tomevault-io 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:
- Identify high-impact causes using ITN (Importance, Tractability, Neglectedness)
- 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:
- Radical Impartiality — future beneficiaries count equally
- Intellectual Honesty — disclose uncertainties; include "case against"
- Hits-Based Giving — accept failures for occasional big wins
- Win-Win Scenarios — favor sustainable interventions
- Scientific Mindset — quantify impact; acknowledge limits
Five-Stage Grant Process:
- Map promising areas (ITN prioritization)
- Initial investigation (counterfactual, track record, risks)
- Deep dive (resolve uncertainties, predictions)
- Recommendation report (impact pathway + "case against")
- 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
- Impact over overhead — don't penalize moderate admin costs
- Acknowledge uncertainty — state confidence levels
- Comparative context — "37% more efficient than sector median"
- Include "case against" — intellectual honesty
- 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
Converted and distributed by TomeVault — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.