The post Spaciousness, Trust, and Collaboration: Reflections on the Effects of MacKenzie Scott’s Funding appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/Reparations is an Investment in the Future
The post Reparations is an Investment in the Future appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/What We Learn When We Listen: Student Feedback and Foundation Strategy
The post What We Learn When We Listen: Student Feedback and Foundation Strategy appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/10 (Additional) Lessons Learned for Funders Considering the Grantee Perception Report
The post 10 (Additional) Lessons Learned for Funders Considering the Grantee Perception Report appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/December 2023 updates
Every month we send an email newsletter to our supporters sharing recent updates from our work. We publish selected portions of the newsletter on our blog to make this news more accessible to people who visit our website. For key updates from the latest installment, please see below!
If you’d like to receive the complete newsletter in your inbox each month, you can subscribe here.
The year 2023 has been one of growth at GiveWell. Our team has expanded, giving us the ability to take on more internal projects, reach out to more supporters, and conduct research into new interventions and funding areas. Since our metrics year started on February 1, we have directed over $100 million to funding opportunities in more than 10 countries, with more grantmaking expected in the coming months—we expect the programs these grants support will save tens of thousands of lives. We are proud of the impact that our supporters have made with their giving in 2023, and look forward to finding new opportunities and directing more funding in 2024.
Recent panel discussion on maternal health
GiveWell recently hosted a virtual event focusing on maternal and reproductive health, a new and growing area of GiveWell’s grantmaking. Economist and author Emily Oster moderated a panel with Svetha Janumpalli, Founder and CEO of New Incentives, and Erin Crossett, a Program Officer at GiveWell. During the hour, they discussed GiveWell’s research and grants to maternal and newborn health, including a recent grant to r.i.c.e. to operate a program for low-birthweight babies focused on kangaroo mother care. Elie Hassenfeld, GiveWell’s CEO and Co-Founder, also joined to answer audience questions. If you missed this engaging conversation, you can catch up on the recording here.
We’re continuing to investigate a number of programs in this area and would be excited to direct funding to them, if they meet our cost-effectiveness bar.
GiveWell in the media
The How To Money podcast recently interviewed Elie to discuss effective altruism, GiveWell’s founding, and making the greatest impact with your giving.
Highlights from our grantees
Nutrition International
Nutrition International shared a photo essay on their vitamin A supplementation (VAS) work in hard-to-reach areas in Nigeria. This story follows health workers during a maternal, newborn, and child health week in Kwanda town, as they deliver VAS to children under five.
Although GiveWell did not fund the
GiveWell from A to Z
To celebrate the end of 2023, we’re highlighting a few key things to know about GiveWell—from A to Z. These aren’t necessarily the 26 most important parts of our work (e.g., we could include only “transparency” or “top charities” for T) but they do fit the alphabet, and we’ve linked to other pages where you can learn more.
All Grants Fund. Our recommendation for donors who have a high level of trust in GiveWell and are open to programs that might be riskier than our top charities.
Bar. We set a cost-effectiveness bar, or threshold, such that we expect to be able to fully fund all the opportunities above that level of cost-effectiveness. This bar isn’t a hard limit; we consider qualitative factors in our recommendations, as discussed here. This post also discusses our bar in more detail.
Cost-effectiveness. The core question we try to answer in our research is: How much good can you do by giving money to a certain program? This blog post describes how we approach cost-effectiveness estimates and use them in our work.
Donors. Unlike a foundation, we don’t hold an endowment. Our impact comes from donors choosing to use our recommendations.
Effective giving organizations. Organizations like Effektiv Spenden fundraise for programs we recommend and provide tax-deductible donation options in a variety of countries. We’re grateful to these national effective giving organizations and groups like Giving What We Can that recommend our work.
Footnotes.1Our research materials wouldn’t be complete without footnotes; they support our commitment to transparency. Citing our sources and explaining our claims makes it possible for people to check our work for themselves and draw their own conclusions. jQuery(‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_14668_1_1’).tooltip({ tip: ‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_14668_1_1’, tipClass: ‘footnote_tooltip’, effect: ‘fade’, predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: ‘top right’, relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });
Generalizability. How well evidence generalizes to different settings, including variations in program implementation and the contexts where a program is delivered. Also called “external validity.”
Health workers and community distributors. The people who deliver many of the programs we support; includes both professional health workers and distributors who receive stipends to deliver programs in their local communities. For example, community distributors go from household to household to provide seasonal malaria chemoprevention to millions of children.
Incubating new programs. We partner with the Evidence Action Accelerator and Clinton Health Access
GiveWell’s 2022 metrics report
In 2022, the most recent year for which data is available and analyzed, GiveWell raised the largest amount of money in our history, over $600 million. We thank our donors for continuing to trust us to find and recommend highly cost-effective giving opportunities. The following table summarizes our funds raised and our funds directed to programs in metrics year 2021 and 2022.1GiveWell’s metrics year runs from February 1 through January 31 of the following year; the 2022 metrics year ran from February 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023. jQuery(‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_14651_1_1’).tooltip({ tip: ‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_14651_1_1’, tipClass: ‘footnote_tooltip’, effect: ‘fade’, predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: ‘top right’, relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });
2021
2022
Y/Y Growth
Funds Raised
$595,489,935
$602,889,435
1%
Funds Directed2In 2022, as in 2021, we raised more funds than we directed. For more on this, see the funds directed section below. jQuery(‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_14651_1_2’).tooltip({ tip: ‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_14651_1_2’, tipClass: ‘footnote_tooltip’, effect: ‘fade’, predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: ‘top right’, relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });
$529,426,944
$439,391,294
-17%
For more information on our 2022 funds raised, funds directed, operational expenses, and donor metrics, see our impact page and our full metrics report.
A note on timing
This post covers funds raised and directed in our metrics year 2022 (spanning February 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023). Our metrics report is typically published at least six months after the close of the metrics year because we need to collect data on donations we influence from third parties and then cross-check that data to ensure we aren’t double-counting any funds. This year we were additionally delayed by competing internal priorities.
Funds raised
In 2022, we raised slightly more funding than during 2021, and substantially more than prior years.3Note that the chart refers to our historical funds raised. The figures for 2020 and earlier refer to our “money moved,” which tracked the funding that was both raised and directed in a given year. We are now reporting on funds raised and funds directed separately, which we believe is simpler and clearer. jQuery(‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_14651_1_3’).tooltip({ tip: ‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_14651_1_3’, tipClass: ‘footnote_tooltip’, effect: ‘fade’, predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: ‘top right’, relative: true, offset: [10, 10], });
We are excited by a continuing trend of donors trusting GiveWell to allocate their donation (e.g., by giving to one of our Giving Funds) instead of choosing to restrict their donation
Givewell Blog | http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheGivewellBlogPhilanthropy Take Note: The Impact of Big Gifts at HBCUs
The post Philanthropy Take Note: The Impact of Big Gifts at HBCUs appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/Staff members’ personal donations for giving season 2023
For this post, a number of GiveWell staff members volunteered to share the thinking behind their personal donations for the year. We’ve published similar posts in previous years.1See our staff giving posts from 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013. jQuery(‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_14589_1_1’).tooltip({ tip: ‘#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_14589_1_1’, tipClass: ‘footnote_tooltip’, effect: ‘fade’, predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: ‘top right’, relative: true, offset: [10, 10], }); Staff are listed alphabetically by first name.
You can click the below links to jump to a staff member’s entry: Alex Singal, Audrey Cooper, Carley Moor, Charlotte Fisken, Dilhan Perera, Elie Hassenfeld, Isabel Arjmand, Kameron Smith, Kaymin Martin-Burnett, Lauren Imholte, Maggie Lloydhauser, Olivia Larsen, Paige Henchen, Steph Stojanovic, Teryn Mattox, Vicky Yu, Victoria N Krauss.
Alex Singal (Philanthropy Associate)
I am still working out the exact amounts and timing of my giving this year (I may need to wait until January to make the actual donations for tax reasons), but I am planning to direct the majority of my giving (60-80%) to GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund.
Even though GiveWell’s top giving recommendation for donors with a high degree of trust in GiveWell and willingness to take on more risk is our All Grants Fund, my personal preference (for now) is to maximize near-term impact. I trust GiveWell’s incredible team of researchers that the long-run expected value of the All Grants Fund is higher than that of the Top Charities Fund, but I take comfort in knowing that my donation is guaranteed to be used by one or more of our excellent top charities to provide life-saving health interventions in the immediate future.
That said, I will also be giving a smaller amount to the All Grants Fund, which covers the full range of our grantmaking, as there are many amazing programs outside of our top charities that I want to support.
The remainder of my giving will go to GiveDirectly. While I am confident the programs GiveWell supports are ultimately more impactful (and likely significantly so) than unconditional cash transfers, I have immense respect for GiveDirectly and the simplicity of its mission to reduce suffering by sending money directly to those living in extreme poverty, and I want to support that effort.
Audrey Cooper (Philanthropy Advisor)
My husband and I give 10% of our income each year—we chose this number
How to Move from Giving to Co-Creating: A Playbook for Program Officers
The post How to Move from Giving to Co-Creating: A Playbook for Program Officers appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/December 2023 open thread
Our goal with hosting quarterly open threads is to give blog readers an opportunity to publicly raise comments or questions about GiveWell or related topics (in the comments section below). As always, you’re also welcome to email us at info@givewell.org or to request a call with GiveWell staff if you have feedback or questions you’d prefer to discuss privately. We’ll try to respond promptly to questions or comments.
You can view previous open threads here.
The post December 2023 open thread appeared first on The GiveWell Blog.
Microfoundations of Dynamic Capabilities for Social Innovations in Small Non-Profit Organizations
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Ahead of Print. The promotion of social innovations by non-profit and business organizations has gained increasing interest. Yet, there has been limited research on routines that organizations use to facilitate social innovations. This paper uses a dynamic capabilities framework to understand the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for social innovation in small non-profit organizations. Through analysis of routines of 20 small organizations in five European metropolitan areas, the paper demonstrates that many microfoundation aspects resemble generic abilities of opportunity identification, alliancing, user engagement, networking, and organizational learning. However, their orientation toward public values requires incorporating commitments to social value and principles of ethics, responsibility, and sustainability, into different organizational processes. We suggest that social impact does not always require substantial investment and can be achievable through modest changes such as repurposing surplus resources. Building flexible routines that enable such incremental changes is a key element of organizational capability to adapt to changing contexts.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly | https://journals.sagepub.com/action/showFeed?ui=0&mi=ehikzz&ai=2b4&jc=nvsb&type=etoc&feed=rssFunders and Nonprofit Leaders: Can We Talk?
The post Funders and Nonprofit Leaders: Can We Talk? appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/How we work, #3: Our analyses involve judgment calls
This post is the third in a multi-part series, covering how GiveWell works and what we fund. Through these posts, we hope to give a better understanding of our research and decision-making.
How we work, #1: Cost-effectiveness is generally the most important factor in our recommendations
How we work, #2: We look at specific opportunities, not just general interventions
Our goal is to recommend funding to the programs we believe have the greatest impact per dollar donated. There’s no simple algorithm for this question. Answering it necessarily involves making judgment calls. Our first post in this series discussed the importance of cost-effectiveness analyses and the many factors we consider; in this post, we’ll share:
How we make subjective choices in the face of imperfect information
Some examples of judgment calls that illustrate our approach:
Combining data and intuition: Estimating the effect of water chlorination on mortality
Valuing disparate outcomes: Comparing clubfoot treatment to life-saving programs
Anticipating the likely decisions of other actors: Predicting the impact of technical assistance for syphilis screening and treatment
Making decisions with imperfect evidence
Our work relies heavily on evidence, but the available evidence never answers a question with certainty.
Academic literature and its limitations
We don’t take the results of any given study at face value.[1] Instead, we often make adjustments along the way to come to a final estimate. As part of that process, we might consider:
The methodological limitations of the available studies
The likelihood of publication bias or spurious results
Whether the study results are likely to represent the impact of the specific program we’re considering funding, which requires looking at potential differences in contexts and in the programs being implemented
How plausible the results seem when considering other relevant information, including whether there’s a known mechanism by which a program might have a certain effect
The opinions of expert advisors
Other factors not listed here
Some questions can’t easily be addressed by studies but are still important for assessing the impact of a program. Those include topics like:
Will another funder support this program if we don’t?
Will this program be successfully transitioned to the government?
How likely is it that new research will provide information that changes our minds two or three years from now?
How bad is the experience of having disease A compared to the experience of having disease B?
Considering multiple perspectives
Some donors and other experts might reasonably disagree with our
The Power of Trust-Based Philanthropy for Black Women Leaders
The post The Power of Trust-Based Philanthropy for Black Women Leaders appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/Behind the Crowdsourcing Platform: Assessing Volunteer Recruitment and Engagement Instruments
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Ahead of Print. Involving volunteers to perform tasks through crowdsourcing projects is gaining popularity. However, attracting volunteers and keeping them engaged throughout a project sets great challenges to project managers. This article analyzes the effectiveness of recruiting and engagement instruments on volunteers’ activity. A mixed-method approach has been used, including interviews with project managers and quantitative data from a large Dutch crowdsourcing platform. The research results show that crowdsourcing projects benefit from being part of a platform because of the higher activity of experienced participants. The study also provides empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of timely communication and the speed of quality checks, both of which require project management resources. Finally, the study suggests that material rewards are less important for volunteer engagement than the intrinsic motivation of a point-based reward system.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly | https://journals.sagepub.com/action/showFeed?ui=0&mi=ehikzz&ai=2b4&jc=nvsb&type=etoc&feed=rssThe Trust Gap: What Funders Can Learn from MacKenzie Scott’s Giving
The post The Trust Gap: What Funders Can Learn from MacKenzie Scott’s Giving appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/Emerging Impacts: Going Deeper on the Effects of MacKenzie Scott’s Large, Unrestricted Gifts
The post Emerging Impacts: Going Deeper on the Effects of MacKenzie Scott’s Large, Unrestricted Gifts appeared first on The Center for Effective Philanthropy.
Center for Effective Philanthropy | https://cep.org/feed/Public and Private in an Era of Entrepreneurial Philanthropy: Exploring John Dewey’s The Public and Its Problems (1927/2016) to (Re)conceptualize Philanthropy as a Public
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Ahead of Print. In debates about the role(s) and scale of entrepreneurial philanthropy in democracies, scholars discuss the erosion of distinctive public and private spheres and interests, and the replacement of the public sphere. This has occurred at the expense of public deliberation and participation, in favor of the reification of individuals and the role of experts/expertise. Drawing upon John Dewey’s The Public and Its Problems (1927/2016), I argue that there is an eclipse of the publicity of the public. This informs my case for the (re)conceptualization of philanthropy as a public, characterized by (a) the philanthropist as a social rather than an atomistic being, (b) the philanthropy-state dynamic and the publics’ claims, and (c) part of the radical vision of philanthropy. To ensure that private and public have analytical and practical resonance, it is imperative to (re)frame and (re)conceptualize what these concepts mean to entrepreneurial philanthropy and for its role in democracies.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly | https://journals.sagepub.com/action/showFeed?ui=0&mi=ehikzz&ai=2b4&jc=nvsb&type=etoc&feed=rssExploring the Evolutionary Boundaries of Community Business
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Ahead of Print. Community businesses contribute to the economic and social well-being of the communities in which they operate. As a subset of hybrid organizations, community businesses have unique challenges and opportunities related to their community embeddedness. Our study adopts an institutional logic perspective to understand the evolutionary boundaries of community business, which we argue, are shaped by the interplay of tensions between the social, market, and community logics. While existing literature discusses institutional logics from a dichotomous angle, focusing mainly on the social and market logics, we argue that the introduction of a third logic (i.e., community logics) has ramifications for the evolution of hybrid organizations. The different trajectories may have implications for the social, community, and economic impact that organizations can have. We draw on 39 qualitative interviews to provide useful insights for policy and practice on supporting community businesses.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly | https://journals.sagepub.com/action/showFeed?ui=0&mi=ehikzz&ai=2b4&jc=nvsb&type=etoc&feed=rss