Feeling Good Or Feeling Effective
When you personally make a charitable contribution, what’s really going on? Are you looking to feel good or feel effective? You could take the coward’s way out and say ‘Both!’
About two weeks ago I read this column in the NY Times — Donating, and Making Sure the Money Is Put to Work.
I set it aside because it left me feeling uneasy.
The article describes the author’s almost anguished effort to establish the efficacy of his donation to the Against Malaria Foundation, a London-based organization that distributes insecticide-treated bed nets in Africa.
What could possibly be wrong with this? Bed nets to combat malaria … credible organization … seems like a no brainer.
Well, in the hand-wringing article, the author traces the somewhat tortuous path his donation took, through charity-vetter GiveWell.
It seems that as Against Malaria tried to do its job really carefully and well, the flow of contributions to the field slowed down, as credible partners in the field became harder to find.
I have no idea how large a donation the author made to Against Malaria, but, unless he was bankrolling an entire shipping container or two, it sure sounds to me like he over-worked the issue.
How many people have responded a simple ‘$5 buys a net’ appeal … perhaps through a simple text reply?
You immediately felt good, right? Did you question the logistics chain that got ‘your’ net to the Democratic Republic of Congo? Did you fret over whether the recipient used the net for more than an initial month or so?
In retrospect, do you think you should have thought more about the efficacy of your gift? Now that you’ve read this post (or the entire Times article), do you imagine you’ll think harder about such questions before you do the equivalent of buying your next net?
I sure don’t have an answer to these questions!
Sure, I’d like to see less-effective organizations weeded from the charity/nonprofit garden. But in the case of Against Malaria, it seems like they were penalized in a way for acting very responsibly.
And of course Roger and I are ferocious about eliminating scam fundraising machines posing as charities.
But how far should the typical donor go in satisfying herself that her $25 donation is effectively spent? And how far should the typical charity go in trying to ‘prove’ its results and efficacy?
All I can say is the Times article left me feeling bummed out. And I’m not exactly sure why.
Maybe because I only wanted that donor to feel good about his contribution … and not complicate things.
I’d welcome hearing from you on this.
Tom
6 responses to “Feeling Good Or Feeling Effective”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
GiveWell only recommends 3 charities on their website. I appreciate their desire for transparency and accountability but their quest for perfection seems to leave very few alternatives.
They also seem to be quite partial to new and shiny. Their assessment of Give Directly is very light on verifiable, long term outcomes, relying primarily on one short term report. They keep repeating that Give Directly has a “low burden of proof”. I hope I’m misunderstanding what sounds like a bit of glossing over.
Their initial attraction to Against Malaria Foundation seems to be the model that has “private donors” and corporates paying overheads so each donation can be attached to a particular mosquito net and tracked to its destination. A noble aspiration which has left them unable to spend the money already raised because they can’t find anyone in the field willing to check back on individual mosquito net use a year later.
Idealism has trumped action. There seems to be a “get it perfect or don’t do anything” ethos. Any business or non-profit manager will tell you this is a tried and true tactic for failure.
GiveWell thinks they are reinventing philanthropy but it appears reality may be “disrupting” innovation.
“said Elie Hassenfeld, GiveWell’s co-founder. “A lot of the mind-set that I can give $5 and definitely translate that into a net is not the way it works. Charity is a lot more complicated than that.”
Ah yes, efficacy of the organization. Making sure that you and I are giving effectively… If you want to feel frustrated, read Eric Friedman’s book REINVENTING PHILANTHROPY: A FRAMEWORK for MORE EFFECTIVE GIVING.
Who knew that all the donors – at all levels – were so ineffective. Who knew that there is a right and wrong way of giving. “Charity is more complicated?” That’s bull shXX. Neuroscience people! How the brain works. How decision-making works. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing!
A couple months ago, I wrote a blog for Bloomerang.co — reviewing Friedman’s book. I wrote the blog before I read the book – based on Friedman’s own comments and a HuffPo article and reading the first chapter on line. Then I read the book. Oh dear. Oh gosh. Oh wow. Oh my…
Who knew philanthropy needed reinventing. And all the caring and loving and angry donors out there — apparently they are just… well…less than good. Less than thoughtful. And need to get more effective.
(I’m just a tad bit angry!)
The “watchdog” groups also have an interest in directing attention to this question – maybe in ways that doesn’t always value the donor’s desires, values, or motivations.
I agree about weeding out the frauds – let’s shine some bright light on those scams. But not going back to report on individual nets? Geez. I’d rather they spent that money getting more nets out, myself.
This seems to be part of the same craze among donors for more control over what happens with their charitable contributions. This trend is decades old and seems to be growing. It is one reason why much of the $1 trillion wealth transfer is ending up in family foundations and supporting foundations.
It also reminds me of the notion that only the business world knows how to get things done well and efficiently and that government is woefully incompetent. The business world is held up as the model to emulate, despite the dramatic increase in income inequality, outsourcing and temp hiring, elimination of benefits, low wages, etc.
There seems to be belief among some donors and prospective donors that nonprofit boards and professional leadership cannot be trusted to operate effectively and efficiently. Many donors still insist that one way, perhaps the best way, to judge a nonprofit is by how much they spend on staff and administrative operations rather than on how well the nonprofit is accomplishing its mission. Thankfully, there is push back against this notion now.
I think one answer to this issue is for nonprofit leaders to make the case that nonprofits are just as effective as businesses, if not more so, in pursuing their missions. They need sufficient funds to operate with sufficient human resources to do the work, and their boards and professional leadership are no less committed to being effective and efficient than the donors and the business world. At the same time, while business principles certainly are helpful in the nonprofit world, there are differences between the two.
It saddens me to see these trends. I am glad that, at least in this case, the author of the article believes that his contribution was worthwhile.
One of the best ways to feel good about your giving is to ensure that you know someone personally in the organization you are supporting. Every good non profit organization will constantly be reaching out with verifiable information to its donor base. By that I mean that someone on the staff or volunteer team can vouch for what the organization says it is accomplishing. Feeling good about giving away you hard earned cash means that you take the extra step and find a local charity you can get to know and work with. If the work is global then see if it is possible to take an international trip with them. I take donors and volunteers on trips with me all the time. That will eliminate any future disappointment, because you are locally or personally connected in some way that goes beyond just sending your financial gift and thinking you have done your duty.
I think part of this discussion centers around the fact that NPOs, like commercial enterprises, exist for different reasons from different perspectives. In essence, NPOs and businesses have different groups of “customers” with very different expectations.
For example, from the investor’s standpoint, the commercial enterprise exists to make money (for the investor). But as a consumer, I rarely (if ever) care about the profitability of a commercial enterprise. As a consumer, I just want the business to effectively fulfill a need (or want).
If I give $25 to a local elementary school classroom, I’m not worried too much about the true impact of that $25 on the education of students. I just want to feel good about participating in our local community in some small way. In fact, I know that my $25 could easily be spent on Kleenex or hand soap–and that’s OK.
But if I was part of a Foundation awarding $1M+ grants, I’d be much more interested in measuring impact and effectiveness. Because I’d feel more like an “investor”.
In short, there’s an entire spectrum between (1) measuring everything so much that it wastes resources and (2) focusing only on emotion to the point of reckless management.