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

Metric	Value
Cost to save one life (top charities)	~$5,000
Cost to save one life (government programs)	~$10,000,000
Multiplier	2,000x

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:

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

The ITN Framework

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.

Evidence Quality Hierarchy

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

Traditional Evaluators (Data Sources Only)

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.

Impact-Focused Evaluators

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

Charity Red Flags

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

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

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

Resources

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)

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