Hide table of contents

At Charity Science we recently updated the look and content of our website. If you’re interested, you can see the new site here. The main content changes were the addition of a page with links to 23 shallow reviews into different fundraising methods and an overview of Charity Science’s past work, key values and plans for the coming months.

Shallow Reviews

 

These shallow reviews are about 100 pages in total, and are intended to be understandable to someone with no previous knowledge in the area. Reports vary somewhat in quality and style because they were written by many different staff and volunteers. However, all of them were based on the same questions and evaluation rubric.

 

Plans

 

As for our plans, over the next few months Charity Science will experiment with legacy fundraising, niche marketing and online advertising. We appreciate feedback on the experiment plans for these areas, which are available here. Also, we strongly encourage anyone who is wanting to help out with these experiments to contact us. Programmers, skeptics and financiers would be especially valuable to fine tune the niche marketing experiment plan. If you feel that you can help please email katherinexsavoie@gmail.com.

 

Legacy Fundraising

 

Regarding the legacy fundraising experiment, a core part of this will be to create a will-writing guide that encourages people to leave money to top charities. Thus far we feel that the best forms for this are a downloadable PDF document or an interactive web application. Examples of these two styles can be found here and here.


We would appreciate hearing what type of will writing guide you think would be better. We will likely create both but your opinion will help us decide how to allocate our time between them. We’ll be sure to seek more community feedback as we create this guide. Ideas about the best ways we can promote it and how likely EAs would be to use it would also be helpful in informing our approach to the legacy fundraising experiment.


We’re Hiring

Lastly, Charity Science is in the process of expansion and is looking to make a number of interns over the next few months. All interns will receive mentoring by senior staff and the opportunity to join the team in Vancouver. The work involved will likely be quite diverse in nature and will vary considerable depending on the individual’s strengths. Some areas where work will be available include, but are not limited to, research, operations, development and communications. If you’re interested, please send your questions or resume and cover letter to joey@charityscience.com. We ask that applicants be willing to commit at least 70 hours of their time to the internship.

12

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments12


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

When writing a will last year (through quite a basic legal-and- will-writing service), I encountered a potential serious pitfall for people writing unusual wills. One of the legacies I wanted to leave was larger than they expected. They had a maximum £ value for specific legacies, and wen I said I wanted to leave a bigger amount they cautioned me that it was likely to be overturned if legally challenged because 'nobody would expect you meant that'. I've heard similar stories from solicitors (eg a will written in the UK was overturned because the court ruled the parents would not have meant to leave the majority of their estate to the child who was better off. They did: they asked him to use the monety help the other child who was not good at handling finances, but the court reversed their legacies). One of the reasons to have a solicitor look over your will is that they challenge and confirm unusual clauses, which makes them harder to challenge when you die.

All of which is to say: if you are seeking to raise funds via wills, or intended to leave a legacy that would count as unusual in normal practice, than the less formal legal input you have had the more vulnerable it will be to challenge. It cost us £99 for a joint will writing package, which is a reasonable insurance policy to ensure our estates are donated as we wish.

Thanks Bernadette, I'll try to take that into account! Did you find a solution?

I point to ways to find cheap lawyers (and free services in the UK) in the current version of the will-writing guide. I'd love to hear about other options for this.

Yes, but a very specific one. After our experience I would generally recommend getting a solicitor to write your will.

There's been a recent legal update here making it even harder to leave a legacy in a particular way in the UK woman wins inheritance from estranged mother

Thanks Tom, will take that into account!

How do you think about the information hazard of publishing your results (that they'll become the new chugger method for less effective orgs) against the benefits of making them publicly available?

We have considered this hazard but currently do not think we get much non-EA traffic to our fundraising. Additionally I am not sure how much non-effective charity would benefit from the info (due to external validity concerns). If those factors were to change in the future we would update accordingly though.

External validity stuff / information hazard definitely only applies to a subset of the things you've explored currently, but I expect you to find fundraising strategies that do draw on non-EA resources more heavily and at more scale, and when that happens its a matter of time before that strategy is a victim of its own success?

One option you have already probably thought of, is for people wanting to read it to either give a significant donation through your site to a givewell rec or whatever, or demonstrate in some other way their commitment. If they're giving regularly anyway this wont be an issue.

One option you have already probably thought of, is for people wanting to read it to either give a significant donation through your site to a givewell rec or whatever, or demonstrate in some other way their committment. If they're giving regularly anyway this wont be an issue. The fear I have is that once it gets known about among fundraising industry you can't claw it back + advantage is gone, all the hard work you've done gone. But I'm sure you have a much better view of all this than I do sat at a computer across the Atlantic! Keep up the good work, its really interesting reading!

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

looks like you're doing fantastic work! Very interested to see what comes out of the legacy exploration.

In terms of 'the thing that we think is most effective to fund to generate funds for givewell recs that is scalable' at the moment - what is your view? Or is the answer 'charity science'? Is there option for funders to give to one particularly effective scalable activity within your portfolio?

Sorry - its really clear on the website. Like the layout!

Neat, thanks for the updates.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o