How do I find the best donation cause area?

Froot loops or muesli mix?

Giving can be like buying cereal. You go to the supermarket and you want to buy a really good mix for breakfast. You want it to be tasty - and healthy. And then you find yourself standing in front of feet of shelves and feet of shelves of shelves of shelves of shelves and you have to decide: Oats or amaranth? Indulgence or fitness? Fruity or grainy? Local or international? And they all claim to be delicious. And healthy, of course. Of course, we know that only a few are healthy. But which ones?

Unlike cereal, the shelves of philanthropy in the supermarket are not meters long. They are kilometers long. And every package, without exception, promises maximum health: for our fellow human beings, for democracy, for animals, for the climate, for nature… Every project, every initiative, every organization: indispensable to save the world. But unlike cereal, most philanthropy packages have very few ingredients on the back - and certainly no information about their actual nutritional value. So how do we navigate this market?

Before you can look at individual packages, i.e. specific actions and organizations, you first have to find the right gear in philanthropy, i.e. the issue area where you can get more done than in other areas.

But how do you find the topic that will give you the most bang for your buck? Four questions for funding topics that may already be on the short list can help.

In other words, does this issue affect a particularly large number of people (or animals) in a serious or even existential way compared to other issues?

Take poverty, for example: the issue of poverty and its consequences in sub-Saharan African countries is much greater than in industrialized countries. Those who want to address the fight against poverty and reach as many people as possible can achieve this goal more effectively there than here.

Or to put it another way: Are there already critical decisions or tipping points in this area that will have irreversible consequences if we do not take immediate action to counteract them?

Or take the environment as an example: addressing the climate crisis (for example, by influencing political decisions) is more urgent due to likely irreversible “tipping points” with catastrophic global consequences than, for instance, expanding a nature reserve in East Westphalia.

Or to put it another way: Do you have well-developed strategies and plans that are just waiting to be implemented? For example, because the effectiveness of certain actions has long been proven? Or because potential actions are so concrete that their effectiveness could be easily tested?

Example of democracy: The problem of international democratic decline can be tackled more concretely by, for example, systematically providing practical (and demonstrably effective) support to disadvantaged female voters in the US to cast their vote - instead of, for example, inviting young leaders from different countries to exchange ideas at a symposium on democracy.

In other words, does the issue receive less attention and less (donated) money than other issues - for example, because it is not as fashionable or media-effective as other issues? Or because it is beyond the imagination of many people?

Take health, for example: the problem of serious mental illness is hugely neglected compared to the treatment of AIDS, for example, especially in developing countries. Only a tiny fraction of the money spent on HIV programs worldwide is spent on mental health. Therefore, it is likely that many more people could be helped by supporting mental health projects than by increasing the already well-funded HIV projects.

Up to 100 x more effect.

None of these examples denies the value of fighting poverty in this country, the need to help people living with HIV, the desirability of international democracy symposia, or the wisdom of expanding nature reserves. They simply show that, given limited resources, some areas are more worthy of support, and the measures applied there are likely to be more effective than others. Much more effective. Often by a factor of 10, and sometimes by a factor of 100, which is about as big a difference as the sugar content of Froot Loops and whole grain cereal. Both make the same promise of a healthy meal. But only one delivers - and keeps us fit.

About the author

Stefan Shaw

Founder & Director of Donor Advisory

Book a meeting

I am one of the founders of Effektiv Spenden. If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to send me an email. I will get right back to you.