Best way to donate? Do your research
If you're facing harder times but still want to give back, you may think the best way is through volunteering. But Holden Karnofsky, co-founder of a charity evaluation website, says your time would be better spent finding a nonprofit worthy of your money.
Holden Karnofsky, co-founder of GiveWell.net (Holden Karnofsky)
More on Charity - Giving
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
KAI RYSSDAL: Lean times mean a lot of us are trying to stretch our budgets and, given the season, trying to stretch our charitable contributions Because as great as it feels to get, it can feel even better to give.
Today, as we continue our look at philanthropy, how we can put our dollars to work more effectively. If there's less money to donate this year, should you give your time and volunteer?
Holden Karnofsky is the co-founder of GiveWell.net. That's a nonprofit charity evaluation website.
Holden, welcome to the program.
Holden Karnofsky: My pleasure.
RYSSDAL: As people look to cut back in this economy -- and philanthropy's going to be one of those areas -- does it make sense to volunteer time instead of money?
Karnofsky: I would actually make a different suggestion. I would say that if you're finding yourself this year with more time and less money than you usually have, I would encourage you to put that time into researching and really thinking hard about where you're giving rather than volunteering. I think volunteering is often adverstised as being more than it is for a very specific reason. Which is that volunteering is often about recruiting donors. And so what I would say is that there is some volunteer work that's certainly valuable, especially if you have a particular skill such as . . . let's say you're a cleft palette surgeon and you're going over to perform corrective surgeries. But a lot of time, when a charity's asking you to volunteer, what they're really trying to do is get you involved, get you excited, and the real benefit to them is the donation anyway.
RYSSDAL: All right, well let's get to the econometrics here, then. How do I know what to look for when I want to maximize the charitable return on my dollar?
Karnofsky: Right. Well, it all depends on what you're aiming for. But the general advice I give is, I would just try and go out there and really push charities to say, "All right, what's the evidence that this is changing people's lives for the better?" And a lot of times programs that sound really good in theory just don't turn out to have the impacts you would hope for in practice.
RYSSDAL: There is obviously a set of criteria that you guys look at. What are the top couple? I would imagine it's administrative overheads versus amount actually given. It's staff versus volunteers -- those sorts of things?
Karnofsky: Actually, we don't like to emphasize the administrative-overhead aspect because we think that, for one thing, it's often a distraction. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem if you're not doing a good job of it, and if you're not taking the right approach. And a lot of times taking the right approach means being able to measure what you're doing and learn from it. Which often, depending on how the accountants want to do things, gets classified as overhead.
So, we actually feel that when people insist that as many pennies of my dollar as possible need to go straight to the children, what they're doing is they're leaving out a lot of the overhead that's needed to hire great people, to do self-evaluation, to figure out what really works and to do a good job.
RYSSDAL: What about newer charities that are just getting off the ground and maybe don't have the data trail that will let you figure out whether they're worth it or not?
Karnofsky: Well, in my opinion, there's a lot of those charities out there that may be doing great work. And if you are close enough to one that you've really seen it and you're very connected to it, then that may be all you need to have a lot of confidence that they're doing good.
But, you know, if you're not in that position, and you're trying to find a charity that you can have confidence in that you haven't heard much about, I think it's the wrong approach to try and guess yourself which of these new, unproven charities really has what it takes.
I think you're much better off with a bigger, more established one. And I think that oftentimes in charity there's too much discussion given to the next, big, great revolutionary idea that's going to solve the root cause of poverty and not nearly enough attention given to, "Hey, what are the things that already work and how can we do more of them?"
RYSSDAL: Holden Karnofsky is the co-founder of GiveWell.net. That's a group that studies the effectiveness of charities and advises donors about them. Holden, thanks a lot.
Karnofsky: Yeah. My pleasure.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
12/22/2008
I don't want to attempt to defend any improprieties done by Mr. Karnofsky, nor do I want to belittle anyone's volunteer efforts. But I do think that the real point being raised in the interview merits some consideration. If you want to maximize the impact that you have in solving a particular problem, it is highly likely that a monetary contribution will go farther than your time. That is a natural consequence of the fact that your time can be converted into good effect only to the extent that you have skills in that specific area (hence, Mr. Karnofsky's point about fixing cleft palates); while your money can be directed at the very best technology available to solve that problem. It thus follows that doing your homework to find the most effective charity is likely to be a good idea.
What I just said does not take into account the good feeling that comes from volunteering, and I would be the last person to suggest that people who want to continue to do so. But I do suggest that you examine your motives just a little - are you contributing your time because it is the best way to help, or are you contributing your time because it helps AND you are enjoying the feeling of community spirit, etc.? There is nothing at all wrong with the latter, but it is probably not the most effective way to help.
From MA, 12/15/2008
I've been an NPR and Marketplace listener for a long time, and I was astonished that there was no pushback at the appalling comment that volunteering was a bait-and-switch for getting volunteers to donate. I have volunteered at charity shops and clothing distribution points and charity concerts many times, and at no point was I solicited for donations. Also, I was doing work that the organization would not have been able to get done without volunteers.
Holden Karnofsky clearly has no idea how non-profits are run, and should not have been given credence on a respected outlet like Marketplace.
12/14/2008
This gentleman has no business evaluating charities. A hedgefund manger & friends looking for new income opportunities. I looked up the web site and was appalled to see his ratings for great chrities such as UNICEF as "not recommended", out of 100's of charities only 5 are recommended because they gave him the time of the day and answered all his elaborate evidence & ROI analysis.
From fairfield, CT, 12/12/2008
Mr. Karnofsky is wrong about so many things. Other bloggers have pointed out the falacies in his comments about volunteering, but I must also point out his wrong attitude towards new nonprofits and towards analysis of administrative expenses. As a volunteer, board member, financial donor, and consultant, to local, regional and national nonprofits, and to volunteers and donors,(www.philanthropymanagement.com) I have to wonder why you gave Mr. Karnofsky time on your program.
From Wooster, OH, 12/12/2008
As a Volunteer Coordinator, I took particular offense to the implication that charities recruit volunteers with the ulterior motive of gaining a new donor. Our volunteers provide an invaluable service to our non-profit and we appreciate the work they do with no strings attached.
From Philadelphia, PA, 12/12/2008
It's heartening to see the many responses challenging Mr.Karnofsky's way-off-the-mark comments about volunteering. An organization that "uses" volunteering to bait-and-switch people just for cash contributions is both not worth volunteering for and not worth giving money to! This is all a red herring discussion anyway, because most organizations need BOTH money and volunteers. It's not either/or. But they each allow the organization to work on its mission in distinct ways.
Thanks for allowing coments here to debate the issues.
12/11/2008
Perform an internet search on - givewell fraud.
NPR has gone downhill.
From Chicago, IL, 12/11/2008
When I heard this interview, it just didn't make sense. Even if it were true that charities recruit volunteers as a way of soliciting donations, how does it follow that volunteering is not a good use of one's time? Aside from being a valuable experience in and of itself, isn't volunteering at an organization one of the best forms of "research" you can perform? What better way to decide whether your money (if you have any to give) is going to a worthy cause? Of course, if you were to volunteer for a charity and then decide to donate to it, a business like Givewell doesn't get a cut, do they?
From Santa Ana, CA, 12/11/2008
I must concur with the majority of comments. I am disturbed by the statement that the recruitment of volunteers is merely a guise to obtain donors. I now see from the comments that this person may not be such a credible source of information on this topic, he appeared to be self-serving. Thus I hope that Marketplace will do a follow up story with someone more in tune with volunteering. I know that the organization that I work for could not exist but for our volunteers (over 200) and we do not seek any donations other than their time.
Similarly, I volunteered for my local NPR radio station during its pledge drive and I was not solicited for donations either. Marketplace should have turned right around to the local NPR stations for a comment on volunteers.
From New York, NY, 12/11/2008
I am on the staff of a non-profit arts association who regularly recruits volunteers for an annual playwriting contest I oversee. I can honestly say that we are not recruiting volunteers simply because we want to recruit donors. We recruit volunteers because there is no practical way this annual contest would HAPPEN without a team of volunteers reading and evaluating 300 scripts.
For the most part, these volunteers are people of similarly slender financial means, and while having a check on hand from any of them would be great, I can honestly tell you I'd rather have a pair of eyes reading a script and a brain forming an opinion about it than I would have a check.
From Randolph, VT, 12/11/2008
As someone who needed to spend my New Years Eve cleaning up after the mess Mr. Karnofsky made with his astroturfing last year around this time (for which, yes, he was removed as Exec Director at GiveWell) I'm a little dismayed to see him both touting "research" as a value at the same time he tosses around "don't volunteer, donate" instructions devoid of supporting data.
Going from "volunteering is often about recruiting donors" to "don't volunteer, donate" besides being a little self-interested also seems to me to be bad advice. Out here in rural areas we have many non-profits that literally would not exist without volunteers and extra money isn't going to help the food shelf doors stay open as much as someone who can actually BE there.
I'm sure what Mr. Karnofsky is saying makes sense at some level within the context in which he operates, but it betrays a real lack of understanding about how the lion's share of the small non-profits work in this country and I'm sad to see Marketplace giving his edgy unsupported claims any more airtime.
From Brooklyn, NY, 12/11/2008
I've been listening to Marketplace every morning and afternoon for as long as I can remember (I was raised by NPR parents). I really enjoy and appreciate Mr. Rysdall's work in helping interested laypeople keep in touch of economic issues. In the past, you have set a very high standard for including content on the show.
This is why I'm both surprised and troubled by your recent "story" on Holden Karnofsky of Givewell. As has been amply documented (see the links provided by Mr. Gen, above), Karnofsky is a self-promoting flack who has not offered anything substantive to the existing resources for obtaining information on non-profits. His previous actions have demonstrated his fundamental ignorance about the field he has decided to reform, and also proved that he is committed to self-promotion at any cost.
More broadly, Marketplace has no business giving air time to a "story" that is essentially an advertisement for the interviewee's business.
I'm very disappointed.
From CT, 12/11/2008
I was appalled at the comments made by Holden Karnofsky regarding charitable contributions, especially his comment regarding volunteering. I volunteer with two organizations, that could not survive without volunteers. My parents instilled contribution of time and talent is equal to that of financial contributions. It is always ideal to volunteer and give financially but in these tough economic times that is not always possible. Volunteers are the core of many organizations that depend on volunteers, allowing charitable groups to stretch the dollar, to give the most amount of aid to the largest amount of people possible. It is harder to volunteer, giving of yourself, than to throw money at a problem. There are many places in each community that desperately need volunteers, Soup Kitchens, Food Banks, Meals on Wheels, Homeless Shelters, Outreach programs to senior citizens, Habitat for Humanity, Animal shelters the list goes on and on. I think Mr. Karnofsky has hurt many organizations by discouraging countless people to not volunteer. Charities will be grateful for any contribution whether time, talent or financially. NPR and Marketplace has disappointed me greatly. Marketplace should apologies for this segment and have a guest that is more knowledgeable about this topic that discusses the great need for volunteers across this country.
From New York, NY, 12/11/2008
Marketplace should not be giving airtime to people who do not have the credentials to be speaking about the topic in question. Karnofsky himself was removed from his Executive Director position at GiveWell due to "improper and indefensible" actions.
Please see these sites for more information.
http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Givewell
http://blog.givewell.net/?p=212
From San Diego, CA, 12/11/2008
I am disturbed by organizations and people who "review" nonprofits on arbitrary grounds, often with no understanding of how nonprofit management differs from that of businesses - board management, volunteer management, consensus building, fundraising. In many ways, nonprofits are much more difficult. Applying "efficiency standards" from businesses is not helpful - nor is disparging efforts to recruit volunteers.
In my career as a staff member at and then consultant to nonprofits, I have seen hundreds of organizations recruiting, training and relying on the excellent work of caring volunteers. Without them, our communities would be in even more dire shape, having to provide services that these wonderful people do for free.
It is true that volunteers give more than those who don't volunteer. But even when board members are recruited - and some thought is given to their capacity and willingness to give - the first consideration is: "Will they do the hard work of being a board member?"
We should salute volunteers, not point to them as unwitting pawns in a fundraising plot.
From Los Angeles, CA, 12/10/2008
I am so glad to read comments from those involved in nonprofits who challenged Karnofsky's statement that it is better to give money than volunteer. I am currently a volunteer with a city agency that provides services to low income senior citizens, including by matching volunteers with seniors to teach them how to use a computer. I came home tonight frustrated after my senior mentee was a no-show. As I groused to my husband he mentioned this story, which I had missed when it aired. It was a discouraging thought that perhaps it was misguided to even try volunteering, particularly since I currently have more extra time than disposable income. When it works out, I also find that volunteering provides psychic benefits to the volunteer that cannot be matched by writing a check. Thank you to those who have posted views that affirm the value of volunteers.
From Los Angeles, CA, 12/10/2008
Long time listener, first time commenter. I notice that a lot of people seem to be trying to comment on the scandal rooted out by the metafilter folks, but they're being picked up by your spam filter. If you search for that site or metatalk and givewell, it'll turn up.
Long story short, Holden's been a little less than honest himself, which exposed Givewell to a bit of uncomfortable scrutiny, in which their methods and governance as a charity were called into question. The punishment was, apparently, a ten-minute slap on the wrist for Mr. Karnofsky, and a snarky back and forth with some of his employers. It's good reading.
From NC, 12/10/2008
Read here for the background:
http://mssv.net/wiki/index.php/Givewell
From NC, 12/10/2008
Read here for some background on Karnofsky's removal as executive director and his astroturfing of various websites.
From Edgewater, MD, 12/10/2008
The most critical volunteer position in a nonprofit is Board member. As in for profit businesses, the Board's job is to hold the organization accountable.
It's important to know about any non-profit organization your investing in. A big, well known nonprofit can be just as ineffective and unworthy of support as a little known start up.
From San Francisco, CA, 12/10/2008
Thanks for doing a series on philanthropy.
Holden Karnofsky's comments on measuring impact were right on--as the for-profit world has shown, analytics are key to measuring ROI and constantly iterating a product or service forward. Donors and funders (and volunteers) of social programs should demand metrics while supporting these activities in the same breath.
However, Karnofsky's comments on volunteerism are very disappointing. Providing time and skills is often more beneficial than giving money, and volunteering can help supporters better understand the work of the nonprofits (and thus make wiser investments). I must admit that I’m a bit biased as I lead a web-based nonprofit program called MicroMentor (http://www.micromentor.org). We make it easy for skilled business volunteers to mentor and advise lower-income entrepreneurs, who, in turn, build local businesses and provide local jobs (especially important in times like these). By channeling the expertise of volunteers to where it is most needed, we can have a much larger impact than if we were to provide this assistance directly. There are many other great skills-based volunteer opportunities out there as well, such as the Taproot Foundation and SCORE.
I would encourage Marketplace listeners to give back in whatever way suits them best.
From New York, NY, 12/10/2008
Some background on GiveWell and Karnofsky, who was removed from his position as GiveWell's Executive Director in January for misrepresenting GiveWell and himself.
From Los Altos, CA, 12/10/2008
I agree it is important that Non Profits be evaluated with regards to how effective they achieve their goals. But I believe that Mr. Karnofsky's new non profit web site is bankrupt in a number of ways. First, to discourage volunteering is just ah ... stupid. It is not simple about money or having good ratios of return. That act of volunteering is helpful to both the recipient as well as the receiver.
From Nashville, TN, 12/10/2008
I was greatly disappointed and slightly angered by Holden Karnofsky's comments discouraging people to volunteer. As a volunteer manager for an arts organization, I was appalled at his claim that charities often advertise volunteer opportunities as a means of tricking people into becoming donors. In our current economic climate, jobs are being cut, and volunteers are needed more than ever. Monetary donations are of course valuable, but that does not mean the human contribution is any less important- does Mr. Karnofsky think the “meals on wheels” deliver themselves?
Americans are becoming very selective about where they donate their money, and non-profits like mine often fall last. Please, don’t do us any more favors by telling people on national radio not to help us in the way they themselves see most fit.
From Austin, TX, 12/10/2008
I find Karnofsky's response to the question, "Does it make sense to volunteer time instead of money?" deeply disturbing. The small non-profit I work for relies heavily on our thousands of volunteers to accomplish our mission. There is simply no way we could hire enough people to do what our volunteers accomplish. I know the same is true of food banks, homeless shelters, environmental organizations and other ngos across the country. If you have more time than money, please volunteer. You will make a real difference. If you later feel moved to make a donation, you will know exactly what your money is going to.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.