Doneer Effectief bases their work on a specific selection method. This method consists of three steps:
We will thoroughly explain the above steps on this page.
We aim to use our resources to aid in solving major world problems – of which there are many. This means we need to prioritize and make careful decisions. The fundamental question to answer is which global problems can benefit the most from our donations. As a general rule, impact can be maximized by supporting problem areas on the basis of scale, neglectedness and solvability. We elaborate further on these ideas below.
A problem area that is large in scale means that it affects many individuals and its effect on each individual is considerably negative. An example: curing a rare disease is good, but curing a disease that is more common (and causes similar “suffering”) has a greater impact because more people are affected. At the same time, curing a disease that causes a small amount of suffering would have a positive impact, but curing a disease that causes a large amount of suffering naturally has a greater impact. The latter case has more net benefits for global health.
Problems that have a large need for more funding can be fantastic giving opportunities. If the problem is large in scale, the next rule of thumb is to prioritize problems that are (significantly) under-researched. More popular cause areas that are well-known (because we see ads about them or because they feature regularly in the news) usually already receive a lot of funding. Meanwhile, lesser known problems (for example, the ongoing fight against malaria) are often neglected.
Finally, it is important to address problems that have feasible solutions. The more tractable the solution to a problem is, the greater the likelihood of actually solving the problem. This means it is preferable to work on a problem that has a number of possible solutions, or at least a number of possibilities for improving the situation. An example: Imagine your goal is to save and/or significantly improve lives. In that case, funding cancer research is not an effective use of your resources. All the research into metastatic cancer over the last 10 years has only resulted in a life extension of one month. One research year per scientist costs an average of 50,000 euros. For that same amount of money you can provide 20,000 doses of vitamin A, preventing blindness in children and saving 14 lives.
urrently, this is our selection of the most effective charities. These charities have all been rated as the most effective by the relevant independent evaluator in their focus area. They all score excellently in their proven effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, growth potential and transparency.
Why are there no Dutch charities among them?
Poverty & Health
in extremely poor areas
According to the World Bank, about 9.2% of the world, or 719 million people, live in extreme poverty, with less than $2.15 a day. Children and youth make up two-thirds of the world’s poor, and women are a majority in most regions. The majority of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. Poverty has a major impact on people’s physical and psychological health.
Climate
neglected innovations & inadequate policies
Climate change has major consequences for nature, life on earth and infrastructure. As a result, basic needs and sustainable development are under pressure worldwide. Moreover, current climate pledges by countries are proving insufficient to keep temperatures below critical thresholds.
Animal welfare & Food transition
Alternative proteins & inadequate policies
More than one-third of all habitable land on this planet is used for meat and dairy production. The meat industry is one of the main drivers of climate change and deforestation. An industry accompanied by an incredible amount of animal suffering in factory farms (where 99% of meat comes from). 2,000 livestock animals die there after a miserable life. Per second.
Many Dutch charities do not work on global issues. In fact, 90% of Dutch charities spend their money in the Netherlands. This is unfortunate because The Netherlands is a rich country. All of the problems that are easy and cheap to tackle have often already been solved in rich countries. Those that remain are often expensive and difficult to define and solve. In poor countries, the simpler problems have often not yet been addressed. For this reason, you can have more impact per euro by donating to charities that focus on problems that are easy and cheap to address in poor countries4. For example, saving a life abroad is significantly cheaper. In the Netherlands, the reference value (what an extra healthy year of life gained through treatment may cost on average) is currently 80,000 euro5. Contrast this with the fact that with just over 3,500 euros you can save the life of someone from Mali by supplying vitamin A supplements. The remaining 10% of Dutch charities do not pass the strict selection of the independent evaluators. They also may not volunteer themselves to be evaluated.
Despite the fact that philanthropy is a multi-billion dollar business, mutual comparison seems to be taboo. In order to determine the effectiveness of charities, we make use of research mainly from the three reputable evaluation organisations listed below. These organisations are financially independent from the charities they assess making their opinions objective. Their researchers scout the best charities worldwide and compare the impact achieved. Only the charities that really stand out as effective are included in our donation recommendations.
The independent research institutions review charities and select the most effective ones. But what makes a charity effective? Evaluation organizations such as GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators and Founders Pledge use four criteria to determine effectiveness.
The approach has been proven effective based on sound scientific research. Most people think that it does not matter much which charity they give to, or that one charity is at most one and a half times more effective than another. In reality, the difference in effectiveness can be a hundred or even a thousand times greater.
The achieved impact is in excellent proportion to the costs incurred. Each donation results in the most impact compared to other charities.
The charity has the capability to make efficient and effective use of new donations.
The charity is open about its approach, results, mistakes and lessons learned in the short and long term.
Currently, this is our selection of the most effective charities.
These charities have all been rated as the most effective by the relevant independent evaluator in their focus area. They all score excellently in their proven effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, growth potential and transparency.
Why are there no Dutch charities among them?
Doneer Effectief Fund: Poverty and Health
Doneer Effectief Fund: Climate
Doneer Effectief Fund: Animal welfare & food transition
Against Malaria Foundation
Helen Keller Vitamin A supplementation
New Incentives
Strong Minds
Clean Air Task Force
Carbon 180
Future Cleantech Architects
The Humane League
The Good Food Institute
Many Dutch charities do not work on global issues. In fact, 90% of Dutch charities spend their money in the Netherlands. This is unfortunate because The Netherlands is a rich country. All of the problems that are easy and cheap to tackle have often already been solved in rich countries. Those that remain are often expensive and difficult to define and solve. In poor countries, the simpler problems have often not yet been addressed. For this reason, you can have more impact per euro by donating to charities that focus on problems that are easy and cheap to address in poor countries4. For example, saving a life abroad is significantly cheaper. In the Netherlands, the reference value (what an extra healthy year of life gained through treatment may cost on average) is currently 80,000 euro5. Contrast this with the fact that with just over 3,500 euros you can save the life of someone from Mali by supplying vitamin A supplements. The remaining 10% of Dutch charities do not pass the strict selection of the independent evaluators. They also may not volunteer themselves to be evaluated.
