Why Giving to Big, Urgent Problems May Not Always Be the Smartest Thing

Problems, not their proposed solutions, inspire people to give, writes Holden Karnofsky on the GiveWell blog. And, he says, that’s not necessarily a good thing for philanthropy.

Consider the example of a charity called Project AK-47. The group writes compellingly on its Web site about the plight of child soldiers, says Mr. Karnofsky, and makes an emotional plea that a $7 donation can make a difference in the children’s lives.

But, at least from looking at the group’s Web site, Mr. Karnofsky says he can’t really determine what it does to help.

Too many charities are like this, he says, and too many donors want to support causes they’re most passionate about or problems they find most troublesome, regardless of whether good ways to help exist.

But, he says, donors’ powers to produce change are quite limited. He writes: “This creates a fundamentally different challenge from identifying the problem you care most about, and can lead to a completely different answer.”

“In my case,” writes Mr. Karnofsky, “I would rather close the achievement gap than fight developing-world disease, but my giving goes to the latter because it’s a problem I can do much more to address.”

“The truth is you may not be able to do anything to help address the root causes of poverty or cure cancer or solve the global energy crisis,” he says. But you can support a group that fixes cleft palates or gives people anti-malaria bed nets. By focusing on the “biggest problems,” donors may be wasting an opportunity to make any difference at all.

What do you think?