I think it’s fairly rare for a charity to continue operating when its program has been completely debunked. More common is to continue operating the program with no evidence that it is working, and without trying to collect high quality evidence.
Some charities that could conceivably be what you’re looking for include:
Peter Popoff Ministries, technically a church but really an enterprise designed to enrich its namesake.
Central Asian Institute, which earnestly ran an altruistic program of unknown effectiveness but whose programs also served to enrich its founder.
Playpumps, a discredited and yet award winning charitable intervention.
Thank you for the reply. I would personally disagree that there are not significant corruptions within top charities (look up the scandals in Oxfam and UN for examples, alongside the ones in Deaton’s book), however even if the big names are not corrupt with a capital C, or at least not fundamentally corrupt, even just examples of how they are not as good as top charities would be awesome. This is supposed to help me give examples of why people should stop donating to relatively average charities (which is virtually all of the big names) and instead do the limited research to start giving to top charities instead. They are also useful debate points. I have my own, but I need more.
I think it’s fairly rare for a charity to continue operating when its program has been completely debunked. More common is to continue operating the program with no evidence that it is working, and without trying to collect high quality evidence.
Some charities that could conceivably be what you’re looking for include:
Peter Popoff Ministries, technically a church but really an enterprise designed to enrich its namesake.
Central Asian Institute, which earnestly ran an altruistic program of unknown effectiveness but whose programs also served to enrich its founder.
Playpumps, a discredited and yet award winning charitable intervention.
Hello
Thank you for the reply. I would personally disagree that there are not significant corruptions within top charities (look up the scandals in Oxfam and UN for examples, alongside the ones in Deaton’s book), however even if the big names are not corrupt with a capital C, or at least not fundamentally corrupt, even just examples of how they are not as good as top charities would be awesome. This is supposed to help me give examples of why people should stop donating to relatively average charities (which is virtually all of the big names) and instead do the limited research to start giving to top charities instead. They are also useful debate points. I have my own, but I need more.
Cheers
Jack