If someone gave you $500 to give to a charity of your choosing, which one would it be?
Now, think about why you chose this specific organization.
Chances are that you chose this organization based on some kind of emotional attachment to the cause. Maybe you chose it because you know someone who volunteers there. Or maybe you know someone personally who has suffered from something the organization is trying to prevent.
It makes sense. When tasked with choosing from the pool of over a million charities, using your emotions as a guide is often the easiest thing to do.
But when you choose to give money to a charity based on emotional attachment, you are unconsciously excluding organizations that may be helping more people or achieving its goals more efficiently.
In the US alone, $358.38 billion was given to charitable organizations by the private sector in 2014, and a majority of that giving (72%) came from individuals. This means that individuals can play a huge role in supporting programs or services that actually work!
So while it’s understandable that people want to give money to organizations they feel connected to, it’s time for people to make charitable decisions based on data rather than emotion.
This is exactly the message behind (jargon alert!) effective altruism. Effective altruists believe in applying evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to improve the world. To date, this movement has attracted over US $350 million for evidence-based global poverty interventions.
While I personally hate the term, I’m on board with the idea. Putting more resources into effective, scalable interventions is the best way to lift millions out of poverty.
So what makes an effective organization?
Let’s start with what doesn’t. Organizations that brag, “we give 99% of every dollar to programs” are severely limiting their chances at being effective. While it’s important for nonprofit organizations to use their funds wisely, organizations that underfund important overhead costs are setting themselves up for failure. No organization can be successful without adequate infrastructure or talent.
Effective organizations use their funds efficiently, demonstrate accountability and transparency, have programs that have been studied rigorously and repeatedly, and have benefits that can be scaled to broader populations around the globe.
An organization called GiveWell seeks to find these organizations by conducting in-depth research aimed at determining how much good a given program accomplishes (in terms of lives saved, lives improved, etc.) per dollar spent. If you’re looking for a list of top charities, this is a great site to start with.
Governments are getting in the evidence-based game as well. In the UK, an entity called the What Works Network has improved the way government and other organizations create, share, and use high quality evidence for decision-making.
The network is made up of 7 independent What Works Centers and 2 affiliate members. Together, these centers cover policy areas that receive public spending of more than £200 billion. They help to ensure that policy makers, practitioners and commissioners make informed decisions based on impact and cost effectiveness.
It’s worth mentioning that people who want to use data for good can get a little carried away. I’m specifically referring to computer scientists who have shifted their focus away from current issues and toward the prevention of human extinction. They argue that preventing human extinction can save way more lives than lifting people out of poverty right now.
My vote is to prepare for the future but focus on helping the existing population. If everybody dedicates their resources toward the most effective interventions, the goal of ending poverty by 2030 will certainly be achievable.
Don’t have any money to give to charity? You can still help end poverty by 2030 by telling Commissioner Mimica to prioritize aid for the most vulnerable countries in TAKE ACTION NOW.