

Careers

Leave feedback or make a complaint

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

Make your donation go further this Giving Season

topNavigation

Our research team’s 2026 recommendations

How we choose which charities to recommend

Other places to donate

Create a fundraiser

Best charities

The 10% Pledge

The Trial Pledge

Pledging vs. donating

View all pledgers

Share your pledge to inspire others

Giving pledges

About our research

Browse our guides and resources

Connect with our community

Read our blog

Help others discover effective giving

Research and resources

Who we are & what we do

Our structure

Mistakes

Top Navigation

Carolina Flores

The best gift you'll give this year

Christmas can inspire giving and sharing with our loved ones. Why not expand our generosity to the neediest people in the planet? Giving to effective causes allows us to make a big difference in the lives of others. To make giving easier this Christmas, we have created a page for Christmas donations, where you can also donate in someone else's name.

Despite the consumerist frenzy it has come to be associated with, there is something beautiful about the spirit of Christmas. Spending time with the ones closest to us, giving and receiving presents, sharing in common cheerfulness - these can all be wonderful displays of love for others. Why not spread this generosity all over the world, and reach out to those who are suffering in extreme poverty?

We are in a position to give so much: we can give health, life, education, and opportunities to thrive to people all over the globe. We can make Christmas an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of people who are suffering.

And how can we make the biggest difference? One of the ways to do so is to donate to effective charities - charities which, according to a large body of research, save the most lives with a donation. In this way, the generosity inspired by Christmas can have a real impact in improving others' lives. There is no better way of expressing compassion, solidarity and love than by giving to those who need it most. This is why no Christmas gift can be better than helping others.

Julia Heckenast

Should we be blind to the (economic) burden of onchocerciasis?

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are having a serious impact on some of the world's poorest populations by depressing economic development. In this blog, we examine the economic impact of onchocerciasis, commonly known as river blindness, which is such a disease. Spread by blackflies, the sufferer's body is eventually infested with worms, causing a range of debilitating symptoms, including blindness.[1] The socioeconomic impact of the disease is complex, affecting individuals, village communities and the national workforce, with an estimated 1 million disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost worldwide. Leaders of past successful control programmes declared victory over river blindness, but in reality, millions of people still remain at risk of the disease.[2] However, it is clear that unlike other diseases such as HIV/AIDS, successful elimination of onchocerciasis could be achieved more easily than we think.

The parasitic nematode causing the disease is rife in 27 sub-Saharan African countries, with around 37 million people infected, and 90 million more at risk.[3] The parasite was also imported through the slave trade to six Latin American countries.

To begin to understand the economic burden of NTDs, we searched key repositories of health-related publications including PubMed, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Cochrane websites combining a variety of disease-related search terms with a selection of economic-related terms. Disease-related search terms included all of the 17 NTDs as defined by the WHO,[4] and economic-related search terms included words such as burden, cost and employment. Diseases with inexpensive treatments that affect the largest populations were prioritised, such as onchocerciasis. The economic burdens of NTDs in developing countries were reported in a total of 282 articles, which we then subdivided by disease area giving 22 articles for onchocerciasis. Of these, we were able to access 16 articles for our review.

The socioeconomic burden of the disease can be felt on several levels. The early symptoms are often disabling, with itchy skin, muscle pain, reduced immune response, and visual impairment that can lead to blindness. We see the most drastic effects in small communities where most people are infected: up to 6.5% of the villages surveyed in Guinea were blinded.[5] After losing his sight, a previously healthy young man whose body was his only means to an income, is unable to work properly, can hardly walk beyond the village and spends the little he earns on health costs. His self-esteem and concentration suffer, and he is unlikely to ever get married or have a family.[5] Even without visual impairment, he would earn significantly lower wages.[6] For a child, the impact on their education damages their future prospects and leads to an estimated 17% drop in future income.[7] Whole villages are abandoned for fear of the disease, leaving acres of fertile land deserted, which has a knock-on effect on the wider economy.

This extensive impact of onchocerciasis is responsible for 1 million DALYs worldwide, which is a measure of healthy life-years lost due to disability and mortality.[2] This impact is three times that of the effect of asthma in the UK.[8] To counter this, several control strategies have tried to bring an end to the debilitating effects of the disease. Historically, both anti-vectorial and anti-parasitic measures have been used with some success. In 1974, the WHO started the Onchocerciasis Control Programme (OCP), poisoning blackfly breeding grounds in West Africa to try to interrupt parasite transmission. In some areas, children born after the initiation of the programme were no longer at risk.[2] A similar international programme, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) was also established in 1989, with the help of pharmaceutical giant Merck, to begin mass distribution of the anti-parasite agent invermectin. By the end of 2005, over 40 million people living in 90,000 African villages affected by onchocerciasis had been treated. The cost of this programme was estimated to be only $0.74 per person, making this a highly cost-effective approach.[2]

The success of these programmes has consigned onchocerciasis to the bottom of the public health agenda at a time when consolidating these achievements and ensuring long-term success would be critical. It is clear from our research that control of onchocerciasis needs to be extended to wider areas, and that elimination is feasible. For example, one study estimates that three NTDs, including onchocerciasis, could be eliminated from Latin America and the Caribbean by 2020 for $128 million. In Nigeria, which has the highest rate of infection in the world, onchocerciasis could be eliminated in just a few years for an annual cost of less than $1 per person. Having said that, new programmes need to be designed to be sustainable and supported by communities in order to make onchocerciasis a disease of the past.

By Julia Heckenast, working pro bono on behalf of Costello Medical Consulting, with a wider team at Costello Medical Consulting

1. Jamison D, Breman J, Measham A, et al. Priorities in Health. The World Bank, 2006.

2. Basanez MG, Pion SD, Churcher TS, et al. River blindness: a success story under threat? PLoS Med 2006;3:e371.

3. African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control [APOC]. Final communiqué of the 11th session of the Joint Action Forum (JAF) of APOC, Paris, France, 6-9 December 2005. Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso): APOC. 2005.

4. Souery D, Papakostas GI, Trivedi MH. Treatment-resistant depression. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2006;67:16.

5. Evans TG. Socioeconomic consequences of blinding onchocerciasis in west Africa. Bull World Health Organ 1995;73:495-506.

6. Workneh W, Fletcher M, Olwit G. Onchocerciasis in field workers at Baya Farm, Teppi Coffee Plantation Project, southwestern Ethiopia: prevalence and impact on productivity. Acta Trop 1993;54:89-97.

7. Martin G, Grant A, D'Agostino M. Global health funding and economic development. Globalization and health 2012;8:8.

8. Murray J. UK health performance: findings of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet 2013.

Costello Medical

The Economic Impact of Cysticercosis

In this blog we take a look at the economic impact of a parasitic worm infection responsible for a large proportion of epilepsy cases in the developing world. The disabling nature of the disease translates into a huge economic burden on both a personal scale for the sufferer and for the countries where the disease is prevalent. By demonstrating the value to be gained from disease elimination we hope to demonstrate the importance of investment in appropriately funded and designed control and eradication programmes.

 (NTD) identified by the WHO and is caused by the larval stages of the tapeworm species Taenia solium, which affects both man and pigs. [1, 2] The disease remains a big issue in many developing countries, mostly affecting the health and livelihoods of the poorest populations within a country.[3] The fact that the disease is entirely preventable, makes its impact on health and economy even more devastating. Epileptic seizures, chronic headaches and memory loss are all common symptoms of infection that contribute to the morbidity of the disease.[4] The disabling nature of these symptoms translates into a huge economic burden to the sufferer in the form of expenses needed for treatment and productivity losses,[4] making disease control essential yet desperately lacking.

For people living in developing countries around the world, one of their only economic productivity assets is often their body. The economic shock of a debilitating illness, like cysticercosis, can drive a sufferer into abject poverty.[5] Although data on the global disease burden of cysticercosis is limited, it is estimated that there are approximately 50 million people in the world living with the infection and that epileptic seizures occur in 50-70% of all symptomatic cysticercosis cases.[4]

To begin to develop a better picture of the economic burden of cysticercosis across the globe, we searched key repositories of health-related publications including PubMed, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Cochrane websites combining a variety of disease-related search terms with a selection of economic-related terms. Disease-related search terms included all of the 17 NTDs as defined by the WHO, and economic-related search terms included words such as burden, cost and employment. Diseases, like cysticercosis, with inexpensive treatments that affect the largest populations were prioritised. A total of 282 articles met our inclusion criteria, which we then subdivided by disease area giving a total of [9] articles for cysticercosis. Of these, we were able to access 8 articles for our review. The locations of these studies included East Asia, South Africa, West Cameroon, Mexico and Peru.

Table 1 shows annual economic losses arising from cysticercosis according to different developing countries across the globe. These estimates are always in the tens of millions and suggest that T. solium cysticercosis results in considerable costs for regions that are already economically constrained.[6] We hope that these figures:

Highlight the importance of introducing efforts to reduce T. solium prevalence;

Demonstrate the economic value to be gained from T. solium eradication;

Place the disease in perspective relative to other health issues in these different countries;

Could assist stakeholders in allocating scarce health and agricultural resources in their respective countries.

Table 1. A comparison of annual economic losses arising due to human/pig cysticercosis according to country.

At this point, it is also important to note that T. solium does not only produce a severe disease in humans but also causes widespread economic losses to the pig industry.[10] In Mexico, for example, porcine cysticercosis caused loss of more than half the national investment in swine production,[11] and the losses that arise as a result of the destruction of meat are estimated at $43 million per year.[9] In less developed countries, pigs are an important source of money for farmers due to them being cheap and more easily marketable than other animals such as cows.[10] T. solium transmission is maintained in rural areas where pigs have access to untreated human sewage or faeces. By simply improving sanitation and controlling domestic pig farming, many developed countries have eradicated cysticercosis.[10] So why has this not occurred in developing countries? A lack of socioeconomic development impedes a country's chance of control and elimination and unfortunately the near future holds limited hope for further socioeconomic advancement. As a result, investment in intervention measures to control and eradicate cysticercosis are desperately needed and should be appropriately targeted to the places that need them most.

While the annual costs presented in this blog are eye wateringly high enough, they are only estimates, and unfortunately it is likely that the majority are underestimates. This could be for a number of reasons, for example, Praet et al (2009) make estimations based on epilepsy as the only symptom of cysticercosis and Rajkotia et al (2007) do not discriminate between leisure time and idle time due to job loss; thus productivity losses have probably been underestimated. Also, the study by Rajkotia et al (2007) does not estimate the losses arising from the reduced future potential earnings among cysticercosis patients who cannot return to work after infection with the parasite; a figure that stands at approximately two-thirds of wage-earners. Of these sufferers, only 61% were then able to re-engage in wage-earning activities.[4]

To further increase the chance of eradication, future work should attempt to estimate the burden of cysticercosis on a global level and identify priority areas for action. This early attempt at collating country specific costs revealed that the cost of inactivity due to disease, influenced by salaries, plays the largest role in the monetary burden of T. solium cysticercosis. If we could gain access to accurate country-wide salary levels and disease prevelance this would certainly improve our chances of gaining a more accurate indication of the total economic burden of T. solium cysticercosis that could be summed across the globe. These accurate global estimates are essential for highlighting the gains that could be made, not only in terms of people's health but also in terms of money saving, by eliminating these diseases.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2012/WHO_HTM_NTD_2012.1_eng.pdf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs376/en/

Choffness E R. Relman D A. The causes and Impacts of Neglected Tropical and Zoonotic Diseases: Opportunities for Integrated Intervention Strategies: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62507/pdf/TOC.pdf

Rajikotia Y. Lescano A G. Gilman R H. Cornejo C. Garcia H H. Economic burden of neurocysticercosis: results from Peru. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007; 101: 840-846.

Matin G. Grant A. D'Agostino M. Global health funding and economic development. Globalization and health. 2012; 8: 8.

Carabin H. Krecek R C. Cowan L D. Michael L. Foyaca-Sibat H. Nash T. Willingham A L. Estimation of the cost of Taenia solium cysticercosis in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2006; 11:906-916.

Fan P C. Annual Economic Loss Caused by Taenia saginata asiatica Taeniasis in Three Endemic Areas of East Asia. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 1997; 28: 217-221.

Praet N. Sperbroeck N. Manzanedo R. Berkvens D. Nforninwe D N. Zoli A. Quet F. Preux P-M. Carabin H. Geerts S. The Disease Burden of Taenia solium Cysticercosis in Cameroon. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2007; 3: e406.

Flisser A. Taeniasis and cysticercosis due to T solium. In: Sun T, ed. Progress in clinical parasitology. New York: CRC Press, 1994: 77-116.

Garcia H H. Gonzalez A E. Evans C A W. Gilman R H. Taenia solium cysticercosis. The Lancet. 2003; 361: 547-556.

Murrell KD. Economic losses resulting from food-borne parasitic zoonoses. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 1991; 22 (suppl): 377-81.

Michelle Hutchinson

Arms, Tobacco and Comic Relief

's investment in tobacco, alcohol and arms firms has caused widespread outrage. But is it possible that the hype caused by Panorama could do even more harm than the initial investments themselves? We should be wary of highlighting only the negative aspects of charities, and neglecting the immense good they can do.

 on the 10th of December that 'Millions of pounds donated to Comic Relief have been invested in funds with shares in tobacco, alcohol and arms firms'. Comic Relief raises millions of pounds every year through large-scale events such as Red Nose Day and Sport Relief. This means it hold tens of millions of pound at a time, some of which is invested in the stock market before it is donated to the charities it supports. Doing so is important to make sure that they have as much money to help their beneficiaries with as possible. Among the investments they made in 2009 were ones to the alcohol, tobacco and weapons industry.

It's true that on the face of it, this is contradictory to Comic Relief's stated mission: they claim in their Mission Statement to want to help 'people affected by conflict' and to 'reduce alcohol misuse and minimise alcohol-related harm'. They're also committed to fighting tuberculosis, which can be related to smoking. However, it's not clear that these investments do contradict Comic Relief's mission. It may be that the increased donation they can make to fighting tuberculosis outweighs the harm their investment in the tobacco industry did (for example). On the other hand, it's very difficult to know precisely how much harm the latter caused.

A factor which has been discussed very little so far is how donor behaviour may change in response to this type of scandal. Knowing that a charity's investments appear to be unethical (whether intentionally or not), a lot of people may well be moved by thoughts like 'My donations aren't helping, they may even be harming. So it is not worth donating to charity at all'. As a result, they may give less or stop giving at all.

But this is not the right response. The message we should draw from this scandal is that we need to know how our donations are being used. We have the potential to do a lot of good with our donations in the long run. That's true most of all if we carefully assess the effectiveness of the charities we give to. But even donations to organisations like Comic Relief have the potential to do a lot of good, and make progress towards combating extreme poverty. Comic Relief benefits from strong brand awareness (allowing them to raise truly astounding amounts to combat global poverty - over £100 million in a year!!) and economies of scale (allowing them to use that money efficiently). They also fund (among many other things) some of the most cost-effective causes that are working to combat global poverty, including 

This scandal reminds us to consider the impact of our donations. It should also make us reflect on the donor scepticism and therefore negative impact that can be the result of a report such as this. I hope this will motivate more people to think carefully about their donations, rather than turn their back on giving to charity altogether. We all have the potential to do a lot of good through charity if we want to!

Andreas Mogensen

Why we continue to recommend the Against Malaria Foundation

Just over two weeks ago, GiveWell (GW) chose to remove Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) from its list of top charities, citing concerns about AMF’s room-for-more-funding (RFMF). (See GW’s blog post 

.) Having considered this issue and spoken with both AMF and GW, we at Giving What We Can have decided not to remove AMF from our own list of recommended charities, as we continue to believe that AMF represents one of the very best opportunities for those who want to give now. However, Giving What We Can and GW do not really disagree on this issue as much as it might appear. Read on to learn more.

The decision by GW to remove AMF from its list of top charities was made based on concerns related to RFMF. These concerns have arisen in light of AMF’s failure to finalize large-scale distributions over the two-year period in which AMF have been GW’s #1 recommended charity; GW drew particular attention to the recent failure of AMF to negotiate distribution of nets in Sierra Leone. Summarizing their position, GW write: “given the significant amount of time that has passed, it now seems to us that there is a substantial risk that AMF will not accomplish [one or more suitable distributions] in the near future, and that having more funds to commit would steepen rather than lessen its challenges. … Therefore, we believe it is most prudent to donate elsewhere until and unless AMF commits the bulk of the funds it currently holds, at which point we will revisit its ranking.”

GW also criticise certain aspects of AMF’s approach to negotiating distributions, which they believe may have hindered progress. For example, GW suggest that the stringent monitoring and evaluation requirements set out by AMF for potential partners are in some cases too strong. However, GW note that AMF have already taken steps to address concerns of this kind.

AMF were kind enough to speak to us at length about their views on GW’s decision and AMF’s plans for the immediate future. Many details relating to these plans are confidential, and are not discussed in following. Overall, AMF’s position is that GW have underestimated the value of additional funds donated to AMF.

AMF are highly confident that they will have allocated all present funds within the next 6 months. They are currently involved in a number of negotiations. Some of these negotiations have made significant progress and one pre-registration survey is already beginning. Some of these distributions are sufficiently large that AMF could potentially be facing a significant funding gap early in the new year. Consequently, AMF is presently seeking funding of an additional $5m to be able to fund those distributions it is currently discussing that will require a decision before the end of March 2014.

AMF offered a number of reasons to suppose that current negotiations are more likely to succeed than those in which they have been involved in the recent past, particularly Sierra Leone. For example, a smaller number of partners are involved, meaning that negotiations are simpler and more likely to follow through. In addition, AMF suggested that, on the outside chance that longer delays are experienced in disbursing funds, they saw no reason to believe that a distribution of nets carried out in the near future would be significantly less effective. Thus, even if AMF do continue to experience delays in securing large scale distributions, we should expect that money donated now will eventually be used to fund net distributions relevantly similar in cost-effectiveness to what we’ve come to expect from AMF. AMF pointed to the large gap that exists, (and is projected to continue to exist) between the need for nets and the funding available.

What we’ve learned from speaking further to GW

Besides contacting AMF, we’ve gained considerable insight from speaking to GW about their decision, particularly GW Co-Founder Elie Hassenfeld. I found it notable that GW’s views about AMF, as expressed in conversation, were not quite as pessimistic as their blog-post on the 26th of November had led me to expect. GW believe it is more likely than not that AMF will disburse all funds within the next 6 months. They believe that it is definitely defensible to give to AMF at present, though the better policy would be to wait and see whether AMF succeeds in those negotiations which are expected to be finalized within the first quarter of 2014. Furthermore, GW have suggested that part of the reason for their decision to remove AMF from their list of top charities has to do with the public significance of their recommendations and the incentives provided to charities by managing these recommendations as they currently do.

Elie expressed some degree of skepticism with respect to the likelihood that AMF’s current negotiations will yield fruit, appealing to AMF’s underwhelming track record over the previous two years. He did not wish to rule out, however, that current negotiations might have properties that are more likely to lead to success and noted that AMF has made positive steps to address some of GW’s critical comments.

Having considered the issue, Giving What We Can has decided to keep AMF on its list of recommended charities. We believe that, for donors looking to give to charity now, AMF remains among the very best opportunities for doing good. Whereas the concerns regarding RFMF raised by GW shouldn’t be taken lightly, we do not believe, based on what we’ve learned, that these are sufficiently serious that the expected value of donating to AMF should not continue to rank very highly. That having been said, we give considerable credence to the view that those who are not committed to giving now may do well to wait and see whether AMF’s current negotiations are successful (but see below).

The question of when to give is a difficult issue that we’ve addressed on a number of occasions (

). I typically give at the beginning of each month, and I’m inclined to believe that there’s value in establishing a rhythm of this kind in terms of ensuring that we follow through on our commitment to give. However, there are other reasons that may lead us to believe that it is better to give later: in particular, we may have better evidence.

Fortunately, there’s a way to give now and give later, all at the same time. As we discussed in 

 earlier this week, it’s possible to give now to the Giving What We Can Trust while choosing to delay the disbursement of one’s donation. Absent this kind of recommendation, the Trust pays out quarterly to our recommended charities. The best strategy may therefore be to give now to the Trust, indicating that you would like your donation to be spent in accordance with Giving What We Can’s recommendations when the Trust pays out at the beginning of the second quarter of 2014, at which point we expect to know a lot more about AMF’s room for more funding.

How to run the most effective charity in the world

On Thursday 5th December I attended a panel discussion on what makes a charity effective, hosted by the African Development Project at Imperial College London. The speakers included the directors of two of Giving What We Can's top charities: Rob Mather of the Against Malaria Foundation and Prof Alan Fenwick of Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, as well as Caroline Fiennes of Giving Evidence; an organisation which advises donors and charities on improving performance by making evidence-based decisions.

The discussion began with each speaker talking about what makes an effective charity, before opening to questions from the floor.

Rob presented a four-point overview of what he believes makes AMF so effective, and stressed that these principles can be adopted by pretty much any charity to become more effective:

Focus on impact should drive what you do. This means measuring results and reporting your findings.

Efficiency drives how you do it. When setting up AMF, Rob was keen to get things for free where possible, approaching people he knew at businesses to enlist their help, for example PWC, which audits the charity for free.

Accountability ensures that promises are delivered. AMF checks that nets have been distributed as intended, and that they continue to be used. The key to ensuring that nets are distributed and used as intended is engaging with communities and stakeholders and educating them about the whole process: why the nets are important and how they will prevent malaria.

Transparency builds confidence among stakeholders. Thanks to the Internet, it's very easy for charities to be transparent and Rob argues that they should present their accounts in a user-friendly way.

Alan talked about how and why SCI is so effective.

, but as this funding began to dry up, SCI was spotted by 

 and Giving What We Can. Alan believes that smaller charities such as SCI and AMF are more effective than some of the biggest, most famous charities. The key reason SCI is so effective is that donations are highly leveraged: it has persuaded a big pharmaceutical company to donate all the drugs needed, so what donors are actually paying for is for SCI to advocate with ministers in recipient countries and to educate people on why they need the drugs. For example, schistosomiasis is not really a problem in cities, so ministers there might overlook the importance of the drugs.

Giving Evidence works across the whole of the charitable sector and Caroline argues that GiveWell's method of analysis, focusing on QALYs, only works well for a certain kind of charity. There are many organisations doing vital work towards things like systemic and societal change which can't be measured in this way. She gave the example of Stonewall, which advocates for gay rights, arguing that you can't evaluate its work in terms of units of good achieved. Caroline took issue with the concept of "the most effective charity in the world" arguing that different charities are needed to achieve different things. That said, she does think it is essential to compare charities as we have finite resources and an effectively infinite need.

If you are interested in getting a comprehensive picure of Caroline's views on effectice giving, she recently published a book on the topic. You can read our review of her book 

Is it fair to use GiveWell's metric for all charities?

 The metric is only appropriate for certain charities. He is excited to see what will come of 

, the initiative which is moving beyond (relatively) simple-to-quantify areas to look at things like scientific research and political advocacy. Rob thinks that the focus for any charity should be to work on processes which make them more cost-effective, whatever it is they are doing.

How do you collect data and measure your work?

: AMF works with partners in-country to collect data. It's actually incredibly cheap to do. Local health providers go round a village knocking on doors to find out exactly how many nets are needed in each home.

What about the use of surveys and opinion polls?

: Caroline argues that what a lot of charities are essentially undertaking is social science research, but they often lack rigour. For example, a charity might use a survey to chart attitudes before and after a campaign, but too often they will infer causation from correlation. To gather meaningful evidence, these organisations need to carry out 

How far can charities be compared to businesses? Can charities work on branding to become more successful?

: Charities should strive to be "business-like" in that they should be professional and efficient, trying to maximise outcome.

: While charities can learn from businesses, Caroline feels that the analogy is overplayed. There are fundamental differences between the two: businesses produce private benefit and are driven by financial results, whereas charities are aiming to achieve varied and complex outcomes for public benefit and are in the business of giving things away, including intellectual property.

If you could change one thing about the way the charity world works, what would it be?

: Donations being made based on evidence and the value of what is actually being delivered, rather than on how famous a charity is.

: There are certain organisations and campaigns which bring in vast sums of money every year, for example Comic Relief and Children in Need, who don't tell donors exactly what is being achieved with their money. Greater accountability and transparency is needed.

: Greater accountability is needed. Charities should measure and report to donors exactly what is being achieved with their money.

Should you donate now or in the future? Here is how to do both

Should we donate in the future when we have more information rather than right now? If we put off donating, we miss out on important benefits like Gift Aid and commitment to giving. But there is a way to get these benefits, while putting off the decision of which charity to donate to - putting your money in a charitable trust.

There are various reasons that you might want to 

. One is that you could invest the money you would otherwise donate, and by gaining interest on it, end up donating more than you would if you did so now. That's contentious, since giving to charities earns a 'social return' - people who get deworming tablets will get a better education, and therefore a better job. That will benefit not only them, but also others around them. That said, because this social return isn't reinvested in the charitable intervention, over the very long-term it may be that 

Another reason for delaying donating is if you think you'll have better information in future about which charities will be most effective with your donation. That possibility is particularly salient at the moment. The 

 has been thought by many to be the most effective charity in world, having been the number one recommended charity by GiveWell. However, in their most recent round of recommendations, GiveWell dropped AMF. They feel AMF has no room for more funding at present because it hasn't been able to secure a large distribution of nets recently.

Many people think that AMF, if it did have room for more funding, would be more effective than the other options GiveWell now recommends. It's uncertain how soon AMF will find a partner to distribute nets. Therefore, AMF might very soon become their top recommended charity again, or it may have no room for funding for a long while. (We will release a more detailed blog post about AMF next week.) More speculatively, there are other causes which may be the most effective to donate to, but which it's currently unclear how to affect. These considerations are by no means conclusive, but some people might still want to put off donating until we have more information.

 about how much we care about ending extreme poverty - we can encourage others to join us in donating, and possibly governments to take poverty alleviation more seriously. By donating to the most effective charities, we can encourage other charities to care more about their own impact. By not donating on the other hand, we run the risk of falling out of the habit of giving every year. And there's even a risk of missing out on some gift aid or tax deductions you could receive (since you can only claim back as much tax as you paid in a year; and in the US only 50% of that).

The benefits of delaying choosing a charity and of donating immediately can be combined by donating to a charitable trust (or in the US a donor advised fund). That's one of the reasons we had for setting up the Giving What We Can Trust. A trust is a scaled down charity in its own right, so you can claim Gift Aid when donating to it (if you're in the UK). However, the money can stay in the Trust for a prolonged period before being paid out. If someone gives to the GWWC Trust, the default is that it is paid out quarterly to whichever of our recommended charities the donor chose. But people can ask for it to be paid out immediately or for it to be left in the Trust until some future time.

Unlike donor advised funds, charitable trusts typically do not charge management fees. By default, they are ordinary bank accounts. For that reason, money in the GWWC Trust currently neither diminishes nor accrues interest. However, we have the option of using a linked savings account, or of investing the money in bonds or stocks. The latter would involve some administrative work on our part, since trusts are regulated by the Charities Commission. That's an option we'll explore further if any donors come forward wanting to put a substantial donation (perhaps over £1000) in the trust for a prolonged period.

If you'd like to wait to give in order to make sure you're donating to the most effective charity, but want to make sure you get the benefits of giving now, the answer is to donate to a trust! Please feel free to 

Giving What We Can

The nightmare is real

 of a high quality mobile video game, marking the event of production company Psyop joining the fight against malaria, in conjunction with the Against Malaria Foundation.

The launch is in conjunction with the launch of a video, narrated by Susan Sarandon. The 90-second spot, starts as a sweet tale about a little girl drifting to sleep at night.

Things turn dark, though, when a giant mosquito impales the child, infecting her with malaria and plunging her into her own bloodstream. A twisted series of psychedelic visuals ensues, taking the viewer on a wild ride through the symptoms of malaria.

The nightmare ends abruptly when mosquitoes hit a net draped around the child’s bed. The call to action is simple: three dollars buys a mosquito net, effectively preventing a malaria infection and limiting the spread of the deadly disease.

“EGG is our chance each year to step outside our comfort zone and push the boundaries a bit” says Marco Spier, Director and Founding Partner at Psyop. “This year, we also decided to make a game inspired by the spot. We’ve never done that before.”

In “Nightmare: Malaria,” players make their way through 18 levels of fever-dream visuals, avoiding killer mosquitoes and collecting hard-to-reach teddy bear tokens along the way.

The game is now available in the iTunes App Store and the Google Play store for Android.

A good weekend for a top charity!

This Sunday, GiveWell released their official 

update of their top recommended charities for the giving season 2013

. The most recent charity to make the list is a Giving What We Can recommended charity, 

. Deworm the World (DtW) operates under the umbrella of Evidence Action. Evidence Action also manages Dispensers for Safe Water, which Giving What We Can is looking into separately.

Here is GiveWell's justificationf for recommending DtW:

In isolation, our best guess is that DtWl's deworming program is likely less cost effective than SCI's (about 50-100% as cost effective) and GiveWell staff differ about its cost-effectiveness relative to cash transfers (1.5-3x as cost effective). This is because worm infections appear less prevalent and (particularly) less intense where DtWI works than where SCI works. However, DtWI focuses on influencing government spending rather than covering all costs with its own funds, and we think it is therefore appropriate to give it some degree of credit for "leverage" - making your dollars go further than they otherwise would.

 remained a top charity supported by GiveWell, 

despite recent concerns over it's effectiveness

 also remained on the list of recommendations, following a 

, GiveWell dropped AMF from their list of recommended charities, due to a percieved lack of room for funding. We will be Skyping Rob Mather to discuss GiveWell's most recent decision at 2.30pm GMT on Wednesday 04/12/2013. If you have any questions you'd like to put to him, please get in touch at 

Sally Murray

Thought the question of the most effective charity was settled? There are always more questions.

This Tuesday, charity evaluator GiveWell removed the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) from their top-recommended charities list. What was the reason?

GiveWell’s central concern is that AMF may fail to use new donations to fund bed nets, or only purchase these bed nets with great delay. In the past two years, AMF have spent less than one tenth of the funds they have received (~$1m, out of over $12m) and although AMF say they are currently in talks about distributions worth $40m,[1] GiveWell want more evidence that AMF really can ‘scale-up’ to this sort of level; if and when AMF distribute the $12m they currently hold, GiveWell will review their case and say they are likely to recommend them once again.

It might seem odd that AMF are failing to distribute their funds. There seem to be plenty of at-risk people who don’t have insecticide-treated bed nets… So what’s the problem?

Well, it seems that although many health charities and Ministries of Health want nets, many won’t accept them under AMF’s conditions- particularly, their conditions for strong monitoring of net distributions. To receive nets from AMF, for example, an organisation must take photos and videos of net distributions, and this imposes some cost and hassle for the distributor. Although AMF’s intention with such requirements is to deter the stealing of nets, net distributors may prefer to avoid the hassle, and hold out for the chance of obtaining nets from less demanding donors.

We have all sorts of questions to pose to AMF, and we hope to soon hold a Skype conversation with AMF’s founder Rob Mather. What would you like us to ask? What do you think of GiveWell’s demotion of AMF? Which charity will you be donating to following this update?

NB GiveWell suggest other possible reasons AMF has struggled to use its funding, and we recommend you to read their 