Have you ever considered a version of the Speed Giving Game where the participant is instead asked whether individual charities have a negative effect, no effect, or a positive effect?
Here’s how it could work:
Before the event, you prepare several sheets of laminated paper, each for a specific charity.
On the front of each sheet, it says the name of the charity and a description of its intervention.
On the back of each sheet, it says whether the charity has a positive effect, no effect, or a negative effect as well as a citation to the relevant study.
You also prepare a big sign: “We will donate up to $5 to charity if you play this 5 minute game.”
You ask each person to randomly draw five of the laminated sheets of paper.
For each one they guess correctly, you donate one dollar to charity.
The reason I feel this might be better is it more directly establishes that some charities are better than others, whereas the current version of the Speed Giving Game seems to imply that it is simply up to the subjective judgment of the donor.
Yup, scared straight is a famous example, but not a charity. Neither are the social interventions at the link. I’d love to see some charities that had scholarly studies proving them either ineffective or net negative.
One doesn’t need studies to determine which charities have negative effects. (That’s not true for the reverse obviously.)
Play Pump is the archetype. There are plenty others, especially in Haiti.
Gleb_T, go on GuideStar. If you’re truly interested in finding the charities with negative effects, there are transparent charities that do more harm then good. Additionally, some have enormous administrative/advertising fees, a vice in itself. I was reading a 990 Form for a charity in Florida with over 85% put to advertising!
Have you ever considered a version of the Speed Giving Game where the participant is instead asked whether individual charities have a negative effect, no effect, or a positive effect?
Here’s how it could work:
Before the event, you prepare several sheets of laminated paper, each for a specific charity.
On the front of each sheet, it says the name of the charity and a description of its intervention.
On the back of each sheet, it says whether the charity has a positive effect, no effect, or a negative effect as well as a citation to the relevant study.
You also prepare a big sign: “We will donate up to $5 to charity if you play this 5 minute game.”
You ask each person to randomly draw five of the laminated sheets of paper.
For each one they guess correctly, you donate one dollar to charity.
The reason I feel this might be better is it more directly establishes that some charities are better than others, whereas the current version of the Speed Giving Game seems to imply that it is simply up to the subjective judgment of the donor.
I’m not sure I know of many studies of charities that show they have negative effects. Do you have any citations of such studies?
Maybe something like this? “Scared Straight” is the example I always hear.
Yup, scared straight is a famous example, but not a charity. Neither are the social interventions at the link. I’d love to see some charities that had scholarly studies proving them either ineffective or net negative.
I suppose it could be done with interventions instead of charities.
One doesn’t need studies to determine which charities have negative effects. (That’s not true for the reverse obviously.)
Play Pump is the archetype. There are plenty others, especially in Haiti.
Gleb_T, go on GuideStar. If you’re truly interested in finding the charities with negative effects, there are transparent charities that do more harm then good. Additionally, some have enormous administrative/advertising fees, a vice in itself. I was reading a 990 Form for a charity in Florida with over 85% put to advertising!