Giving Myth: Why "sticking plaster" charities aren't necessarily bad

The myth: Funding "sticking plaster" solutions is bad; donors should solve underlying/systemic problems

The reality: It depends on the "sticking plaster" solution

This myth is often repeated by seasoned, sophisticated donors. The advice is at times paired with comments that philanthropy should be ambitious.

To a certain extent, there is some merit to this advice.

However dismissing all "sticking plaster" charities ignores the fact that some charities doing work directly with beneficiaries can also be high impact charities.

At first glance, this may seem counter-intuitive.

After all, high impact charities should achieve more good, and the ambitious work sounds like it does more good than work which simply helps one beneficiary at a time. 

However there are several other factors to consider:

• If a charity aims to do something ambitious, what's the probability that it will fail, or (worse) inadvertently cause harm?
• Relatedly, how much good is achieved by those goals, be they small scale or large?
• How much does it cost for the charity to achieve its goals?

Putting those things together requires what we call a cost-effectiveness model. 

What we have found from reviewing hundreds of charities is that best charities doing direct work (or "sticking plaster" work, if you will) are achieving high levels of impact, and systemic change charities need to be particularly ambitious and effective to do better than them.

If you want to know more about a specific charity, feel free to look at it on the SoGive site.