The perspective of Mieux Donner, illustrated by discussions at the Forum National des Associations et Fondations
13 February 2025 – Reading time : 12 min.
The philanthropic sector is moving towards a scientific and rigorous approach, understanding the importance of allocating resources where they will have the greatest impact. International organisations are increasingly aligning their actions with rigorous criteria of effectiveness and transparency. In France, however, this crucial shift is struggling to take hold. The current practices of foundations and redistributing bodies often show a lack of methodological clarity in the selection and evaluation of projects, limiting their effectiveness in the face of growing needs.
At the Forum National des Associations et Fondations, we spoke to a variety of players to understand their practices. Around ten semi-structured interviews were conducted, combining closed answers (yes/no) and explanatory developments, and enabled us to gather enlightening data on their decision-making processes. Although illustrative, the feedback highlights a clear trend: a lack of methodological rigour often limits the impact of donations, and more needs to be done to bring French philanthropy into line with international best practice.
Note: This article is based on our observations and discussions at the Forum National des Associations et Fondations, which illustrated the current challenges facing philanthropy in France. Our intention is to promote collective reflection on ways of improving the effectiveness of donations to maximise their social impact.
Many foundations use selection criteria developed internally, without a standardised framework or rigorous method. These criteria are mainly based on subjective preferences, which limits their impartiality and their ability to maximise the impact of the resources allocated.
For example, during our discussions at the Forum, some participants mentioned decisions such as “we have decided to concentrate on planting trees in France”, without any in-depth reflection on the relevance of this action. These choices did not take into account crucial issues such as :
These exchanges reflect a lack of shared reflection on the whys and wherefores of these projects. This ignores the importance of these issues, as highlighted by researchers Stefan Schubert and Lucius Caviola, who have studied the variations in impact between associations:
Some problems are much easier to solve than others.
Some methods are much more effective at solving a given problem.
The theory of change is a strategic planning method that defines a clear path towards measurable objectives, detailing the necessary steps and underlying assumptions. This approach makes it possible to structure interventions to maximise their effectiveness. However, few foundations use it, which often makes it difficult to evaluate and justify funding choices.
Without a theory of change, projects can lack strategic direction, making it difficult to assess their progress and adjust approaches where necessary. This limits their potential for long-term success and compromises the overall impact of funding.
Most of the entities surveyed do not assess the net impact of their projects, i.e. the real impact taking into account what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. Robust methodologies such as randomised controlled trials, which allow the effects of the intervention to be distinguished from those of other external influences, or even compared with a baseline scenario, are only used in rare cases. Without a comparison group, it is difficult to demonstrate a real impact, making the results less reliable.
Without comparison, it is impossible to say that the effects observed are really attributable to the intervention, or even that they are beneficial. Foundations therefore run the risk of funding projects that do not have the desired effect, depriving other, more effective initiatives of essential funding. Without reliable measurements, precious resources can be allocated to initiatives with limited or negative real impact. For example, the American “Scared Straight” programme aimed to deter young offenders from re-offending by showing them the reality of life in prison.
The approach seemed intuitive and initially the re-offending rate appeared low, encouraging funding and media coverage of the programme. However, when a research team compared the results with those of similar young people who had not taken part, they found that the young people who had taken part in the programme had a higher re-offending rate. Far from being a deterrent, the programme had the opposite effect, increasing the likelihood of re-offending. This example shows the importance of comparing results to ensure that an intervention has the desired impact.
Most foundations do not use international indicators, although the World Bank and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have adopted them to measure the impact of their projects. These include DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), equivalent years of schooling, WELBYs (adjusted years of well-being) and tonnes of CO2e emissions avoided.
These indicators, which are widely used, make it possible to assess the concrete positive effects of various interventions and facilitate comparison between projects. They also provide greater transparency for donors, who can better understand the impact of their support.
Not adopting comparable indicators makes it impossible to determine whether certain projects are generating a significant impact or, on the contrary, producing minimal or even uncertain effects. This deprives decision-makers and donors of a clear understanding, making it difficult to distinguish between initiatives that are genuinely beneficial and those whose impact is negligible. In the absence of comparisons, there is a risk of failing to perceive the extent of the effects in relation to other, more effective interventions, or even of confusing uncertain results with positive effects.
None of the organisations studied took into account the cost of their interventions in relation to the results obtained. Yet cost-effectiveness is an essential criterion for ensuring that every euro spent maximises the impact produced.
Ignoring cost-effectiveness can lead to the funding of projects that, although potentially beneficial, are much more expensive than other solutions that are just as effective, or even more so. Without this analysis, we can end up building a wall with precious stones when bricks would be more than adequate.
None of the people involved were familiar with international evaluation organisations such as GiveWell, which has been evaluating the impact and effectiveness of charities for over 15 years. Other players, such as the World Bank, use impact measurement tools such as DALYs and have been comparing the effectiveness of interventions on health and poverty in developing countries for over three decades, but the results of their report were completely unknown.
The lack of knowledge about international best practice is robbing foundations of years of progress and expertise. The integration of proven tools derived from in-depth research could enable the sector to make significant advances in efficiency.
Establish measurable objectives and precise strategies to ensure that funded projects have a solid and realistic action plan, maximising their potential for success.
Comparing the results with a baseline scenario or control group (ideally as part of randomised controlled trials) makes it possible to measure the real impact of an intervention.
Incorporating indicators such as DALYs or equivalent years of schooling would enhance the comparability of funded projects and make it easier to assess their real impact.
Evaluate the cost of the results obtained to maximise the impact of each euro spent, giving priority to interventions offering the best cost-impact ratio.
Be sceptical about projects that claim to have an “impact” without providing tangible evidence, to ensure that they have a real and quantifiable effect.
In cases where greater precision is required, it is entirely possible to introduce specific units, such as those used by GiveWell. These units take into account the preferences of beneficiaries in terms of concrete results, for example on issues of health, opportunities or increased income.
However, for the majority of shares, the existing units are sufficient to provide relevant information.
On issues of health, poverty, support for minorities, reduction of suffering or support for self-fulfilment, there are standardised units of measurement, in particular “WELBYs” (adjusted years of well-being), which effectively reflect the impact of these interventions on human well-being. Without aiming for perfection, the use of these units remains accessible and provides useful clarity for comparing and prioritising actions.
If you think you need to create a new measure, first check that it doesn’t already exist in a similar form. And if you do create one, be transparent and ready to accept constructive criticism to improve your model.
Using existing methods, a pre-assessment is not time-consuming and already gives an idea of the feasibility and potential impact of a project. For example, Charity Entrepreneurship offers an initial assessment in ten minutes, with a few columns and scores based on relevant criteria, to get an order of magnitude. With a slightly more detailed spreadsheet, a pre-assessment can be refined in an hour or two, enabling decision-makers to better direct funding. Investing this time upstream is a simple way of avoiding high costs in the long term by ensuring that resources are used effectively.
While not everything can be precisely quantified, the effort of trying already provides additional rigour. Even if they are imperfect, standardised units of measurement enable us to make much more accurate and effective decisions, an observation widely supported by behavioural psychology and the work of Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Prize for economics. In complex areas, observation and analysis methods can provide valuable insights. For example, a French association promoting plant-based food has succeeded in evaluating and quantifying its impact, demonstrating that even seemingly intangible results can be assessed using a methodical approach.
The French philanthropic sector is at a crossroads. While international players are adopting practices based on effectiveness and rigorous evaluation, France is slow to adopt these approaches. Yet this transition is essential if we are to meet today’s challenges and maximise the impact of our funding.
At Mieux Donner, we believe that the future of philanthropy lies in tried and tested, transparent methods. We hope that these findings and recommendations will encourage French foundations to draw inspiration from best practice to amplify their contribution to sustainable social change.
Mieux Donner is an association dedicated to identifying and promoting high-impact charities. It supports donors and organisations in their philanthropic efforts to maximise the effectiveness of their contributions.
Romain Barbe
Romain is co-founder and co-director of Mieux Donner. You can contact him at romain@mieuxdonner.org or by using the contact form.
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Assessing the climate impact of donations: between modelling and uncertainty At Mieux Donner, we sometimes use a calculation that is strikingly simple: “€1 = 1
When Greenpeace celebrated a court ruling against Golden Rice, scientists warned of thousands of preventable deaths. What this case reveals about evidence-based giving.
You want to donate to support biodiversity. You’re thinking about a rewilding project near you. However, in some cases, these local restoration efforts can do five times more harm to global biodiversity than good. So how can you avoid causing harm, and where will your donation have the greatest impact on the planet?
