Why You Should Stop Using Charity Navigator and Start Using GiveWell

Charities ought to be evaluated primarily on their effectiveness, not merely on their financial health and administrative costs. We ought to care much more about how many are helped and how much they are helped than the charities allocation of resources used to achieve such help.

I have been extremely fortunate in my life and I make a decent living (I make a middle-class salary in the US, but since the US is so wealthy, I am ranked in the top 1% in the world based on my current income),  so I give a portion of my income to charity every month. Like most people today, I am bombarded with requests for donations by various nonprofits, NGO's, and charities. Who we give to can seem arbitrary, and many people's attitude is that all giving should be commended and to question the choice of organization to which one is giving can be seen as any combination of miserly, cynical, and callous. This attitude strikes me and many in the effective altruism movement as irrational and harmful. 

When we choose to invest in a company or buy a product, we are interested in its performance and impact, and we scrutinize its quality before making a decision. Why would a charity be any different? Don't we want to see the greatest possible impact for our dollar? Charity Navigator attempts to answer this question, but does a very poor job of doing so. While attempts to examine the financial health and overhead costs appear to stem from a reasonable position, this is the wrong metric to focus on. William MacAskill, in his new book, Doing Good Better, presents the scenario in which he creates a charity which gives donuts to hungry police officers, and manages to get the overhead down to 0.1% of the charities expenditures, which would earn it a high rating with Charity Navigator. This is of course absurd, since the charities mission is itself absurd, not to mention that no data is known about whether the donuts efficiently reach the donors, or more importantly, how the donuts impact their quality of life. Many people, including Charity Navigator, would conclude that comparing charities is impossible or meaningless, but this position is senseless. Research shows that U.S. citizens typically give about 3% of their annual income to charity, and people's total ability to donate is of course finite. Wouldn't it then make sense to ask whether it is better to donate $40,000 to teach a dog to assist a single blind person, or to distribute 16,000 insecticide-treated bed nets to prevent malaria in impoverished villages in Africa? Some might respond that both are good, or that society ought to encourage both, but we know that resources are finite and that a dollar donated to one charity is one less dollar donated to another. Thus, we are faced with a question of triage, whom should we help first? Any reasonable person would concede that the bed nets will have more impact, particularly given the strong evidence of their cost-effectiveness.  It might seem strange to think of charities as competing, but they are after market share just like any for-profit business. And although Charity Navigator takes transparency and accountability into account in their ratings, they admit that, "The final limitation to our ratings is that we do not currently evaluate the quality of the results of the programs and services a charity provides." They present this limitation is if it were some minor omission, but this is much like evaluating Apple as a company by only focusing on it's financial health, not on how well its products work or how much they help people.

Givewell.org has a much more sensible approach to evaluating charities. It subjects charities to independent investigation and demands evidence-backed research from credible third parties. They provide rigorous analysis of top-performing charities and provide the highest quality evidence possible that their programs are not only effective, but extremely cost-effective. For instance, their top-rated charity, the Against Malaria Foundation, distributes insecticide-treated nets to some of world's poorest people, whose communities are often decimated by malaria. These nets cost $2.50 and GiveWell estimates that $3,000 in donations will save a life, and the evidence essentially assures that this is the case. Of course, the benefits of reducing the incidence of malaria go much further than saving lives, it prevents needless suffering and devastating economic damage, as well as many other benefits. When you compare these benefits to say, marginally improving the wing of a museum in an already wealthy community, the most basic moral assumptions should make this an easy choice.

While many will find this approach callous or unemotional, I insist that it be given a fair hearing. For those interested in learning more I highly recommend reading Doing Good Better for a far more thorough presentation of this argument. Or, for those looking to quickly gather some info on the effective altruism movement, you can check out their website.

AMF's distribution of nets to a school in Tanzania.

Tips and Tales from a Macho Chegan: My Misgivings with the Environmental & Vegan Movements

Most of my life I've eaten like your typical jockish, macho dude--tons of red meat and proud of it. However, about six months ago my girlfriend began to push me on the ethical inconsistency of eating truckloads of meat and dairy while also believing that we should do our best to conserve water, reduce our carbon footprint, and reduce the suffering of non-human species. Much to my astonishment, six months later I am a non-strict vegan (chegan is a term used for vegans who "cheat" occasionally and eat animal products) and feel totally healthy (and even a bit less lethargic after meals). For those interested in making a change, I thought I'd share a few of my misgivings with the environmental/vegan movement, and a few tips on how to move towards a less animal-intensive diet. Not to suggest that I'm some kind of authority or expert on the subject, just that I'm your typical dude who has always loved a nice steak and physical competition, not the effeminate/hippy/tree hugging wimp that most people think of when they think of vegan dudes. Anyway, on with it.

At the 2014 SB Marathon, you can totally see how macho and self-serious I am about the whole thing

While many people think the choice to become vegan almost always comes from some empathetic connection with animals and animal cruelty, and that certainly is the main motivator for many people (definitely a significant motivator for myself), but veganism has a huge environmental impact we often don't address. Often, the scale of the impact our activities and choices have on the environment is radically misguided. For example, living in Santa Barbara, I frequently receive mailers urging me to fight the drought by agonizing over my shower time. In reality, when looking an how we actually consume water, this is almost laughable compared to other changes we could make, like consuming less meat. Animal agriculture accounts for about 50% of water usage in California and non-industrial use accounts for only 4%.

The (often willful) ignorance of animal agriculture's impact on the environment is hugely problematic, and the undue attention paid to negligible contributors surely results in moral licensing. Most of the major environmental organization's websites omit all mention of animal agriculture, while focusing on ridiculous hand-wringing about driving to the farmer's market and unplugging your microwave when it's not in use. Yet, even the most conservative estimates say animal agriculture is responsible for ~10% of all GHG emissions, with some putting it at over 50% of emissions (my inkling is that the number probably falls somewhere between the two estimates). But regardless of the precise number, it's a significant contributor and it's something most of us (especially in the U.S.) are promoting in our everyday lives."

Now I know what you're thinking, here comes my guilt-inducing plea for you to see the error of your ways and become a vegan this very minute. Although that seems to be a common strategy amongst vegans, I believe it is likely a poor one, and far more likely to cast vegans as pushy extremists than actually get anyone to change their behavior. Research would suggest that asking for something far smaller first will have much more success , but unfortunately, I've found that many vegans are more concerned with moral grandstanding than actual outcomes (see video on the right), as if any kind of compromise is a reproachable moral failing. Instead of trying to make you feel guilty, I'll say that heavily reducing my consumption of animal products has added to my self-esteem, in that I'm using discipline to try and live out my moral values.

If you do feel motivated to make a dietary change in view of these statistics, I'd suggest starting with something modest. Maybe reduce your meat consumption by 20%, or cut only beef (which causes the highest level of emissions and uses the most water), I suspect you'll find that it's easier than you think (at first, I thought I didn't stand a chance of ever being anything close to vegan). One strategy is to substitute the surprisingly delicious Beyond Meat or Sweet Earth for your meat once a week. Yes, they're actually tasty and quite convincing when mixed into pasta or rice & veggies. Daiya is awesome vegan cheese when you melt it into a burrito or burger. Also to my surprise, I've found soy milk to actually be tastier than cow's milk. 

I'd also recommend trying to cook at home more rather than going out, as I found that putting myself in social situations without vegan food was the most common way I would cave (which I of course still do). My girlfriend got me into using a vegan cookbook, which helped to make the change seem like more of an exploration than an ascetic deprivation.  

Most of all, I'd say to take it slow and remember that you are looking for a sustainable, long-term change, not just a flash in the pan diet. Vegan recidivism rates are high, and not everyone can maintain the diet without serious nutritional deficiencies, perhaps making animal products a necessary evil for many people. So take it easy, and congratulate yourself on every small step that you take.

Chomsky on the Extravaganza of the Election Cycle

Great analysis that goes outside mainstream commentary.

Project Nuevo Mundo

I had the pleasure to film David Casey's workshop on Project Nuevo Mundo at the Lucidity Festival this year. David has created a great website called NuMundo.org that's awesome to dig into if you're interested in volunteering/working in South America and want to verify what you'll really be getting yourself into before heading off. Also, I really recommend watching David Casey's full workshop at Lucidity Festival if you want to learn practical tips on volunteering or brining a vision to life, including pitfalls to avoid and stories of success. You can watch the full workshop here: vimeo.com/spensergabin/numundo

AIDS/Lifecycle

This spring I participated in AIDS/Lifecycle, a 545 mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I arrived in Los Angeles last Saturday and I wanted to send a quick message (and video) highlighting how much I enjoyed and learned from this experience.

The event was extremely well-run and I felt taken care of and supported the whole way. With the small exception of a little inner knee pain on Day 2 and 3, my body felt good the entire time, and I was even able to get a free message about halfway through the ride!

The largest takeaway from me from the ride was just the stunning example of a community coming together to rally around a cause. I have done quite a few runs for different charities and events, but this was the best example I've ever seen of a well-organized and effective event. People maintained their passion and good spirits even while climbing up tough hills or battling rain and cold winds. The rest stops and food provided were outstanding and were probably the biggest thing that kept me from hitting the dreaded bonk.

There are a lot of problems in the world and reasons to feel cynical, but this was an authentic example of a good reason for hope. The ride was able to raise over 16 million dollars this year and that number is only likely to grow. I suspect one reason they are able to raise so much is because they treat their riders so well and they want to come back year after year, raising more each time. Although I haven't yet decided if I'll be riding again, I can definitely say that I absolutely would based on the quality of the event. AIDS/Lifecycle presents a shining example of how to build a community around a common goal and I hope that's something I'll be able to apply to future endeavors. 

None of the lessons I learned, the people I met, the beauty I experienced, none of it would have happened without the support of my donors. AIDS/Lifecycle has given me tangible reasons to believe there is hope for the world and that we can change the world when we organize and come together.