We tend to think that philanthropy is good in itself. Giving money to those in need is surely a laudable act, worthy of praise and by no means criticism. But what if the ways we choose to donate money are misguided? To paraphrase the catchy title of a rather controversial book, what if there were ways we could do good — better?

Learn more about philanthropy on GivingCompass.org

Philanthropy advisor and author Caroline Fiennes thinks the way we do philanthropy is deeply flawed. To prove her point, she takes none other than Mark Zuckerberg as a (bad) example.

In 2010, the Facebook CEO and co-founder announced in front of a live audience that he would donate no less than $100 million to fix the schools in Newark, New Jersey. The charitable act turned out to be a failure, as judged by one close observer, as most of the money was wasted and students did not get the support they needed.

We do not know how to “donate well.” Not enough research is being done. Fiennes cites the only few studies available on donor effectiveness, which have all pointed to “leaks” in the philanthropy system. Money is squandered on hiring consultants, drawing up proposals, and managing grants. We look too much into how worthy the receivers are of the donation, but don’t investigate the effectiveness of the philanthropists.

Successful philanthropy starts with asking the right questions. For example, we tend to think the bigger the grant, the better, but Fiennes’ 10-year-long analysis revealed that the size of the grant has little to do with the success of the donation. Other studies also suggested big grants were no better than small ones.

We need to start treating philanthropy more like a science, Fiennes says. Her appeal echoes Peter Singer's “effective altruism” - the ethical movement that uses science to maximize the impact of charity giving.

Read the source article at Big Think