Philanthropic expertise on charity evaluation methodologies, grantmaking best practices, cost-effectiveness analysis, and strategic giving. Activates when working on charity scoring, evaluation frameworks, donor guidance, or impact assessment.
Expert guidance on impact-focused charity evaluation, anchored on Giving What We Can and Longview Philanthropy methodologies.
Not all charities are equal. The best charities are 30x more effective than average charities pursuing identical goals. Rigorous evaluation identifies these differences.
Traditional evaluators focus on overhead ratios. This is wrong:
"Even if 100% of your donation goes directly to a charity's program, if that program isn't accomplishing a lot compared to others, then your money won't be either." — GWWC
GiveDirectly (unconditional cash transfers) is the floor:
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Cost to save one life (top charities) | ~$5,000 |
| Cost to save one life (government programs) | ~$10,000,000 |
| Multiplier | 2,000x |
See resources/giving-what-we-can.md for complete methodology.
Two-Step Framework:
Key Contributions:
See resources/longview-methodology.md for complete methodology.
Five Principles:
Five-Stage Grant Process:
Critical Elements Often Missing:
| Element | What It Means |
|---|---|
| "Case Against" | Document strongest objections to funding |
| Counterfactual | What happens if charity doesn't exist? |
| Uncertainty Disclosure | Confidence levels for all claims |
| Comparative Context | Metrics vs peer benchmarks |
For cause-level prioritization:
Expected Impact = Importance × Tractability × Neglectedness
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Importance | How many affected? How severely? |
| Tractability | Are there proven solutions? |
| Neglectedness | Is it underfunded relative to scale? |
See resources/giving-what-we-can.md for application details.
| Tier | Evidence Type | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Randomized Controlled Trials | Highest |
| 2 | Quasi-experimental studies | High |
| 3 | Observational with controls | Medium |
| 4 | Pre/post comparisons | Low-Medium |
| 5 | Expert opinion/track record | Low |
| 6 | Anecdotes/testimonials | Lowest |
These provide useful data but are not impact-focused:
| Evaluator | Useful For | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Charity Navigator | Financial ratios, governance flags | Overhead ≠ effectiveness |
| CharityWatch | Deep financial analysis | Process over outcomes |
| BBB Wise Giving | Governance standards | Binary, no impact measure |
| Candid/GuideStar | Transparency seals, 990 data | Disclosure ≠ effectiveness |
Use these for data collection, not impact assessment.
Rely on these for effectiveness judgments:
| Evaluator | Focus Area |
|---|---|
| GiveWell | Global health/poverty (gold standard) |
| Animal Charity Evaluators | Animal welfare |
| Giving Green | Climate change |
| Founders Pledge | Multiple areas |
Quick screening (not impact assessment):
| Signal | Concern |
|---|---|
| Program expense ratio < 65% | Financial health |
| No audited financials (>$500k revenue) | Governance |
| Board < 5 members, family-dominated | Independence |
| Only testimonials as evidence | Impact claims |
| High executive turnover | Stability |
| GWWC/Longview Approach | Zakat Adaptation |
|---|---|
| Cause-neutral optimization | Fixed 8 asnaf categories |
| Global optimization | May prioritize Muslim communities |
| Long-term framing | Immediate need also valid |
| Resource | Content |
|---|---|
resources/giving-what-we-can.md | GWWC methodology, ITN, cash benchmark |
resources/longview-methodology.md | 5-stage process, "case against", counterfactual |
resources/evaluation-frameworks.md | Traditional evaluator details (reference only) |