Hide table of contents

effektiv-spenden.org is an effective giving platform in Germany and Switzerland that was founded in 2019. To reflect on our past impact, we examine Effektiv Spenden’s cost-effectiveness as a "giving multiplier" from 2019 to 2022 in terms of how much money is directed to highly effective charities due to our work. We have two primary reasons for this analysis:

  1. To provide past and future donors with transparent information about our cost-effectiveness;
  2. To hold ourselves accountable, particularly in a situation where we are investing in further growth of our platform.

We provide both a simple multiple (or “leverage ratio”) of donations raised for highly effective charities compared to our operating costs, as well as an analysis of the counterfactual (i.e. what would have happened had we never existed). 

Our analysis complements our Annual Review 2022 (in German) and builds on previous updates and annual reviews, such as, amongst others, our reviews of 2021 and 2019. In both instances, we also included initial perspectives on our counterfactual impact. Since then, the investigation of Founders Pledge into giving multipliers as well as Giving What We Can (GWWC)’s recent impact evaluation have provided further methodological refinements. In line with GWWC's approach, we shift to 3-year time horizons, which we feel better represents our impact over time and avoids short-term distortions.

However, our attempt to quantify our “giving multiplier” deviates in some parts from the methodologies and assumptions applied by Founders Pledge and GWWC and is an initial, shallow analysis only that we intend to develop further in the future.

Below, we share the key results of our analysis. We invite you to share any comments or takeaways you may have, either by directly commenting or by reaching out to sebastian.schienle@effektiv-spenden.org 

Key results

  • In 2022, we moved €15.3 million to highly effective charities, amounting to 
    €37 million in total donations raised since Effektiv Spenden was founded in 2019.
  • Our leverage ratio, i.e. the money moved to highly effective charities per €1 spent on our operations was 55.7 and 40.8 for the 2019-2021 and 2020-2022 time periods respectively.[1]
  • Our best-guess counterfactual giving multiplier is 17.9 and 13.0 for those two time periods, robustly exceeding 10x. This means that for every €1 spent on Effektiv Spenden between 2019-2022, we are confident to have facilitated more than €10 to support highly effective charities which would not have materialized had Effektiv Spenden not existed. 
  • Our conservative counterfactual giving multiplier is 10.4 for 2019-2021, and 7.5 for 2020-2022. 
  • The decline of our multiplier over time is driven by the investment into our team. Over the last year, our team has grown substantially to enable further growth. While this negatively impacts our giving multiplier in the short term, we consider it a necessary prerequisite for further growth. 
  • Our ambition is to return to a best-guess counterfactual multiplier of at least 15x in the coming years. That said, ultimately our goal is not to maximize the multiplier, but to maximize counterfactually raised funds for highly effective charities. (As long as our work remains above a reasonable cost-effectiveness bar.)

How to interpret our results

We consider our analysis an important stocktake of our impact, and a further contribution to the growing body of giving multiplier analyses in the effective giving space. That said, we also recognize the limitations of our approach and want to  call out some caveats to guide interpretation of these results.

  • Our analysis is largely retrospective, i.e. it compares our past money moved with operating costs during the same. As mentioned above, current investments into future growth lower our giving multiplier, but will pay off in the medium to longer term. 
  • We look at average rather than marginal impact, i.e. we are dividing all donations received by all of our costs of operation. We expect our marginal cost-effectiveness to be lower as a result of diminishing returns. That said, we consider the investment into our team in 2022 a necessary step to enable further growth, i.e. with high marginal impact. 
  • Accounting for the counterfactual is difficult. We try to account for donations to high-impact charities that would also have happened, had Effektiv Spenden never existed. We largely rely on post-donation surveys of our donors, but recognize that this approach has many limitations and hope to be able to further refine our approach in the future.
  • We currently only account for our direct impact, i.e. donations received on our platform. We do not include donations towards our recommended charities that were either made directly to them or through other channels based on our recommendation. This ignores some part of our impact and thus conservatively lowers our impact multiplier. We intend to include some indirect donations in future assessments, particularly large donations that are transferred directly to the recommended charities by the donors, but that we can directly tie to the philanthropic advice we have been giving. 
     
  1. ^

    To calculate our leverage ratio and multiplier, results are adjusted for inflation and reported in 2022-equivalent EUR.

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I'd also like to point out that the Effektiv Spenden co-working office (TEAMWORK) is a place where many EAs work and is available for EA meetups and events outside of office hours. The impact of this is difficult to quantify, but potentially significant and not accounted for when looking at donations alone.

I am glad what I said here no longer applies to your organisation. Thanks for assessing your cost-effectiveness!

I continue to be impressed by the Effektiv Spenden team. Well done everyone!

Executive summary: An analysis by the German/Swiss charity fundraising platform Effektiv Spenden finds that for every €1 they have spent since 2019, over €10 has gone to highly effective charities, with a best estimate of €17.90 over 2019-2021.

Key points:

  1. Effektiv Spenden has raised €37 million for effective charities since 2019.
  2. Their "leverage ratio" of funds raised to operational costs was 55.7x for 2019-2021 and 40.8x for 2020-2022.
  3. Their estimated "counterfactual giving multiplier" was 17.9x for 2019-2021 and 13.0x for 2020-2022, meaning over €10 went to effective charities for every €1 they spent.
  4. Growth investments have lowered short-term multiplier metrics but are expected to enable further fundraising growth.
  5. Analysis has limitations and Effektiv Spenden aims to refine methodology and return multiplier to over 15x.

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Thanks for sharing. 

My conclusion from this is that there is still a massive opportunity, perhaps especially in Europe, to increase the funds going to effective charities by creating organisations like effectiv spenden - or by expanding your model. For example, there is no analogous charity in Belgium, and Belgians cannot donate tax-deductibly to effectiv spenden. 

Totally agree. We are currently supporting Charity Entrepreneurship (and others like GWWC) in this endeavour (see e.g. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ME4ihqRojjuhprejm/effective-giving-incubation-apply-to-ce-and-gwwc-s-new). Belgium is definitely on the list.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
This is Part 1 of a multi-part series, shared as part of Career Conversations Week. The views expressed here are my own and don't reflect those of my employer. TL;DR: Building an EA-aligned career starting from an LMIC comes with specific challenges that shaped how I think about career planning, especially around constraints: * Everyone has their own "passport"—some structural limitation that affects their career more than their abilities. The key is recognizing these constraints exist for everyone, just in different forms. Reframing these from "unfair barriers" to "data about my specific career path" has helped me a lot. * When pursuing an ideal career path, it's easy to fixate on what should be possible rather than what actually is. But those idealized paths often require circumstances you don't have—whether personal (e.g., visa status, financial safety net) or external (e.g., your dream org hiring, or a stable funding landscape). It might be helpful to view the paths that work within your actual constraints as your only real options, at least for now. * Adversity Quotient matters. When you're working on problems that may take years to show real progress, the ability to stick around when the work is tedious becomes a comparative advantage. Introduction Hi, I'm Rika. I was born and raised in the Philippines and now work on hiring and recruiting at the Centre for Effective Altruism in the UK. This post might be helpful for anyone navigating the gap between ambition and constraint—whether facing visa barriers, repeated setbacks, or a lack of role models from similar backgrounds. Hearing stories from people facing similar constraints helped me feel less alone during difficult times. I hope this does the same for someone else, and that you'll find lessons relevant to your own situation. It's also for those curious about EA career paths from low- and middle-income countries—stories that I feel are rarely shared. I can only speak to my own experience, but I hop
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
And other ways to make event content more valuable.   I organise and attend a lot of conferences, so the below is correct and need not be caveated based on my experience, but I could be missing some angles here. Also on my substack. When you imagine a session at an event going wrong, you’re probably thinking of the hapless, unlucky speaker. Maybe their slides broke, they forgot their lines, or they tripped on a cable and took the whole stage backdrop down. This happens sometimes, but event organizers usually remember to invest the effort required to prevent this from happening (e.g., checking that the slides work, not leaving cables lying on the stage). But there’s another big way that sessions go wrong that is sorely neglected: wasting everyone’s time, often without people noticing. Let’s give talks a break. They often suck, but event organizers are mostly doing the right things to make them not suck. I’m going to pick on two event formats that (often) suck, why they suck, and how to run more useful content instead. Panels Panels. (very often). suck. Reid Hoffman (and others) have already explained why, but this message has not yet reached a wide enough audience: Because panelists know they'll only have limited time to speak, they tend to focus on clear and simple messages that will resonate with the broadest number of people. The result is that you get one person giving you an overly simplistic take on the subject at hand. And then the process repeats itself multiple times! Instead of going deeper or providing more nuance, the panel format ensures shallowness. Even worse, this shallow discourse manifests as polite groupthink. After all, panelists attend conferences for the same reasons that attendees do – they want to make connections and build relationships. So panels end up heavy on positivity and agreement, and light on the sort of discourse which, through contrasting opinions and debate, could potentially be more illuminating. The worst form of shal