The key insight in effective giving is not just comparing charities, but recognizing that most individuals can dramatically increase their positive impact by redirecting donations to highly effective opportunities they are likely unaware of, achieving up to 100 times more good with their money.

Sir Ronald Cohen critiques the philanthropic model, arguing that relying on donations keeps charitable organizations small, underfunded, and perpetually begging for capital. This prevents them from achieving the scale needed to solve massive problems, a flaw that impact investing aims to correct by creating self-sustaining models.

By leveraging bulk purchasing, Gavi vaccinates children in developing countries for just $24 (compared to $1,300 in the US). This small investment saves one life for every 50-60 children vaccinated, yielding a cost-benefit ratio unmatched in healthcare or philanthropy.

Don't judge a charity's effectiveness by its website. An Indian charity, Bandhan, had a 90s-era website but an evidence-based program praised by Nobel laureates. Organizations excellent at impact delivery may be poor at marketing, presenting an opportunity for diligent donors to find undervalued opportunities.

To avoid guilt, divide spending into three buckets: 1) yourself, 2) causes you're passionate about, and 3) high-impact, evidence-based charities. This approach encourages adding effective giving without demanding the sacrifice of personal or local donations, making the practice more sustainable.

Reaching a 100x increase in charitable impact isn't from a single change but from combining principles that each act as a multiplier. For instance, shifting focus to a more neglected problem (10x) and choosing a leveraged policy solution (10x) can result in a 100x total improvement.

A critical flaw in philanthropy is the donor's need for control, which manifests as funding specific, personal projects instead of providing unrestricted capital to build lasting institutions. Lasting impact comes from empowering capable organizations, not from micromanaging project-based grants.

A study found that when people first pledge an amount and later decide on the specific charity, they give more money and allocate it more effectively. Decoupling these two decisions reduces cognitive load, allowing for more rational consideration of impact when choosing a recipient.

Preventing a problem, like malaria, is often more effective than curing it, but it creates a marketing challenge. It's difficult to tell a compelling story about a child who *didn't* get sick. This "identifiable victim" bias means funds often flow to less effective but more narratively satisfying interventions.