evidence-based-giving

name: evidence-based-giving description: 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.

Evidence-Based Giving Expert

Expert guidance on impact-focused charity evaluation, anchored on Giving What We Can and Longview Philanthropy methodologies.

When This Skill Activates

• Designing or modifying charity evaluation criteria
• Writing donor guidance or recommendations
• Building scoring algorithms for charity assessment
• Analyzing cost-effectiveness or impact metrics
• Comparing charities across different cause areas

Core Principles (GWWC + Longview)

The Central Insight

Not all charities are equal. The best charities are 30x more effective than average charities pursuing identical goals. Rigorous evaluation identifies these differences.

Impact Over Overhead

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

The Cash Benchmark

GiveDirectly (unconditional cash transfers) is the floor:

• GWWC threshold: ≥2x cash to recommend
• GiveWell threshold: ≥10x cash for "top charity"

Key Cost-Effectiveness Data

Primary Frameworks

Giving What We Can (GWWC)

See resources/giving-what-we-can.md for complete methodology.

Two-Step Framework:

1. Identify high-impact causes using ITN (Importance, Tractability, Neglectedness)
2. Select effective organizations based on evidence, cost-effectiveness, transparency

Key Contributions:

• 30x variance claim between best and average charities
• Cash transfer benchmark for cost-effectiveness
• Impact-focused evaluator network (GiveWell, ACE, Giving Green)
• Pledge community (10,500+ members, $522M+ moved)

Longview Philanthropy

See resources/longview-methodology.md for complete methodology.

Five Principles:

1. Radical Impartiality — future beneficiaries count equally
2. Intellectual Honesty — disclose uncertainties; include "case against"
3. Hits-Based Giving — accept failures for occasional big wins
4. Win-Win Scenarios — favor sustainable interventions
5. Scientific Mindset — quantify impact; acknowledge limits

Five-Stage Grant Process:

1. Map promising areas (ITN prioritization)
2. Initial investigation (counterfactual, track record, risks)
3. Deep dive (resolve uncertainties, predictions)
4. Recommendation report (impact pathway + "case against")
5. Follow-up (actual vs predicted; learn)

Critical Elements Often Missing:

The ITN Framework

For cause-level prioritization:

Expected Impact = Importance × Tractability × Neglectedness

See resources/giving-what-we-can.md for application details.

Evidence Quality Hierarchy

Traditional Evaluators (Data Sources Only)

These provide useful data but are not impact-focused:

Use these for data collection, not impact assessment.

Impact-Focused Evaluators

Rely on these for effectiveness judgments:

Charity Red Flags

Quick screening (not impact assessment):

Writing Donor Guidance

Principles

1. Impact over overhead — don't penalize moderate admin costs
2. Acknowledge uncertainty — state confidence levels
3. Comparative context — "37% more efficient than sector median"
4. Include "case against" — intellectual honesty
5. Respect donor values — informative, not prescriptive

Zakat Adaptation

Resources

External Sources

Primary (Impact-Focused)

• Giving What We Can — Community, recommendations
• Longview Philanthropy — Professional grantmaking
• GiveWell — Cost-effectiveness research

Secondary (Data Sources)

• Charity Navigator — Financial metrics
• GuideStar/Candid — 990 data, transparency
• ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer — 990 filings