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.

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

Hesitations about charitable giving

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

The Pledge

Trial Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Connect with our community

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

Caroline Wood

Do many charities fail to help people?

Whether their mission is combating malaria, improving global literacy, researching cancer cures, or fighting climate change, we naturally assume that charitable organisations have noble intentions. Indeed, the very word ‘charity’ 

, describing affectionate love towards fellow human beings. So it can feel incredibly mean-spirited to stop and ask whether charities 

 benefit the people they intend to help. If their motives are altruistic and their methods are plausible, shouldn’t we just trust them to put our donations to good use?

Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case: despite their worthy motives, many charities don’t help people as effectively as they could, and some even cause harm. Acknowledging this doesn’t mean we are being cynical and judgemental; rather, it allows us to make the biggest possible difference to alleviate the suffering of others by supporting causes using methods that have been proven to work.

For a perfect illustration of a charity that is ineffective at best and harmful at worst, look no further than 

. The idea is simple: children play on a specially-designed roundabout, water is drawn up through a connected borehole to the surface, and the result is a new playground

system for providing safe water. On the surface, it seems a brilliantly creative solution. Within a few years of launching, 

PlayPumps were being hailed as a game-changer solution

, having won a World Bank Development Marketplace Award, as well as sponsorship from 

PlayPump Example

when major flaws in PlayPumps’ design became apparent.

 The pumps often broke down, were difficult to maintain and repair, and could only draw water when the roundabout was in motion —  resulting in exhausted, weary children, compelled to keep turning the unwieldy devices long after the fun had worn off. When consulted by aid organisations, the communities said they preferred the previous hand pumps, which dispensed more water for considerably less effort. In 2007, 

UNICEF issued a highly critical report of PlayPumps,

key stakeholders in the water sector are not comfortable knowing that the $14,000 paid for each unit would have covered several conventional handpump-equipped boreholes or wells, thereby providing safe drinking water to far more people than one PlayPump can

It wasn’t simply a case of PlayPumps not being the best approach to the problem: they were actually getting in the way of better solutions. Yet the charity is still in operation, using largely the same model.

We can find more examples from medical aid. Across the world, NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, and charities distribute medical devices and drugs to low-income countries, yet often these are highly unsuited to local contexts. At worst, this can result in

 ‘graveyards’ of defunct equipment cluttering up hospitals

high disposal costs for inappropriate medicines

 on the effectiveness of medical donations made between 2009–2017, researchers from the University of Sydney concluded that most did not fully comply with World Health Organization guidelines, and that “40–70% of donated medical devices are not used as they are not functional, appropriate, or staff lack training.” Other issues included lack of spare parts to fix devices that broke, instructions provided in non-native languages, equipment being donated without all the required parts, and devices requiring a different power voltage to that used within the country.

Six reasons why ineffective charities exist

Even when charities don’t cause outright harm, their effectiveness can vary massively

. But if certain charities are so much better than others, why do the less effective ones persist? Some of the main reasons include:

1. We underestimate the differences in effectiveness

Most people are unaware of just how large the differences in charities’ effectiveness can be. For instance, 

 found that members of the general public estimated the most effective charities helping the global poor to be only 1.5 times more effective than average charities, while charity experts estimated the factor to be 100.

Charities are not like ‘for-profit’ companies selling products and services. If one company sold its products at 100x the price of the market average, it would quickly go out of business. But as we are generally ignorant about the difference in effectiveness between charities, this means that 

donors do not consistently donate more to the most effective charities.

 Consequently, there is no equivalent market pressure in the charity sector, which allows ineffective charities to persist.

3. Charities underinvest in overhead costs

Often, charities try to minimise overhead costs to appeal to donors but this can lead to counterproductive outcomes

, such as underinvestment in staff salaries (making it hard to recruit skilled labour) and outdated administration systems. In contrast, 

 that well-organised charities backed by solid infrastructures and highly trained staff typically leverage greater impact from their funds.

4. Charities fail to consult their intended beneficiaries

Many of the pitfalls behind PlayPumps could have been avoided if the time and effort had been made to consult the people the charity was trying to help, and to understand their local environment. Similarly, many charities fail to involve end-users, assuming a (rather arrogant) ‘West knows best’ approach. In their review on medical aid, for instance, the Sydney researchers found that “few donor organisations conducted needs assessments prior to donations.”

In general, people’s generosity does not scale proportionately with the number who could benefit. For instance, 

that people were willing to spend nearly the same amount to save 2,000, 20,000, or 200,000 birds from a disastrous oil spill. 

Studies have also confirmed that we can be misled by ‘pseudoinefficacy’

, where if a vast number of people are suffering or at risk from a problem, we feel that acting to save a single life is just ‘a drop in the ocean’ and therefore less valuable. It appears that we are more drawn to causes where we can help the highest proportion of affected people, rather than focusing on the absolute numbers.

Our giving habits can be heavily influenced by our emotions, with the result that 

fundraising appeals that induce feelings such as empathy, compassion or guilt are more likely to move us to donate

. We can also be easily led by ‘trendy’ campaigns backed by celebrities (remember 

The great tragedy is that by being drawn to easily marketable gimmicks, more appropriate and sustainable projects are in ever greater danger of being neglected.”

We are also more likely to donate to causes we feel a personal connection with, even if they won’t achieve the most additional impact possible. For instance, in high-income countries virtually everyone has either battled cancer or known someone who has. Consequently, many can be more inclined to donate to cancer research instead of, for instance, malaria prevention, despite the fact that additional funding towards cancer research is unlikely to save as many lives as anti-malaria interventions.

The solution to ineffective charities: Effective altruism

If we want to do good in the world, it is important that we are aware of the differences in charities effectiveness, because these have huge implications for the world’s poor. When a weaker solution is backed at the expense of a better one, it ultimately means fewer lives saved or improved. What’s more, our budgets are limited, and every dollar donated to an ineffective charity is one that could have been given to an exceptionally high-performing charity.

Happily, we are free to donate our money as we choose. This means we can simply focus on 

for areas with the potential to make a strong impact. 

Indeed, doing the most good we can with the resources we have (including our time, career and income) is the fundamental principle of effective altruism

. But how do we work out which are the most effective charities?

Thankfully there are several organisations that have already done the hard work for us, rigorously evaluating charities through many lenses. Their assessments consider factors such as evidence of successful programmes, 

, transparency, what they would do with additional funding, and whether the issue is being addressed by other charities and organisations (or ‘how neglected the issue is’). This means that if you donate to charities on their recommended lists, you can be confident that your dollars (or equivalent) will achieve as much good as possible.

: Focuses on charities with the potential to save and improve as many human lives as possible. By donating to their 

, your donation will be allocated to the charity or charities that Givewell’s research team recommends at the end of each quarter will likely achieve the most impact with your money.

: Reviews charities dedicated to helping animals (wild and domestic) including through lobbying for improved animal welfare, advocating dietary change and by providing veterinary care.

: A London-based charitable initiative, which encourages entrepreneurs to donate a portion of their personal proceeds to charity when they sell their business. Their advisory team produce 

research reports with recommended charities

For those passionate about preventing global catastrophic risks, such as nuclear war and bioterrorism, you can find advice from both 

on key priority areas. And for new or small charities that may not have been assessed yet, William MacAskill, author of 

 to help you decide whether it is worth your money.

Sometimes, effective altruism is misinterpreted as a cold-hearted, emotionless logic-driven approach to giving. But at its core, effective altruism is driven by a desire to do the most good for others. Your money is precious and deciding to give it to others is a beautiful act of compassion. How empowering it is then, to donate to charities that you can trust to be achieving the most impact from your gift.

So next time you are presented with a collection bucket, stop and ask — is this charity really helping people as well as it could be?

Grace Adams

Pledge Pin Announcement

We are excited to announce the launch of our pledge pins!

Pledging to give at least 10% of your income over a lifetime to effective charities is a significant and meaningful commitment, and we would like to provide our members that are on track with their pledge with a pin to commemorate their commitment.

The pledge pin serves not only as a reminder to ourselves about our pledge but as a subtle way to advocate for effective giving when out and about. Who knows, you might strike up a few conversations about effective giving or even serendipitously meet another member and make a new friend as a result!

We have selected gold pins, with black enamel for after 1 year, white enamel for after 10 years and red enamel for after 20 years. Once the organisation reaches its 20th anniversary, we will announce additional milestone pins.

We will provide these pins to members who are on track with their pledge (at 100% or more with income reported in the last 12 months) and have passed their one and 10 year pledge anniversary.

In order to receive a pin, we ask that members please 

report their donations and current income period

 and check that they are at 100% or more by the 31st of July 2022.

We will review which members have reached their one year or 10 year anniversary, as well as whether they are on track with their pledge on a quarterly basis. We will remind members around their one and 10 year pledge anniversaries to report their donations and current income period as well as update their mailing address if required.

We hope those who have been members for at least one year will wear their pins with pride, and those who are yet to reach one year will be excited to receive theirs after their first anniversary.

What is the detailed criteria for eligibility for the 1 year pin?

Had an active income period in the last 12 months

We will check members against this criteria on a quarterly basis

For our initial distribution, those who joined prior to the 1st Aug 2021 will be considered.

What is the detailed criteria for eligibility for the 10 year pin?

What if I haven’t updated my account in 12 months but do intend to fulfil my pledge?

In this case, you will become eligible when you report your donations, update your income period and fulfil your pledge to 100% or more as you can see in the criteria listed above. 

I’m not eligible according to the criteria but I still plan to fulfil my pledge, how do I get a pin?

In this case, you will become eligible when you report your donations, update your income period and fulfil your pledge to 100% or more as you can see in the criteria listed above.  If you have any other unusual circumstances and don’t believe that you will meet the criteria but are still fulfilling or plan to fulfil your pledge, please email us at 

I’ve been a member for 10 years, will I get both a 1 year and a 10 year pin?

Yes, for this first distribution, we will give our members who meet the criteria for both a 1 year and 10 year pins will get both pins, although they may be mailed separately.

I have taken a trial pledge, will I get a pledge pin?

At this stage, our pledge pins are for members who have taken The Giving What We Can Pledge or The Further Pledge, in recognition of their significant, lifelong commitment. Trial pledges members are welcome to take the The Giving What We Can Pledge or The Further Pledge if that is a suitable next step for them to take.

I do not want to receive a pledge pin, how can I opt out?

For members that do not wish to receive a pin, they may opt out by filling out 

. They are welcome to change their mind and receive a pin as long as they meet the eligibility criteria above.

I only recently met the eligibility criteria after not being eligible, will I get a pin?

Yes, even if you were not eligible for a pin in the past, but have recently become eligible, you will receive a pin in the next distribution.

My address is out of date, will my pin go to the wrong address?

Yes it may, please update your mailing address when prompted in order to ensure we can send you your pin.

Yes, if you have included a valid postal address, we can send your pin to you. Some rare exceptions may apply.

No, these pins are exclusively to recognise the active commitment of our lifetime pledged members.

We will review eligibility and distribute pins on a quarterly basis. Members who are eligible for a pin will be notified by email.

Why is Giving What We Can spending money on making and distributing these pins?

You’ll be glad to know that the cost of these pins is low, and we believe that there is significant value in helping people stick with their pledge, as well as subtly advocate for effective giving when out and about. Anyone who is concerned about the cost can opt out using 

Luke Freeman

Bruce Friedrich: Why plant based meat is a scalable solution to feed the world

 we are joined by Bruce Friedrich, the founder and CEO of 

 (GFI) which is pioneering open access science, policy and corporate engagement to make plant based meat taste as good and cost less than it's traditional counterparts as part of a solution to feed future populations and reduce the impacts on climate, health and poverty.

This was an inspiring interview and we are really grateful for Bruce sharing his time with us, and for the work that he has spearheaded at GFI.

You can donate to GFI and support all their excellent work via Giving What We Can.

You can find out about GFI and keep up with alternative proteins by 

. GFI also has jobs open in the U.S., Europe, APAC, India, Israel, and Brazil - you can check out the 

#7 - Bruce Friedrich: Why plant based meat is a scalable solution to feed the world

June Newsletter 2022

Hello and welcome to our June Newsletter!


This month's major news: We’ve released a 

! This new, redesigned website has been in the works for a long time, and we’re thrilled that it’s live! It will enable us to have a more integrated donation and pledge experience and hopefully brings our new branding to life!

A big thank you to our developers Fabio and Sarah, and designers Alex, Casper and Jasper who put many hours of love into creating a new ‘face’ for Giving What We Can.

Thank you to everyone who gave feedback about our new video introduction format, and also to those who gave additional feedback about our newsletter and how we could improve - we read all of the feedback given to us and use it to inform our strategy.

Based on the feedback, we’ll continue to do a video (and audio) summary for those who’d prefer it and we’ll keep the newsletter the same for those who enjoy reading it.

We will also make an effort to provide some context to some of our news that we include, to make sure that those who are just beginning their journey with effective giving feel supported along their journey (thank you to the one person who left very detailed feedback about this).

June Newsletter Summary


-Luke Freeman & the rest of the Giving What We Can team.

Positive Impact Society Erasmus (PISE)  recently held a pledge party and had 10 people sign a pledge, with some karaoke and a meal afterwards!

We invite you to join us at a special community conversation with Julia Wise to discuss how the funding and goals in effective altruism have been shifting recently and how this impacts our effective giving as individual donors, as well as community health in general. We will ask Julia a bit about her personal reflections on how to best navigate these times and what she thinks some of the issues might be, and then open up to you to ask any questions that you may have for her.

This event will be held in duplicate in order to be more accessible globally:

This month’s meeting will be a social event- Let’s do icebreakers and get to know each other better, let's play games (suggestions are also welcome!). Let's hang out and chat about whatever topics take your fancy! Look forward to seeing you there - Meetups team


 (New York: Sat 6:00 pm, Sydney: Sun 8:00 am)

Blog

Do many charities fail to help people?

Pledge Pin Announcement

Bruce Friedrich: Why plant based meat is a scalable solution to feed the world

June Newsletter 2022

How flawed judgments limit the impact of charitable donations

Member Profile: Vasco Grilo

May 2022 Newsletter

Member Profile: Sonia Albrecht

EA Funds donation platform is moving to Giving What We Can

Can one person really make a difference?