
Ask HN: Anyone have real Charitable Organization metrics? - rebootthesystem
Wondering about the performance of charitable organizations. The data out there lists irrelevant metrics such as CEO pay and percent of funds paid out. These two metrics are irrelevant and shouldn&#x27;t be used to decide which organization does a better job.<p>Case 1: Give $20 to a guy digging for plastic bottles. He buys a bunch of booze. No CEO pay and 100% of the funds paid out. Yet, the aid was 100% ineffective.  In fact, you could have done harm.<p>Case 2: You offer to buy him food. Spend the same $20. This required active management. How much did it cost to give out $20? If you had to pay someone to supervise and ensure positive results, $30 to $40?<p>Case 3: Natural disaster. Aid organization receives $10 million. Pay their CEO $0. No organization outside of a few home office volunteers. They give out 100% of the funds. They are grabbed by corrupt government officials, warlords, drug dealers, etc. Only 5% might reach someone and do some good.<p>Case 4: Same disaster: A different org receives $10 million. They pay their CEO a good salary. They also have trained and experienced staff. They invested in a large cargo plane, portable medical facilities, tents, containers and a rapid deployment aid and support package. This infrastructure costs money to maintain, transport and grow. Only 50% of the funds reach the afflicted. Yet, this organization is there with an army of people and their resources helping, feeding and housing folks.<p>Clearly the CEO and % donated metrics are meaningless. I would rather give to the organization in the last example. I think most might agree.<p>Is there a site or watchdog group that compiles real, relevant and verified metrics for aid organizations?<p>P.S.: Please don&#x27;t engage in slicing-up the above cases. They are simple examples used to make a general point. Not intended to be an exhaustive treatment. I&#x27;d appreciate if we could focus on --if this exists-- identifying a source of more realistic metrics.
======
danielvf
This is something that big donors and big NGOs spend a huge amount of time
talking about. If they've come up with something good, it didn't happen while
I was working in the space.

A single global metric is almost impossible. For one thing, it requires a
horde of comparative value judgements. What is the exact impact difference
percentage between feeding a child in Mali for a month, vs teaching a Kenyan
man how to start a bicycle repair business?

How organizations evaluated in the real world?

Most funding comes from two kinds of donors - lets call them whales and
consumers. Consumers get advertised to and give < $1,000 a year. Whales
however usually have dedicated contacts an organization, and if they are
giving enough, probably have access to both per project financials and project
outcome metrics.

So in theory whales have good information about the effectiveness of their
money.

Consumers though mostly don't. Partly consumers themselves are to blame for
this because in general they don't care about how effective their giving is.
The William and Flora Hewit foundation gave up on funding charities rating
programs because of a study that found that less than 2% of donors ever
research the effectiveness of the organizations they give to.

Personally, I only give to organizations I've worked with.

~~~
rebootthesystem
You have an advantage in having inside information. That's great. The rest of
us are left to wonder.

You are right, the vast majority of people are not analytical at all. Whether
it be politics or charitable giving, it is far easier to let emotions dictate
decisions than having to look at a spreadsheet or financial report.

I'll keep looking but what you just revealed seems to indicate I will not find
what I am looking for and there might not be a financial incentive to even
consider creating such a service.

