Optimising charity

The IRC wants cash to become more used in humanitarian assistance. Providing cash to people in need is fast and the people themselves best know what they need. There is, as the IRC tells us, evidence backing cash as king.

So, why not give to a charity that does only that. Gives cash to people in need but that charity is not the IRC

The charity that does this, GiveDirectly.

GiveDirectly itself, however, lists a reason not to give to them.

They have noted that 5% of people report tensions in their community, after receiving money. They also noted that 1% of people report violence or crime, after receiving the money. How many other programs like those of World Vision and the IRC, report acts of violence as a result of aid? Possibly none.

Are acts of violence and crime, even at the low level of 1% enough to put you off. Consider the counter argument, tensions reduce within the households. There is "suggestive evidence" that violence within households, reduces with cash transfers.

We may decide that international development agencies should be avoided. There are too many moving parts, and some interventions are better than others.

So, it would make sense to give to multiple charities. As you can't know for sure the best one to give to.

Giving What We Can, argued against giving to more than one charity.

In their blog, they argued that one is effectively wasting money by giving to a charity not highly recommended. Just give to one effective one.

One issue with following charity evaluator recommendations {or your friends}, they may be wrong.

The other issue is that evaluators do not always follow their own recommendations. The staff may have other causes they are passionate about and give to them. So, becoming too fanatical about evaluators has its pitfalls.