27
Best way to donate? Do your research
Holden Karnofsky, co-founder of GiveWell.net
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
KAI RYSSDAL: Lean times mean a lot of us are trying to stretch our budgets and, given the season, trying to stretch our charitable contributions Because as great as it feels to get, it can feel even better to give.
Today, as we continue our look at philanthropy, how we can put our dollars to work more effectively. If there's less money to donate this year, should you give your time and volunteer?
Holden Karnofsky is the co-founder of GiveWell.net. That's a nonprofit charity evaluation website.
Holden, welcome to the program.
Holden Karnofsky: My pleasure.
RYSSDAL: As people look to cut back in this economy -- and philanthropy's going to be one of those areas -- does it make sense to volunteer time instead of money?
Karnofsky: I would actually make a different suggestion. I would say that if you're finding yourself this year with more time and less money than you usually have, I would encourage you to put that time into researching and really thinking hard about where you're giving rather than volunteering. I think volunteering is often adverstised as being more than it is for a very specific reason. Which is that volunteering is often about recruiting donors. And so what I would say is that there is some volunteer work that's certainly valuable, especially if you have a particular skill such as . . . let's say you're a cleft palette surgeon and you're going over to perform corrective surgeries. But a lot of time, when a charity's asking you to volunteer, what they're really trying to do is get you involved, get you excited, and the real benefit to them is the donation anyway.
RYSSDAL: All right, well let's get to the econometrics here, then. How do I know what to look for when I want to maximize the charitable return on my dollar?
Karnofsky: Right. Well, it all depends on what you're aiming for. But the general advice I give is, I would just try and go out there and really push charities to say, "All right, what's the evidence that this is changing people's lives for the better?" And a lot of times programs that sound really good in theory just don't turn out to have the impacts you would hope for in practice.
RYSSDAL: There is obviously a set of criteria that you guys look at. What are the top couple? I would imagine it's administrative overheads versus amount actually given. It's staff versus volunteers -- those sorts of things?
Karnofsky: Actually, we don't like to emphasize the administrative-overhead aspect because we think that, for one thing, it's often a distraction. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem if you're not doing a good job of it, and if you're not taking the right approach. And a lot of times taking the right approach means being able to measure what you're doing and learn from it. Which often, depending on how the accountants want to do things, gets classified as overhead.
So, we actually feel that when people insist that as many pennies of my dollar as possible need to go straight to the children, what they're doing is they're leaving out a lot of the overhead that's needed to hire great people, to do self-evaluation, to figure out what really works and to do a good job.
RYSSDAL: What about newer charities that are just getting off the ground and maybe don't have the data trail that will let you figure out whether they're worth it or not?
Karnofsky: Well, in my opinion, there's a lot of those charities out there that may be doing great work. And if you are close enough to one that you've really seen it and you're very connected to it, then that may be all you need to have a lot of confidence that they're doing good.
But, you know, if you're not in that position, and you're trying to find a charity that you can have confidence in that you haven't heard much about, I think it's the wrong approach to try and guess yourself which of these new, unproven charities really has what it takes.
I think you're much better off with a bigger, more established one. And I think that oftentimes in charity there's too much discussion given to the next, big, great revolutionary idea that's going to solve the root cause of poverty and not nearly enough attention given to, "Hey, what are the things that already work and how can we do more of them?"
RYSSDAL: Holden Karnofsky is the co-founder of GiveWell.net. That's a group that studies the effectiveness of charities and advises donors about them. Holden, thanks a lot.
Karnofsky: Yeah. My pleasure.
Pages
No matter what the person will do in an organization as a volunteer it is not important,what is important is to know there are people out there who care to help,if the world do not have such people it would have been a much more chaotic place than already is.
No matter how new or old an organization have been on the ground,what matters is the fact they are trying to fix some of the problems around.
One thing I notice with op-shops belonging to non profit organizations is the cost of items in their shops are very close if not same or over the price of new items.I also don't understand why children items are so expensive.I feel non profit organizations sometimes creates poverty by not helping poor families by giving them all items they need free.I have volunteered for an organization for 3 years and it is sad to see how the administration splash around while volunteers work hard and citizens struggling to survive,one just wonder where the money is going,we have too many hungry children for God sake what are they using the money for.I still volunteer but not for organizations,I help people who need help directly and the feeling is so up lifting .you forget you have any problems of your own when you help someone in need the feeling is just so amazing.You can get use to it and find it hard to get away from it.
I hate seeing people returning items at the counter cause they do not have money,and it is one of the things I now love to do is deliberately looking for someone with a decline card while I'm in the grocery store.People look at you in a weird manner ,but for me, I feel great and I do hope those people will do the same if someone happen to be in their position and they can help.
I would like to make a comment in the light of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Even unskilled volunteers can find meaningful work in disaster response situations like this. Their effectiveness depends upon the coordination of this valuable resource, not necessarily the skills they have. Of course, trained, paid professionals are needed for roles such as search and rescue and medical assistance. However, what about the grunt work? Three months after the tsunami people here are still overwhelmed by the amount of work. Elderly people need help to remove debris from their home. Government assistance rightly focused around heavy machinery which could clear large areas and restore use of infrastructure quickly but this equipment cannot reach everywhere. Local carpenters, in short supply due to the number of houses damaged but not destroyed, are not willing to clear mud and debris from the crawlspace under floorboards. Nor should they have to, they are much more useful using the skills they have spent years acquiring. Unskilled volunteers are happy to do this work.
The important thing to look for is competent logistical support. Volunteers can be an added burden on already overwhelmed systems but they do not need to be. Look for an organization that thinks carefully about how many volunteers a community can use and support, that has secure and sustainable supply lines so that valuable resources are not channeled away from local people and that responds to genuine needs in the community rather than finding volunteers and creating “opportunities†later. This may be difficult from afar but facebook and other online forums will have heaps of information from previous volunteers so you’ll be able to get an accurate impression from people who’ve actually been there before you.
I don't want to attempt to defend any improprieties done by Mr. Karnofsky, nor do I want to belittle anyone's volunteer efforts. But I do think that the real point being raised in the interview merits some consideration. If you want to maximize the impact that you have in solving a particular problem, it is highly likely that a monetary contribution will go farther than your time. That is a natural consequence of the fact that your time can be converted into good effect only to the extent that you have skills in that specific area (hence, Mr. Karnofsky's point about fixing cleft palates); while your money can be directed at the very best technology available to solve that problem. It thus follows that doing your homework to find the most effective charity is likely to be a good idea.
What I just said does not take into account the good feeling that comes from volunteering, and I would be the last person to suggest that people who want to continue to do so. But I do suggest that you examine your motives just a little - are you contributing your time because it is the best way to help, or are you contributing your time because it helps AND you are enjoying the feeling of community spirit, etc.? There is nothing at all wrong with the latter, but it is probably not the most effective way to help.
I've been an NPR and Marketplace listener for a long time, and I was astonished that there was no pushback at the appalling comment that volunteering was a bait-and-switch for getting volunteers to donate. I have volunteered at charity shops and clothing distribution points and charity concerts many times, and at no point was I solicited for donations. Also, I was doing work that the organization would not have been able to get done without volunteers.
Holden Karnofsky clearly has no idea how non-profits are run, and should not have been given credence on a respected outlet like Marketplace.
This gentleman has no business evaluating charities. A hedgefund manger & friends looking for new income opportunities. I looked up the web site and was appalled to see his ratings for great chrities such as UNICEF as "not recommended", out of 100's of charities only 5 are recommended because they gave him the time of the day and answered all his elaborate evidence & ROI analysis.
Mr. Karnofsky is wrong about so many things. Other bloggers have pointed out the falacies in his comments about volunteering, but I must also point out his wrong attitude towards new nonprofits and towards analysis of administrative expenses. As a volunteer, board member, financial donor, and consultant, to local, regional and national nonprofits, and to volunteers and donors,(www.philanthropymanagement.com) I have to wonder why you gave Mr. Karnofsky time on your program.
As a Volunteer Coordinator, I took particular offense to the implication that charities recruit volunteers with the ulterior motive of gaining a new donor. Our volunteers provide an invaluable service to our non-profit and we appreciate the work they do with no strings attached.
It's heartening to see the many responses challenging Mr.Karnofsky's way-off-the-mark comments about volunteering. An organization that "uses" volunteering to bait-and-switch people just for cash contributions is both not worth volunteering for and not worth giving money to! This is all a red herring discussion anyway, because most organizations need BOTH money and volunteers. It's not either/or. But they each allow the organization to work on its mission in distinct ways.
Thanks for allowing coments here to debate the issues.
When I heard this interview, it just didn't make sense. Even if it were true that charities recruit volunteers as a way of soliciting donations, how does it follow that volunteering is not a good use of one's time? Aside from being a valuable experience in and of itself, isn't volunteering at an organization one of the best forms of "research" you can perform? What better way to decide whether your money (if you have any to give) is going to a worthy cause? Of course, if you were to volunteer for a charity and then decide to donate to it, a business like Givewell doesn't get a cut, do they?
Pages
