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
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
Regulation cannot be written in blood alone. There’s this fantasy of easy, free support for the AI Safety position coming from what’s commonly called a “warning shot”. The idea is that AI will cause smaller disasters before it causes a really big one, and that when people see this they will realize we’ve been right all along and easily do what we suggest. I can’t count how many times someone (ostensibly from my own side) has said something to me like “we just have to hope for warning shots”. It’s the AI Safety version of “regulation is written in blood”. But that’s not how it works. Here’s what I think about the myth that warning shots will come to save the day: 1) Awful. I will never hope for a disaster. That’s what I’m trying to prevent. Hoping for disasters to make our job easier is callous and it takes us off track to be thinking about the silver lining of failing in our mission. 2) A disaster does not automatically a warning shot make. People have to be prepared with a world model that includes what the significance of the event would be to experience it as a warning shot that kicks them into gear. 3) The way to make warning shots effective if (God forbid) they happen is to work hard at convincing others of the risk and what to do about it based on the evidence we already have— the very thing we should be doing in the absence of warning shots. If these smaller scale disasters happen, they will only serve as warning shots if we put a lot of work into educating the public to understand what they mean before they happen. The default “warning shot” event outcome is confusion, misattribution, or normalizing the tragedy. Let’s imagine what one of these macabrely hoped-for “warning shot” scenarios feels like from the inside. Say one of the commonly proposed warning shot scenario occurs: a misaligned AI causes several thousand deaths. Say the deaths are of ICU patients because the AI in charge of their machines decides that costs and suffering would be minimize
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
This is a transcript of my opening talk at EA Global: London 2025. In my talk, I challenge the misconception that EA is populated by “cold, uncaring, spreadsheet-obsessed robots” and explain how EA principles serve as tools for putting compassion into practice, translating our feelings about the world's problems into effective action. Key points:  * Most people involved in EA are here because of their feelings, not despite them. Many of us are driven by emotions like anger about neglected global health needs, sadness about animal suffering, or fear about AI risks. What distinguishes us as a community isn't that we don't feel; it's that we don't stop at feeling — we act. Two examples: * When USAID cuts threatened critical health programs, GiveWell mobilized $24 million in emergency funding within weeks. * People from the EA ecosystem spotted AI risks years ahead of the mainstream and pioneered funding for the field starting in 2015, helping transform AI safety from a fringe concern into a thriving research field. * We don't make spreadsheets because we lack care. We make them because we care deeply. In the face of tremendous suffering, prioritization helps us take decisive, thoughtful action instead of freezing or leaving impact on the table. * Surveys show that personal connections are the most common way that people first discover EA. When we share our own stories — explaining not just what we do but why it matters to us emotionally — we help others see that EA offers a concrete way to turn their compassion into meaningful impact. You can also watch my full talk on YouTube. ---------------------------------------- One year ago, I stood on this stage as the new CEO of the Centre for Effective Altruism to talk about the journey effective altruism is on. Among other key messages, my talk made this point: if we want to get to where we want to go, we need to be better at telling our own stories rather than leaving that to critics and commentators. Since
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Formosa: Fulcrum of the Future? An invasion of Taiwan is uncomfortably likely and potentially catastrophic. We should research better ways to avoid it.   TLDR: I forecast that an invasion of Taiwan increases all the anthropogenic risks by ~1.5% (percentage points) of a catastrophe killing 10% or more of the population by 2100 (nuclear risk by 0.9%, AI + Biorisk by 0.6%). This would imply it constitutes a sizable share of the total catastrophic risk burden expected over the rest of this century by skilled and knowledgeable forecasters (8% of the total risk of 20% according to domain experts and 17% of the total risk of 9% according to superforecasters). I think this means that we should research ways to cost-effectively decrease the likelihood that China invades Taiwan. This could mean exploring the prospect of advocating that Taiwan increase its deterrence by investing in cheap but lethal weapons platforms like mines, first-person view drones, or signaling that mobilized reserves would resist an invasion. Disclaimer I read about and forecast on topics related to conflict as a hobby (4th out of 3,909 on the Metaculus Ukraine conflict forecasting competition, 73 out of 42,326 in general on Metaculus), but I claim no expertise on the topic. I probably spent something like ~40 hours on this over the course of a few months. Some of the numbers I use may be slightly outdated, but this is one of those things that if I kept fiddling with it I'd never publish it.  Acknowledgements: I heartily thank Lily Ottinger, Jeremy Garrison, Maggie Moss and my sister for providing valuable feedback on previous drafts. Part 0: Background The Chinese Civil War (1927–1949) ended with the victorious communists establishing the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland. The defeated Kuomintang (KMT[1]) retreated to Taiwan in 1949 and formed the Republic of China (ROC). A dictatorship during the cold war, Taiwan eventually democratized in the 1990s and today is one of the riche