Some of the rationales here seem stronger for mid-size+ donors than for small ones. For example, the “waiting game” (a/k/a donor chicken) doesn’t strike me as a major concern with small donors.
On the other hand, if you dig into more specific smaller-donor profiles, I think you’re more likely to see opportunities for added value from direct donation. One important thread is that several of these theories of impact may require the donor to spend a fair amount of time.
Three-figure donors: A large part of a three-figure donor’s value may lie in their ability to influence others—and that may be easier to do if they can talk with particularity about their chosen organization’s work rather than at a level of abstraction. I also suspect that donors may find it easier to stay motivated if their donation has some degree of particularity, and promoting future expected motivation may be disproportionately important here (e.g., if one is a university student who expects to earn much more later).
Low to medium four-figure donors in the US: Donors at this level are not likely to be itemizing their taxes in the US, which makes them potentially well-suited to give to things that don’t qualify for tax writeoffs. Funds—which are usually nonprofits—can give (e.g.) nanogrants to small animal-rights organizations in developing countries, but they are going to incur significant operational overhead relative to grant size for due diligence / compliance issues.
High four / low five-figure donors: These donors are large enough to be systematically important to smaller organizations. They may be in a position to deeply engage with their intended smaller organization in a way that may be inefficient for a professional grantmaker.
Mid-size or below donors outside the US: Tax reasons may strongly favor direct giving, depending on the availability of funds that can offer deductions in the relevant country. For instance, given that most money in GiveWell All Grants ends up with top charities, and AMF is a top charity, I am skeptical that the marginal extra dollar for All Grants (without a tax advantage) overperforms AMF (which is tax-deductible in a lot of places). That’s especially true if you think GiveWell will adjust its own funding to some extent for the direct donations each top charity receives.
Some of the rationales here seem stronger for mid-size+ donors than for small ones. For example, the “waiting game” (a/k/a donor chicken) doesn’t strike me as a major concern with small donors.
On the other hand, if you dig into more specific smaller-donor profiles, I think you’re more likely to see opportunities for added value from direct donation. One important thread is that several of these theories of impact may require the donor to spend a fair amount of time.
Three-figure donors: A large part of a three-figure donor’s value may lie in their ability to influence others—and that may be easier to do if they can talk with particularity about their chosen organization’s work rather than at a level of abstraction. I also suspect that donors may find it easier to stay motivated if their donation has some degree of particularity, and promoting future expected motivation may be disproportionately important here (e.g., if one is a university student who expects to earn much more later).
Low to medium four-figure donors in the US: Donors at this level are not likely to be itemizing their taxes in the US, which makes them potentially well-suited to give to things that don’t qualify for tax writeoffs. Funds—which are usually nonprofits—can give (e.g.) nanogrants to small animal-rights organizations in developing countries, but they are going to incur significant operational overhead relative to grant size for due diligence / compliance issues.
High four / low five-figure donors: These donors are large enough to be systematically important to smaller organizations. They may be in a position to deeply engage with their intended smaller organization in a way that may be inefficient for a professional grantmaker.
Mid-size or below donors outside the US: Tax reasons may strongly favor direct giving, depending on the availability of funds that can offer deductions in the relevant country. For instance, given that most money in GiveWell All Grants ends up with top charities, and AMF is a top charity, I am skeptical that the marginal extra dollar for All Grants (without a tax advantage) overperforms AMF (which is tax-deductible in a lot of places). That’s especially true if you think GiveWell will adjust its own funding to some extent for the direct donations each top charity receives.