Hi there,

A smashing success

After a slow start, PlayPumps suddenly became a global sensation. It won a World Bank award, drew support from major foundations, and made headlines around the world. Even Jay-Z and First Lady Laura Bush got involved, with the Bush administration awarding a $16 million grant. 

“The PlayPump was the hottest thing in international development, and Trevor Field was at the center of it all – a rock star of the charity world.” - Will MacAskill, co-founder of Giving What We Can & author of Doing Good Better

The hard truth

Then it all started to unravel. Two separate reports came out – one by World Vision/UNICEF and one by the Swiss Resource Centre and Consultancies for Development (SWAT), which showed that the PlayPump was not what it was cracked up to be. In fact:

Millions of dollars had been spent on a technology that was making things worse, not better. 

PlayPumps required continuous force to draw water, so children quickly grew exhausted. Reports described kids falling off and injuring themselves, some even vomiting from the spinning. In at least one village, children had to be paid to keep the pump turning.

So when the Swiss investigators asked the community, it’s no surprise that many said they preferred the previously installed hand pumps. These were not only easier to push, but also provided five times as much water — at a fraction of the cost.

The lesson

How does something like this happen? Field had the best of intentions, and a product that seemed incredible on paper. And yet, it led to a disastrous outcome.

Similarly, some ways of helping others that seem abstract or “unsexy” – things like malaria bed nets or water chlorination tablets – can transform lives in ways that are immediate, tangible, and profound.

Above: Unless they are consulting third party impact evaluators, a donor’s only information about a charity’s impact is the charity’s marketing.

That’s why effective giving asks us to combine care with careful consideration.

Field had tried to turn his care into action, and it had failed miserably – because the careful consideration bit was missing. 

With a bit of testing and reflection, the flaws in PlayPumps approach could have come to light much earlier.

And those millions of dollars that were wasted? They could have been channeled into any number of truly life-changing programs. 

The cost of just one PlayPump ($14,000) could have (through chlorination) provided a year’s worth of clean water to over 9,000 people – without the child labor. 

This is why carefully researching the effectiveness of interventions, programs and charities is so important. In a world with limited funding available, there's a strong case for funding the most effective solutions first.

We’ll talk more about the reasons for “measuring” a charity’s effectiveness next time. But first, let me share something that might surprise you: PlayPumps is still operating in South Africa today, long after its flaws came to light. So why do ineffective charities exist — and persist?

Why do ineffective charities persist?

 P.S. You can give us feedback on these emails here.

Where can I find a list of the best charities?

Our research team recommends the best opportunities for donors looking to maximise the impact of their next dollar.