# Evidence Based Giving > 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. Use when this capability is needed. - Skill: `tomevault-io/evidence-based-giving` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/evidence-based-giving` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/evidence-based-giving/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/evidence-based-giving --- # 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](https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/) — Community, recommendations - [Longview Philanthropy](https://www.longview.org/) — Professional grantmaking - [GiveWell](https://www.givewell.org/) — Cost-effectiveness research ### Secondary (Data Sources) - [Charity Navigator](https://www.charitynavigator.org/) — Financial metrics - [GuideStar/Candid](https://www.guidestar.org/) — 990 data, transparency - [ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer](https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/) — 990 filings --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/uabbasi) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.