Hide table of contents

Join our February-March 2024  Incubation Program to start nonprofits in Mass Media (Global Health) and Animal Welfare.

In this post, we announce our top four charity ideas to launch in February 2024. They are the results of months of work by our research team, who selected them through a seven-stage research process. We pick interventions that exceed ambitious cost-effectiveness bars (e.g., for global health policy, this is 5x top GiveWell evaluated charities), have a high quality of evidence, minimal failure modes, and high expected value.

We’re seeking people to launch these ideas through our February-March 2024 Incubation Program. No particular previous experience is necessary - if you could plausibly see yourself excited to launch one of these charities, we encourage you to apply. The deadline for applications is September 30, 2024.

[APPLY NOW]

In the Incubation Program, we provide two months of cost-covered training, stipends, funding up to $200,000, operational support in your first months, a co-working space at our CE office in London, ongoing mentorship, and access to a community of alumni, funders, and experts. Learn more on our refreshed CE Incubation Program page.


Disclaimer: 

To be brief, we have sacrificed nuance, the details of our considerable uncertainties, and the downside risks discussed in the extended reports. Full reports will be published on our website and the EA Forum and announced in our newsletter in the upcoming weeks.

Please note that previous incubatees attest to the ideas becoming increasingly exciting over the course of the program.

One-Sentence Summaries

Childhood vaccination reminders 

An organization that sends SMS or voice messages to remind caregivers to attend their child’s vaccination appointments. 

Mass media to prevent violence against women

A non-profit that produces and delivers educational entertainment content focusing on preventing intimate partner violence

Influencing EU fish welfare policy through strategic work in Greece

An organization focused on improving fish welfare through corporate campaigning and policy work in Greece, aiming to influence animal welfare standards at the EU level.

Influencing key stakeholders of the emerging insect industry

An organization that provides information to relevant stakeholders on sustainability, environmental impacts, food safety concerns, and animal welfare issues related to insect farming. 
 

One-Paragraph Summaries 

Childhood vaccination reminders 

In 2021, 25 million children under one went unvaccinated. Studies show that mobile messages can effectively remind caregivers to keep up with their child's vaccination schedule, thereby mitigating disease risk and improving overall health outcomes (123). Yet, such beneficial services are rarely implemented on a large scale. Suvita, a non-profit incubated by CE, is delivering this impactful service in India. A new non-profit organization will launch it in the next top-priority country. This new organization will likely coordinate closely with Suvita to expand to numerous priority countries or operate under the same umbrella. This intervention can be expected to help avert one disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for approximately $80, making it a highly cost-effective means to improve global health.

Mass media to prevent violence against women

Almost 500 million women aged 15 to 49 have been subjected to violence from an intimate partner at least once since they turned 15. Countless women continually face threats to their safety within their homes, experiencing physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Fueled by societal norms and attitudes, this pervasive form of violence remains prevalent in many societies worldwide. Evidence from robust experimental (12345) and quasi-experimental studies suggests that media content designed to address these behaviors can prevent intimate partner violence. This newly-formed non-profit will produce and disseminate such media on a large scale, working to curb this problem. In doing so, it should contribute to a growing body of evidence outlining effective strategies to prevent violence against women.

Influencing EU fish welfare policy through strategic work in Greece

Greece is the largest fish producer in the EU (and the 15th largest in the world), but no one is working or planning to work on fish welfare there. 

The endline goal of this charity should likely be a policy change, but corporate campaigns will likely be a useful first tool to build public and corporate support for the policy. Enshrining fish welfare in legislation in Greece would not only impact the 440 million fish farmed in the country but could also impact progress and policy on fish welfare at the EU level. We believe that having the voice of the largest fish producer in the EU leading the way on (or at least not actively against) fish welfare could go a long way.

Influencing key stakeholders of the emerging insect industry

Insect farming is a rapidly growing industry with 10s of billions of insects alive on farms at any one point in time, primarily being farmed as feed for other animals. There are several misconceptions about this industry. Insect farming is often touted as a sustainable solution to factory farming, but there are key questions and uncertainties regarding sustainability and environmental impactsfood safety concerns, and welfare issues on farms. This charity would aim to ensure relevant stakeholders – investors, policymakers, entrepreneurs, insect farmers, etc. – are aware of the challenges and limitations of insect farming. 

More Detailed Summaries 

Childhood vaccination reminders 

In 2021, 25 million children under one went unvaccinated. For example, in 2021, only 80% of children in Africa received the BCG vaccine (protecting against tuberculosis), while just 71% received the third dose of the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) vaccine.

The solution we propose is straightforward and has demonstrated effectiveness. It involves sending reminders and encouragement to caregivers about upcoming vaccination opportunities via mobile phone (SMS or voice messages). 

Various meta-analytic reviews, including several from Cochrane (123), support using reminders to boost child vaccination rates. However, despite their proven effectiveness, these reminders are underutilized. Many countries with low vaccination rates have not yet scaled their use.

We constructed a model for a theoretical 20-year program in Angola to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. We estimated the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted to be between $38 and $78, considering solely the costs to the charity and including additional government expenses, respectively.

Challenges

Various factors can hinder scaling health technologies, including lack of resources, competing priorities, inadequate digital health information systems, poor governance, and insufficient advocacy. 

Establishing and maintaining robust monitoring systems integrated with routine immunization data may be vital to the organization’s work. An organization in this field may need to develop strategies to mitigate poor data availability, prioritizing data access and robustness while acknowledging that limited or unreliable information could pose a constraint.

Particularly helpful co-founder backgrounds

No particular previous experience is necessary to apply for this idea. However, the co-founding team would benefit from the following skills and experiences: 1. Experience working with government stakeholders, such as Ministries of Health; 2. Knowledge of health data systems and routine health service provision; 3. Expertise in logistics and operational efficiencies; 4. Skills in monitoring and evaluation, with a focus on extensive data monitoring. We also expect strong generalists to be able to acquire these skills on the job or hire additional team members to fill critical gaps.

Collaboration with Suvita

Drawing on the successful model of Suvita, a CE-incubated organization that has effectively delivered this service in parts of India, we envision a new non-profit that could implement this service in another high-priority country. This organization will likely coordinate closely with Suvita to expand to numerous priority countries in the future or could even operate under the same umbrella.

Conclusion

Addressing under-vaccination is a global health priority. While mobile phone reminders are not a panacea, they can significantly aid in achieving this goal at a low cost and large scale.

Entertainment-led mass media to prevent violence against women

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a substantial, preventable human rights violation impacting millions of women worldwide. Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) suggest that nearly one-third (31%) of women have encountered physical or sexual violence since turning 15. IPV poses significant health and economic challenges, with extensive consequences for victims.

Educational entertainment offers a promising solution to alleviate IPV's burden. It is theoretically robust, with some supportive evidence among strategies to prevent violence against women. Despite growing recognition of edutainment as an effective social intervention, not many organizations still conduct this type of work. We think there are gaps in implementation that a new organization could fill. 

The evidence on the effectiveness of mass media in IPV is limited but cautiously optimistic: While only one experimental study measured effects on behavior, four other experimental (1234) and quasi-experimental studies found sizable shifts in attitudes and norms related to IPV. Combining these findings with the broader literature on the effects of mass media on behavior change, we believe there is a strong case for scaling up an edutainment approach in this space.

Our cost-effectiveness analysis of a hypothetical 5-year intervention in Lesotho, Rwanda, Angola, and Ethiopia revealed a cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted ranging from $28 to $1419, depending on assumptions and the country chosen. Based on our estimates, this may be among the most cost-effective interventions in the IPV space.

Challenges

Key data indicators will likely be scarce. Collecting IPV data may prove challenging, particularly in regions with cultural reluctance to discuss these issues. We have reservations about how easy it will be to evaluate and communicate impact to funders reliably. Effective monitoring will necessitate the triangulation of different data sources and creative utilization of impact-evaluation methodologies. 

Particularly helpful co-founder backgrounds

No particular previous experience is necessary to apply for this idea. However, given the subject's sensitivity, the ideal co-founder team should be aware of IPV's complexities. Experience with or knowledge of gender equality issues and advocacy would be advantageous. As this idea is based on indicative studies and requires further testing, co-founders should be comfortable with uncertainty and exhibit a scientific mindset.

We also value organizations capable of producing high-quality, engaging content. Experience in artistic and communication fields, such as theater, TV, and writing, would be advantageous, although such skills could also be acquired through early hiring.

Conclusion

IPV is a significant, preventable issue. Edutainment can broadly and inexpensively address it. Encouraging evidence suggests that mass media approaches can effectively shift attitudes and behaviors towards gendered violence, positioning them among the most cost-effective interventions for this issue.

Influencing EU fish welfare policy through strategic work in Greece

Greece is the largest fish producer in the EU and the 15th largest in the world, with over 440 million fish alive on its farms at any time. These fish are unprotected by legislation. As a result, they are left to suffer from high stocking densities and overcrowding, barren environments with no enrichment, high mortality rates, and prolonged slaughter in an ice slurry without pre-stunning at the end of their lives. Work to improve the lives of these animals is highly neglected. No animal advocacy organizations are working or planning to work on fish welfare in Greece. This noticeable gap should be filled to ensure that fish suffering on farms does not continue. 

A new organization working to enshrine fish welfare in legislation in Greece would not only be beneficial for the millions of fish farmed in Greece, but could also impact progress and policy on fish welfare at the EU level. We believe that having the voice of the largest fish producer in the EU be on the side and leading the way on (or at least not actively against) fish welfare could go a long way.

Policy change should be the end goal of this work. Still, awareness-raising and corporate campaigns are likely necessary first steps to build public and corporate support, making policy change easier.

Humane slaughter could be a promising first ask. Slaughter is likely to be the focus of campaigns by other animal advocacy organizations, and it would be good to be coordinated. However, we think there could be scope to include environmental conditions – such as stocking density limits, water quality parameters, and environmental enrichment – in the ask to increase the overall impact on fish. A new organization should work with existing actors to determine these standards. 

We expect that passing fish welfare legislation in Greece could be very cost-effective, with our model yielding an estimated impact of ~400 fish helped per dollar (leading to 370 welfare points affected per dollar). This cost-effectiveness estimate does not include the impact this work could have on EU policy or the precedent-setting effect that EU policy could have globally. These effects are hard to quantify but play an important part in the overall impact that this work could have.

Challenges

The main challenge with this work is its uncertain tractability. There are many reasons in both directions to think this work could be easy or difficult. As an illustrative example, the Greek government took the lead in developing fish welfare guidelines adopted by the EU Platform on Animal Welfare and could be open to policy change on fish welfare. On the other hand, experts have cautioned that the Greek government is pushing for deregulation and growing the industry as quickly as possible. Welfare legislation is a push towards more regulation and could be seen as hampering growth, so perhaps the government would be against policy change on fish welfare. 

This tractability question could be overcome through corporate campaigning. It could provide a good leverage point for future policy work as it will build public and corporate support for policy change on fish welfare.

Particularly helpful co-founder backgrounds

No particular previous experience is necessary to apply for this idea. It will be important for the founding team to have access to Greek language skills early to communicate with stakeholders. While this will most likely come from a first hire (or interpreters), a Greek speaking co-founder would be a significant bonus. 

Experience with corporate campaigning and/or policy work is nice to have but not a necessity. 

Conclusion

Although fish welfare legislation is rare across the globe, with only a handful of countries having any protections for fish enshrined into legislation, we think pushing for this within an EU country is likely the most tractable place to do so. Work in Greece seems particularly important given the scale of its production and the impact domestic actions could have on progress at the EU level. 

Influencing key stakeholders of the emerging insect industry

In the last few years, the size of the insect farming industry has skyrocketed, with millions of dollars in seed funding raised across the industry, larger facilities beginning to open, and many new startups appearing in the space. This growth is only expected to continue, with the industry aiming to produce 500,000 metric tonnes of insect protein by 2030, likely requiring over 100 billion insects to be on farms at any one point in time. Most of this growth is expected to come from the insects-as-feed industry, where insects are farmed to be fed to other farmed animals as an aspirationally cheaper alternative to fishmeal, soybean meal, and other plant-based options. Insect meal will likely fulfill some of the huge unmet demand for fishmeal. This will enable the growth of aquaculture production by an estimated 1.1% by 2030.

There is an overwhelming lack of knowledge surrounding this industry, with questions regarding sustainability and environmental impactsfood safety concerns, and animal welfare issues. Given the scale of production – and the size of these uncertainties – we believe that the growth of insect farming deserves consideration, action, and precaution from all relevant stakeholders: investors, policymakers, entrepreneurs, insect farmers, and others. 

Work on insect issues is very neglected. Only a handful of people (~5 FTEs) are working in this space, and most of this work primarily focuses on the welfare of insects on farms rather than actively challenging some of the underlying assumptions about insect farming. We think this is a huge underinvestment in an important issue and believe there is space for a new organization and many opportunities to pick up that existing actors might not take.

Challenges

As work in this space is new, there is not much of a track record to build on or learn from. This means that work will need to be innovative and cautious. Collaboration with existing actors will help to overcome these challenges.

Particularly helpful co-founder backgrounds

No particular previous experience is necessary to apply for this idea. A skilled generalist could do this work. Experience with corporate campaigning or other similar roles that deal with outreach and managing stakeholder relationships is nice to have but not a necessity. 

Conclusion

Providing information and promoting caution amongst relevant stakeholders of the insect farming industry is an urgent priority, given the projected growth of the industry. We must address the remaining questions and uncertainties on sustainability, environmental impacts, food safety concerns, and animal welfare issues before many more insects are farmed in the current system. 

Our cause areas for the August- September 2024 Incubation Program

You can now also apply (using the same form) to the August-September 2024 Incubation Program that will focus on: 
1) The most cost-effective Sustainable Development Goals
2) Organophosphate pesticides and other neurotoxicants

Information about our top ideas will be announced in Spring 2024.

How to apply

To apply, fill out the [APPLICATION FORM], which should only take around 30 minutes. We have designed the application process also to give you a better sense of whether you are excited by this career path.

Application deadline: September 30, 2023

Would you like to explore whether this could be a good career fit for you? [TAKE OUR NEW IMPROVED QUIZ]

More information about the application process and a resource list that can help you prepare: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/apply
More information about how the program is run: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/how-it-works
Any questions about the program: ula@charityentrepreneurship.com

Comments13
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:44 PM

By the most recent World Bank and FAO data, as well as the 2017 FAO data you link to, Greece isn't close to being the largest producer of fish in the EU nor the 15th largest producer in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think the correct claim is that Greece farms the greatest number of fish in the EU. Fish production statistics are generally by total weight rather than fish number, and I see how the latter is more relevant to welfare concerns. However I think your phrasing is a bit misleading, as Greece has a very unique fish industry for the EU. It farms a huge amount of low-weight fish and has a relatively small wild-catch industry. For most (all?) other European countries, total national fish catch (by weight and number) is still dominated by fishing fleet capture rather than aquaculture. I'd be curious to know how your model weights welfare impacts on humane slaughter method adoption vs improving living conditions on farms. If the latter is a bigger deal, I see how Greece can be a high-leverage country to start with, especially considering the growing proportion of aquaculture in fish production worldwide.

Hi – thanks for your comment.

 

You're correct in that we are prioritizing for the greatest number of fish on farms rather than the total tonnage produced. Our claim that Greece is the largest producer in the EU (and the 15th largest in the world) is based on estimates (using the FAO data linked) of the number of fish alive on farms in each country at any given time. This has to do with the total farmed as well as their lifespans and expected mortality rates on farms pre-slaughter. 

 

We generally prioritize farmed fish as you can impact their whole lives, whereas for wild-caught fish, you can only impact the end of their lives. However, if the new charity chooses to focus on humane slaughter, then there could be scope to focus on both farmed and wild-caught fish. Note, however, that protections for wild-caught fish, to the best of my knowledge, don't exist in legislation anywhere yet, so we might not expect this to be very tractable. Overall, at least in the short-term, we would recommend that a new org should focus on farmed fish and should try to push for the inclusion of stocking density and water quality parameters as well as humane slaughter in any ask where possible. Still, we could see that the new org chooses to only focus on slaughter – at least at first – as this seems to be what the rest of the movement is likely to focus on, and there could be benefits from all being on the same page and asking for the same thing.

Really excited to see this coming along!

I'm particularly keen on the mass media to prevent violence against women intervention. In fact in August, I sent a version of your webpage covering the same topic to the co-authors of the "one experimental study [that] measured effects on behavior" (my advisor and two grad school classmates, FWIW), and they are all positive about this project as well.

I'd like to know more about the thinking behind the claim that a mass media IPV campaign would be 50x as effective as cash transfers at improving welfare (which roughly follows from your claim that you want to fund things that are 5X as effective as GiveWell's top charities, which they claim are all 10X as effective as GiveDirectly's programs). For two reasons, this seems like a very high estimate to me:

  1. As it happens, we can make an apples-to-apples comparison between cash transfers' and mass media's effects on IPV, because Haushofer et al. (2019) study the effects of cash transfers on IPV, and and find that transfers to "women averaging USD 709 reduced physical and sexual violence (-0:26, -0:22 standard deviations)," while "Transfers to men reduced physical violence (-0:18 SD)." In more detail, transfers led to "a decrease in being pushed or shaken by the husband by 7 percentage points relative to a control group mean of 27 percent (a 26 percent reduction); being slapped by the husband (11 percentage point decrease relative to 33 percent control group mean, a 33 percent reduction); being punched (6 percentage point decrease relative to 15 percent control group mean, a 39 percent reduction); and being kicked, dragged, or beaten (8 percentage point decrease relative to 15 percent control group mean, a 51 percent reduction)." 

    Green, Wilke, and Cooper, by contrast, report that "screenings reduced the average rate at which women in treatment communities experienced violence by roughly .15 to .34 of an incident, from a baseline of just over half an incident on average...[which] fall short of significance." However, "the campaign reduces the village-level proportion of women respondents who report any violence in their household by seven percentage points."

    Reading these two papers side by side, my overall impression is that cash is probably better, for an individual woman, at reducing IPV than a mass media campaign. So I am wondering how you got to a conclusion that mass media is 50x more effective? I am assuming it has something to do with cost of delivery, but to get from a smaller effect size to a better cost benefit-analysis would require the intervention to be incredibly cheap to deliver on a per-person basis -- I'm ballparking it at like $10. Perhaps this is possible once you've achieved massive scale and content you're happy with, but both of those things are going to take time and money, and the project might fail along the way, all of which raise costs in expectation. Giving a dollar to GiveDirectly, by contrast, leads to about 89c going to a person in extreme poverty right away. So I'd love to hear your thinking on this question spelled out in more detail.
     
  2. You write: "The evidence on the effectiveness of mass media in IPV is limited but cautiously optimistic: While only one experimental study measured effects on behavior, four other experimental and quasi-experimental studies found sizable shifts in attitudes and norms related to IPV." How well do you think those norms are correlated with IPV, and how well do you think that changing one will change the other? 

    Another way to frame this: Going back to Haushofer et al., the authors posit a very different theory, which is that men who commit IPV in the sample do so mainly to extract financial resources from their spouses -- in other words, because they're poor, which is not an attitude problem. How do you reconcile these two perspectives? 

    Thanks in advance, I really look forward to seeing this all come together!
     

Dear Seth, 

Thank you for your support and thoughtful comments! Apologies for the delay – it’s a really busy time for us. 

To clarify, we aimed for 5x GiveWell bar for health policy ideas - the text is an example of our goals in our research process. For this round, the bar needed to be more formally established. 

Our claim for the idea around IPV is that the modeled cost-effectiveness for a “hypothetical 5-year intervention in Lesotho, Rwanda, Angola, and Ethiopia revealed a cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted ranging from $28 to $1419”. The wide range is because it is highly unclear how one should model the DALY burden of IPV, among other reasons. Our full report is published on our website now, so you can further dig into our thinking behind this. Of note, GiveWell tends to use a cost-effectiveness bar of $100-150 per DALY averted (which they claim to be ~8X GiveDirectly, note this is no longer the case given OP updates), which means that our estimates for this charity fall within the range of 40-0.5x GiveDirectly in cost-effectiveness. However, we aren’t sure if GiveWell has directly included these IPV benefits in its evaluation of GiveDirectly’s program.

Regardless, thanks for bringing this  Haushofer et al. (2019) paper to our attention, We hadn’t seen this paper during our research, which is a pity. I cannot look into the paper in detail now; hopefully, my above clarification shows that we aren’t directly claiming a “ 50x over GD” bar. What you say sounds roughly true - I’d expect cash transfers to be far more expensive per person (mass media would be cents per person reached) but more effective (if the effect holds - I haven’t looked at the paper in any detail). 

On your second point. We write a bit more about our sense of what the mechanism behind the intervention is in the report. To summarise - there is no clear sense in the literature about the main accepted mechanism for reducing violence or the true causal link between attitudes/norms and the prevalence of violence. It’s plausible that finances are a part of this, but it is likewise plausible that patriarchal norms, acceptability, etc., play a role. Different papers point in different directions, and this is an area that would benefit a lot from further research so that we can understand what works best.  The context will matter a lot as well in terms of what drives violence and what type of violence is committed. 

Good stuff, thanks!

FWIW I am a co-author on a forthcoming meta-analysis about interventions to reduce sexual violence (pre-analysis plan here https://osf.io/w9hqs/), so I have strong opinions about the (lack of) correlation between changes in stated attitudes and change in behavior. (I would be happy to send you a draft copy if you'd like to share your email, either here or in a DM.)

Also FWIW, I do not think you need to be expert on the cash transfer literature to offer an assessment of the goodness of a potential media->IPV charity, and it makes sense that you offer a wide range of DALY per IPV averted estimates. I also see from your report that you consulted Don Green about this -- he's my grad school advisor and co-author and if he thinks this is viable, that carries weight with me. We can quibble about the precise estimates but the overall direction of the effect is clear, I think. 

I look forward to seeing this come together!

P.S. another two studies on this subject: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00104140221139385 (found significant effects on attitudes towards early and forced marriage) and https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/726964?journalCode=jop (found "sporadic" effects on attitudes) 

Thanks for these! A super interesting read.

Given that you don't cap the number of people on the Incubation Programme, what will happen if you accept more than eight people and only have these four charities? Are the 'considered ideas' not options at all at this stage?

Thanks!

Hi Sentient Toucan (lovely name!),

in short, we do in fact cap the number of people in some ways, and there will be more than these four charities, and/but/also we are quite creative if we should be so lucky as to get too many people! I'll go into more detail:

First, there are in fact two caps on the number of people in each IP cohort: 

  1. Most importantly, there is a pragmatic cap in that we do see clear tiers between the people we make offers to and the people who are close but not quite there in terms of a sufficient likelihood to launch one of the top charities we are looking to launch (like LEEP, FEM, Fortify Health etc.).
  2. Secondly, we usually have a soft cap in that we think there is an ideal number of participants in a cohort. Given our experiments in the last years with both large and small cohorts, we currently believe it to be around 12-14 people.
  3. Thirdly, there are many smaller, softer factors and heuristics that might lean us towards accepting or rejecting a candidate in any given round - e.g., if we have 2 animal ideas and there are 3-5 similarly strong animal candidates and a slightly weaker candidate, we might lean towards letting in the latter person as well.

Secondly, we currently expect to have at least five ideas for this Feb - March 2024 cohort (the four mentioned above, one passing over from the current IP, and perhaps one or two more we are currently considering adding). We usually don't add "considered ideas" to the pool after deciding they didn't make the cut as there was usually a reason they were considered, not recommended - that is, the research team looked into them and decided that they were in a lower tier than the ideas we do recommend.

Thirdly, given our past experience, that means the ideal cohort for that round would be 12-14 people. Usually about 90% of incubatees in each cohort end up founding charities while about 10% don't find their ideal co-founder and/or idea match and/or decide this career path is not quite the right fit for them at this time.

However, if there were more than 12-14 candidates during the application process that we would be super excited to have on the program, we would find a way to make it work. We are quite pragmatic and creative.

Hope this helps!

90% of incubatees in each cohort end up founding charities

That's way higher than I thought! You must have a great recruitment process!

What % of these incubatees found CE incubated charities? (i.e. get seed funding, support, and so on)

On your website, I see you have assisted 50+ individuals from a wide range of backgrounds in launching 27 high-impact charities. Does that mean that fewer than 10 people went through the program and didn't start a charity? Or that there are many individuals who started non-high-impact charities? Or something else?

Probable typo: $200,00, [is this $200,000]?

Fixed, thank you :) 

Excited to hear which Manifold comments won prizes! Also unclear to me if EU fish advocacy should resolve the EU animal advocacy or the fish advocacy market YES

Hi Pat -- We're currently coordinating on which comments will receive prizes and will let Manifold and the commenters know soon.
 
The fish idea would resolve the Fish welfare policy advocacy market as a YES. Thank you!

Is funding limited only to yet-to-be-founded organizations? I'm asking because my company (Simprints, a tech non-profit) is starting a new project in Ghana for the distribution (among other vaccines) of the new malaria vaccine. As part of the program we are evaluating an option to send SMS reminders to caregivers. If this is a funding opportunity for us, I can forward it to our partnerships team but don't want to waste yours and their time if it's not.