This is an introduction/hub article for a sequence of articles on Charity Organizations and EA. 

In this series of articles, I will try as best as I can to summarize what, in my experience, are the low-hanging fruits for EA to pick from these organizations, and simultaneously where might be opportunities for EA to impact these organizations, and create change. I highly invite comments, especially from those who had experiences with organizations I did not, to contribute to our collective learning.

TLDR: International Charity Organizations have powerful leverage on several fronts (local knowledge, membership, funding...) that we can easily reach out to; this is severely underutilized as a strategy. Reaching out to them in the form of newsletters, speeches, or joining their ranks to participate from the inside are all low-cost/high-benefit interventions.

 

What are Charity Organizations

I have spent nearly a decade in the "Rotary Family", more specifically Rotaract, the youth club for those aged 18-30. Coming from a developing country, Rotary Foundation and Rotary, in general, are quite famous for their projects - although I have recently learned that this is not the case everywhere. Many attendees at EAGx Prague did not know of or even heard of Rotary, Lions, Freemasons (yes, those), Kiwanis, and others. There are more "corporate" charities that are more famous, such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent, PETA, as well as numerous local, religious, or simply humanitarian organizations in each country, each with its own degree of impact. There are also different international student organizations, such as AIESEC and IAESTE which gather a lot of the same talent that EA might want to attract among students.

I do not support all of the above-listed organizations, but you have to hand it to them - they might not do maximum good, but they are doing well. Some of these organizations are over a hundred years old, have millions of members, and have chapters in almost every country in the world. They are real shakers, especially in developing countries, where EA has the fewest percentage of members currently. They also possess sizable funds, brand recognition, and local knowledge (metis) that EA could gain from utilizing.

 

The case for intervention

I have explained the reach and importance of the above organizations, but why should EA concern itself with them, rather than helping directly? Allow me to make my case for a second-hand intervention.

 

Relative ease of intervention

Effective Altruism is arguably about two things: being effective, and being altruistic. Hot take, I am being facetious, sure, but I also think I am essentially right here. Every person that I have met from EA organizations wanted to do good (possessed values that pushed him towards it) and wanted to do so well (possessed a drive for effectiveness and a dislike of wastefulness).

I propose, based on my experience at least, that it is easier to teach someone altruistic to strive for effectiveness, than someone effective to strive for altruism. That is to say, taking someone from a charity background (values without effectiveness) to EA is a smaller inferential gap than taking someone from the corporate world (effectiveness without values) to EA. My experience is that when presenting EA to my past colleagues from charity work, these ineffective altruists easily grok (fully understand) the importance of it, at least at base levels. Perhaps longtermism, AI risk and more technical sides of EA would take longer to explain, but "help five kids instead of three for the same amount of money" and "conscious beings matter" and "human life is more important than profits" comes quite easily to someone with a charity background. Conversely, an MBB consultant might find the efficiency part second nature to him, but convincing him of altruism is a harder endeavor (shoutout to the EA Consultants Network for being the exception and contributing their expertise).

 

Leverage existing networks

So if convincing an individual charity person is easy, why should we focus on organizations, instead of going for charity people closer to us first, perhaps those more EA adjacent to begin with?

Well, as noted in the introduction, these organizations have millions of members, but they also happen to be conveniently organized. They are most commonly geographically divided, but they also have groups based on interests, vocation or other divisions. As a result, the Finnish EA might want to reach out to some of the 270 local Finnish and Estonian Rotary clubs and give speeches, while Animal Welfare EA in Mumbai might want to reach out to all these conveniently listed people who did Animal Welfare projects in their town. Where else can you find such groups of passionate people in one place, self-selected for doing good?

Furthermore, these organizations usually accept speakers (as they struggle to find interesting content to fill their meetings with) so giving speeches about your organization is a good way to gather support, change minds, and develop your own network in your town. For example, if you have an interesting project you are doing or experiences in the field, you can prepare a short speech about it (15-20 minutes) and offer nearby clubs to give the speech to their members. Make it useful but don't shy away from some self-promotion and you can find support from them. If you need tips on how you might do this, reach out!

Leverage Local Knowledge (Metis)

Metis or local knowledge is something that is necessary to conduct Altruism effectively but something that is more and more difficult to obtain for large international projects. It is easy to say "child labor is bad" but if your solution leaves people poorer, women paid less and in danger, harms the poorest children, and moves the hazard from ball-sewing to brick making, perhaps you should have consulted the locals more and understood the problem better (source, especially pages 133-135) before allowing international organizations to celebrate their immense success from their offices in the USA.

How can EA avoid this problem as it lacks the scale to oversee projects in remote areas? Perhaps you have an idea about how to help Vietnamese farmers remove minefields profitably but don't know the situation on the ground (no pun intended) well enough - what do you do? I recommend partnering with existing charity organizations on the ground, utilizing their metis, and really listening to what they have to say. It is hard to overstate how much of a difference this can make. and while experienced EA organizations I am certain do this already, it bears repeating that we need not learn all the lessons ourselves but can leverage learning from those who came before us. There may be EA ideas that are afraid of missing the mark due to a lack of local knowledge - partnership is a good way to learn.

Leverage funds

As I have noted above, each of these organizations possesses significant funds of their own. These funds are used for good causes, usually, but not efficiently. If through an intervention we can make an organization 1% more effective in giving, or donating to EA funds, this is a huge impact - Rotary Foundation alone has a billion-dollar+ fund that matches donations of members, and Rotary members usually consist of the upper classes in their regions. While Rotary ranks highly on Charity Navigator, particularly due to the extremely low overhead as it is run mainly by pure volunteers, the effectiveness has huge low-hanging fruit to be picked. I personally think that there are bigger benefits than funds though (as EA has funds too) so I will leave it at this, but I couldn't skip mentioning this aspect.

Leverage branding

Large international organizations have developed branding already in place, while EA, as of yet, is fairly unfamiliar to anyone more than an arms-length distance. Organizing events between EA organizations and the Red Cross, for example, would leverage their branding to boost ours. Obviously, this is to be used carefully, as Freemasons come with a notoriously bad rep for example, but when used well, it can be used particularly well. Branding is essential, as that is how our memes spread, how we gain legitimacy and members. The rotary brand is so strong that they have a day dedicated to them in the United Nations! I would wager that there are worse ways to meet leaders of countries around the world than this.

 

Next steps

I am currently exploring how to turn my knowledge into useful EA projects. The first step is putting my thoughts onto paper for others to use, but I would be interested in direct consulting to help EA organizations scale through working with charities (I have already spoken to Happier Lives Institute for example, and see promise there) as well as starting an EA project of outreach to charities on a global scale. If you have any ideas or questions, feel free to reach out to me here, or write a comment, I'll try to answer all of them timely.

 

List of articles I plan to write (Updated with links once written, and open to suggestions):

Learning what we can - Rotary and membership attraction and retention (why you need to delegate and use your members in order to keep and grow them)

Learning what we can - AIESEC and project-based membership (why an idle member is worse than no member at all)

Learning what we can - Lions Club and segmenting memberships (Why the Lions, Leos, and Cubs work together but meet separately)

Learning what we can - Freemasons and the value of prestige membership and anonymous giving (how gathering experts with mystique keeps the longest-running organization going)

Learning what we can - Red Cross/Crescent and the value of training the public (how first-aid training became a recruitment tool promoted by government and companies)

Teaching what we can - The issue of Fuzzies Vs. Utils in Charity Organizations (IMHO the biggest stopper of effective altruism is the desire for Fuzzies and the lack of Fuzzies that EA offers. Related to the Yudkovsky article that first introduced me to the problem)

Teaching what we can - Outreach to Charity Organizations and You (a 101 on how Charity organizations work and likely best ways to communicate with them)

34

New Comment
8 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 12:09 AM

There's also very much a generational issue with these established organizations and EA, which seems to be a younger set looking through the annual surveys. 

I could see two potential prongs:

  1. doing a thorough study and survey of these organizations to surface more formally lessons learned for EA (maybe worth the time / investment, maybe not)
  2. partnering strategically with a subset of these more established orgs. Rotary makes a lot of sense intuitively

For the age, it depends - Lions Cubs are younger than EAs, and some of these clubs take great care to attract young talent, although I'd agree that the most powerful and influential parts of these orgs are older. Perhaps that is to some extent true in EA too?

 

As for the prongs, I agree. I am hoping soon to finish the next article, but alas private life does not allow it, but eventually there will be more investigations into this, furthering 1. For 2., I agree, for some organizations such as Happier Lives Institute for example, it's a spot-on match in fact.

Great! I'd be very curious to see the follow up investigation when that's available. 

I agree that EA should have something appealing for some of these established organizations with extensive networks. What is already available is funding/grants (e. g. for low marginal cost high impact additions, such as these ones). What is quite available is statistical evaluation expertise and tech help (people who study or work in these fields looking for opportunities). What is less available is cost-effective solutions brainstorming skills (some EAs can be aware of the specific applications of the basic principles but be less able to develop solutions themselves). Fortunately, general brainstorming skills are abundant and Metis is available with the EA-unlabeled organizations, so solutions can be developed over a few calls.

Offering assistance framing can be also well received by the non-EA orgs. For example, coming to 'leverage their funds' could be perceived with reputational loss risk. The emphasis should be on offering funds and expertise, while possibly impactful funding adjustments (e. g. fund 3% less meals but fortify all of them in bulk to 10x your impact) can be found alongside.

The EA Consulting Network could definitely assist with the brainstorming part of marginal solutions development. Or, if the consultants are quite busy, then there could be some contractors specializing in brainstorming and BOTEC cost-effectiveness calculations. Do you know of anyone who could be interested in this?

Metis/local knowledge should be approached in conjunction with international knoledge. This is because the people may be unaware of the solutions that would truly benefit them, especially if they are unfamiliar with alternative situations or the global context. An example is a poor person who wants to be rich but does not come up with a productivity increase and training scheme or investment environment improvements.

In addition to branding, which may be valuable for getting EA-related concepts to decisionmakers in a legitimate way, the organizations that you specify (and others, much smaller ones) have relationships with the intended beneficiaries and their communities. This can be valuable for many programs that target the objectives of some of these decisionmakers (such as SDGs of the UN). For example, it can be difficult for a newcomer to convince farmers to plant only 1 seed 75cm apart from another one when before generations scattered the seeds freely. However, if someone who has before helped eradicate polio there suggests it, then the intended beneficiaries can try it much more readily.

What do you think would be a great way of engaging some Rotary members in EA? For example, would they be interested in discussing these EA-related books (which can be especially enjoyed by experienced professionals)? Or, would this be nice but distracting and something like skimming the first few chapters of Doing Good Better and then relating it to EA-related global poverty interventions (Weeks 1 and 2) would make people think more? Or, forgetting perhaps EA-traditional reading programs and just entertaining people on what programs they are running and what the cost-effective additionalities or decisionmaking adjustments could be, how they go about knowing what the intended beneficiaries actually need and how this could be provided at low (or negative, maybe by the market) cost? 

For the organizations that incubate investment projects, would some EA community members be able to estimate which ones can have high impact (e. g. cost per progress toward WALY ensuring system) and recommend investments?

Scaling up GiveWell-recommended orgs through existing EA-unlabeled orgs can have little or even negative impact. This is because the EA orgs are those which can absorb large amounts of funding and already minimize the costs that an established network could provide/probably work with networks. For example, nets could be distributed efficiently, vitamins also, deworming pills provided at schools, etc. If you would introduce this opportunity to another network (which could, however, fund these programs to a lesser extent), maybe EA-related donors would lose a sense of ownership and less impact would take place.

Scaling up global health and development orgs that are not recommended by GiveWell can be also a challenge, because they operate on the same principle of distributing outputs at the lowest possible cost (e. g. SMS reminders after having negotiated great rates, vaccines, ...).

Animal welfare orgs could benefit from cooperation with EA-unlabeled orgs, for example advising that rather than transferring animals as income generating assets, tools are provided. This would be a kindness of the EA-unlabeled orgs because they would get nothing but additional considerations to take into account (but at the end, better solutions could be developed, e. g. if people specialize in value addition and technological development rather than rearing more animals).

AI safety organizations could benefit charities similar to those which you list by advising on how to make their systems safe since the beginning, e. g. if there is a digital governance initiative, digitization of an animal farm processes, or export processing zone operations digitization. Also, general tech skills could be applied in increasing the efficiencies of the orgs, (with priority) their especially impactful programs, or cases where tech solutions are those which are needed (e. g. digital IDs for refugees to prevent 'recycling' and expedite integration). The AI orgs would get training data from less represented context, so this could be a win-win.

Other orgs could have a similarly symbiotic relationship. For example, Momentum could benefit from additional downloads as well as having niche projects to advertise upon a wider variety of current events/news. The org would benefit from having a fun app to use to entertain their donors and their programs advertised among additional users interested in impactful spending.

What do you think should be prioritized to increase the chances that this goes well, limit risks, and maximize the effectiveness of any effort? Also, who else could be interested in this and what skills would you be seeking?

Hello Bara, thank you for your comprehensive thoughts. Let me try to answer them piece by piece.

- I agree that EA should have something appealing for some of these established organizations with extensive networks. What is already available is funding/grants (e. g. for low marginal cost high impact additions, such as these ones). What is quite available is statistical evaluation expertise and tech help (people who study or work in these fields looking for opportunities). What is less available is cost-effective solutions brainstorming skills (some EAs can be aware of the specific applications of the basic principles but be less able to develop solutions themselves). Fortunately, general brainstorming skills are abundant and Metis is available with the EA-unlabeled organizations, so solutions can be developed over a few calls. -

 

Over a few calls is perhaps optimistic, I would assume that trust needs to be painstakingly built and then maintained, but in theory, absolutely.

 

  • Offering assistance framing can be also well received by the non-EA orgs. For example, coming to 'leverage their funds' could be perceived with reputational loss risk. The emphasis should be on offering funds and expertise, while possibly impactful funding adjustments (e. g. fund 3% less meals but fortify all of them in bulk to 10x your impact) can be found alongside. -

I could not agree more. We are not here to seize their funds, merely to help them spend them more effectively.

  • The EA Consulting Network could definitely assist with the brainstorming part of marginal solutions development. Or, if the consultants are quite busy, then there could be some contractors specializing in brainstorming and BOTEC cost-effectiveness calculations. Do you know of anyone who could be interested in this?

Not as of yet, but that's the priority idea for me in the medium run. I would assume someone like Happier Lives Institute for example would have ready-made solutions that would already be an improvement.

  • Metis/local knowledge should be approached in conjunction with international knoledge. This is because the people may be unaware of the solutions that would truly benefit them, especially if they are unfamiliar with alternative situations or the global context. An example is a poor person who wants to be rich but does not come up with a productivity increase and training scheme or investment environment improvements.

These orgs actually have both, and thank you for this distinction.

  • In addition to branding, which may be valuable for getting EA-related concepts to decisionmakers in a legitimate way, the organizations that you specify (and others, much smaller ones) have relationships with the intended beneficiaries and their communities. This can be valuable for many programs that target the objectives of some of these decisionmakers (such as SDGs of the UN). For example, it can be difficult for a newcomer to convince farmers to plant only 1 seed 75cm apart from another one when before generations scattered the seeds freely. However, if someone who has before helped eradicate polio there suggests it, then the intended beneficiaries can try it much more readily.

I am hoping to develop this precise point in more detail in one of the next posts.

  • What do you think would be a great way of engaging some Rotary members in EA? For example, would they be interested in discussing these EA-related books (which can be especially enjoyed by experienced professionals)? Or, would this be nice but distracting and something like skimming the first few chapters of Doing Good Better and then relating it to EA-related global poverty interventions (Weeks 1 and 2) would make people think more? Or, forgetting perhaps EA-traditional reading programs and just entertaining people on what programs they are running and what the cost-effective additionalities or decisionmaking adjustments could be, how they go about knowing what the intended beneficiaries actually need and how this could be provided at low (or negative, maybe by the market) cost? 

I think we need to start meeting them where they are. I have recommended making interesting topic presentations and going to present them, or writing them newsletters as that is how they currently function and what would likely encounter the least amount of friction. I think all EA courses are geared to too much of a different audience, whereas approach to a local club with local ideas by a local EA will be much more successful in getting a foot in the door before expanding on the other EA ideas and helping them make their existing projects more effective. After that, we can see which clubs are looking for new projects to fund, and suggest them EA related ideas.

  • For the organizations that incubate investment projects, would some EA community members be able to estimate which ones can have high impact (e. g. cost per progress toward WALY ensuring system) and recommend investments?

I would assume so, but I'll cross that bridge when we get there, for now as I said above, we first use the existing materials made by different EA orgs to spread good ideas.

  • Scaling up GiveWell-recommended orgs through existing EA-unlabeled orgs can have little or even negative impact. This is because the EA orgs are those which can absorb large amounts of funding and already minimize the costs that an established network could provide/probably work with networks. For example, nets could be distributed efficiently, vitamins also, deworming pills provided at schools, etc. If you would introduce this opportunity to another network (which could, however, fund these programs to a lesser extent), maybe EA-related donors would lose a sense of ownership and less impact would take place.

I believe that opportunities to help are so many and so underfunded, that networking with these organizations will just show us that we have more fields to work in. Competition goes out the window, the market is too large to saturate. EA can fund what it is funding, we can help others fund other things, and still not run out of places to fund, not reaching the point of lost ownership.

  • Scaling up global health and development orgs that are not recommended by GiveWell can be also a challenge, because they operate on the same principle of distributing outputs at the lowest possible cost (e. g. SMS reminders after having negotiated great rates, vaccines, ...).

They are more than half-way there, I agree. Perhaps identifying them and supporting them is an opportunity?

  • Animal welfare orgs could benefit from cooperation with EA-unlabeled orgs, for example advising that rather than transferring animals as income generating assets, tools are provided. This would be a kindness of the EA-unlabeled orgs because they would get nothing but additional considerations to take into account (but at the end, better solutions could be developed, e. g. if people specialize in value addition and technological development rather than rearing more animals).

More information is better, so long as inputs are good, I agree!

  • AI safety organizations could benefit charities similar to those which you list by advising on how to make their systems safe since the beginning, e. g. if there is a digital governance initiative, digitization of an animal farm processes, or export processing zone operations digitization. Also, general tech skills could be applied in increasing the efficiencies of the orgs, (with priority) their especially impactful programs, or cases where tech solutions are those which are needed (e. g. digital IDs for refugees to prevent 'recycling' and expedite integration). The AI orgs would get training data from less represented context, so this could be a win-win.

Sure! Also, these organizations collect movers and shakers, some of which aren't AI researchers, but might be investors into AI firms, or managers in those orgs. We could be looking at alternative lateral ways to influence the field and make it more aware of the issues that exist. All of these combined, make this more than worthwhile I'd wager.

  • Other orgs could have a similarly symbiotic relationship. For example, Momentum could benefit from additional downloads as well as having niche projects to advertise upon a wider variety of current events/news. The org would benefit from having a fun app to use to entertain their donors and their programs advertised among additional users interested in impactful spending.

Cool idea, I have not considered that!

  • What do you think should be prioritized to increase the chances that this goes well, limit risks, and maximize the effectiveness of any effort? Also, who else could be interested in this and what skills would you be seeking?

I am thinking that these are the core questions to answer now at the first steps. I will keep writing these posts and looking more into this. I would assume that best way to approach would be through learning by doing - reaching out, talking, finding common points, and then reporting back to others. A cooperation between an org in Canada and a Rotary club there can open doors to ten other clubs around the world for similar ideas. As for limiting risks, the ideas need to be well presented, something that depends on many variables. I am uncertain what procedures exist currently in how presentations are done of EA ideas outside of EA, I doubt any central idea-place exists except this forum. Perhaps I'll write a guide on that as well - best as I can.

For the skills, I think past experience here is golden - looking for that metis that I claim we need. Beyond that, people and presentation skills, as the first phase is memetic, and at a later stage analytical to help analyze the incoming data and turn it into useful insights.

trust needs to be painstakingly built and then maintained

perhaps in the cases where you would be 'selling' your solutions to 'suspecting' orgs, but here you would be just entertaining their thinking and the solutions would be actually theirs (EA does not already have solutions, it would have advanced them)

help them spend [funds] more effectively.

hm, this does seem to require some significant trust development effort because organizations may be hesitant to include external comers in their budgeting. Maybe, we are here to get them more funds by pro bono increasing their efficiency, highlighting their programs among donors if they meet evaluation transparency and effectiveness targets, and encouraging applying for grant opportunities they may not be aware of and helping them come up with effective evidence-based solutions by consultancy of experts in the field and its context.

Sure, I think HLI can be enthusiastic about sharing the wellbeing metric among global network-based orgs, beyond their current focus of within EA, due to the direct impact and attracting positive attention/developing trust by sharing something useful and innovative.

Some orgs have only local knowledge, maybe smaller local NGOs, possibly not those which you list (although I can imagine that IAESTE can have lesser awareness about cool ways of global powers' advocacy than EA due to its focus - but maybe not the networks (who can e. g. work in the government)).

Cool!

meeting them where they are ... how they currently function

makes sense

wait would you just like copy some parts of newsletters? I think for coordination/copiable material at CEA that is Jessica McCurdy. EA London has also great newsletter and could allow you to copy it. Presentations, I think Naomi Nederlof has some templates/reusable ones. The GWWC Giving Game could be a good intro (although the charities may still not be the best ones absolutely) - there should be GWWC representatives with it.

existing materials made by different EA orgs to spread good ideas

makes sense. Maybe the CE-incubated orgs will have more time to share ideas and it will sound more sincerely sharing ideas not e. g. AMF trying to get them donate for nets?

show us that we have more fields to work in

to prevent a negative perception, such as of large funders (who may be thinking - 'almost at the end of the galaxy') being overwhelmed or 'slowed down' by additional issues, I would present more opportunities (with possibly greater cost-effectiveness...) in the one or few existing fields (global health and development, global mental health and wellbeing, ...). This seems like 'getting' better bargains that boost one's progress (e. g. so that intergalactic expansion happens with an optimal system already in place).

still not run out of places to fund

yes, if this is the case then either the solutions did not work (the less cost-effective were selected) or market-based and institutionalized solutions are interpreted as 'places to fund.' It should really be possible to upskill people in emerging (and industrialized) economies to take good care for themselves (preventive healthcare, good relationships, skill building norms, animal welfare) for the cost of a radio campaign plus some community members' word and get some profit-seeking investors build capital needed for some aspects (healthcare, relationships education, employment training and business recommendations, plant-based products processing). This should be all what people need to live good lives (do not need cars etc).

"lost ownership" you mean when a funder starts funding a program (e. g. builds a school) but then does not fund continued expenses (e. g. teachers' pay)? It should always be the target that the maintenance ownership is ideally with the community/government/other responsible party since the beginning - or as soon as it is possible.

identifying [non-GiveWell EA-related orgs] and supporting them is an opportunity

yes, some 'lazy' funders can like it. Scaling these up can still be a great win.

Cool!

alternative lateral ways to influence the field and make it more aware of the issues that exist

... yeah, the problem of EA ah hah. But no - they know the issues exist just with them finding ways that these are applicable to their work (vice versa). For example, is a specific language model racially biased beyond court justice? How can the digital aspects of animal sanctuaries assure that no catastrophic event occurs (e. g. breakages, eliminated food supply due to calculation error, ...)? - But ok, an argument for AI safety inclusion.

Cool!

learning by doing - reaching out, talking, finding common points, and then reporting back to others

yeah, that makes sense. You think the orgs would be interested in what their colleagues/'competitors' are saying? I suggest centering the dialogue around EA more explicitly.

ideas need to be well presented

yes, there should be some resource.

people and presentation skills ... and at a later stage analytical

There should be plenty of people in EA with these skills. For past experience, maybe people who worked for EA orgs or ones in similar areas which are also quite effectiveness-focused? Maybe check out the Who wants to be hired? post (could apply for EAIF or some groups have project incubation funding ...)

Thanks for another well thought out response!

perhaps in the cases where you would be 'selling' your solutions to 'suspecting' orgs, but here you would be just entertaining their thinking and the solutions would be actually theirs (EA does not already have solutions, it would have advanced them)

I am actually not sure about this. In my experience, coming and saying "here, have some money, media exposure, and more attendees to your event in exchange for just putting a logo on the banner with no mandate on mentioning anything or changing anything, just keep doing what you're doing" has been met with militant resistance. People (sometimes justly) believe that there's always an end goal, and if we approach and say we wanna help, a reasonable answer is a raised eyebrow. Trust thus needs to be built even when we are merely trying to advance their ideas.

hm, this does seem to require some significant trust development effort because organizations may be hesitant to include external comers in their budgeting. Maybe, we are here to get them more funds by pro bono increasing their efficiency, highlighting their programs among donors if they meet evaluation transparency and effectiveness targets, and encouraging applying for grant opportunities they may not be aware of and helping them come up with effective evidence-based solutions by consultancy of experts in the field and its context.

As above, yeah

wait would you just like copy some parts of newsletters? I think for coordination/copiable material at CEA that is Jessica McCurdy. EA London has also great newsletter and could allow you to copy it. Presentations, I think Naomi Nederlof has some templates/reusable ones. The GWWC Giving Game could be a good intro (although the charities may still not be the best ones absolutely) - there should be GWWC representatives with it.

I agree, but there'd need to be someone possibly smarter than me selecting best articles, myself to advise on which ones would fly well with these audiences, perhaps even editing them. Even better is if we would give interviews for their internal magazines - so we need to pick speakers and such. Thanks for the resources, I've marked them all down, but once the effort starts, it'll be quite a workload ahead!

 

makes sense. Maybe the CE-incubated orgs will have more time to share ideas and it will sound more sincerely sharing ideas not e. g. AMF trying to get them donate for nets?

Perhaps!

to prevent a negative perception, such as of large funders (who may be thinking - 'almost at the end of the galaxy') being overwhelmed or 'slowed down' by additional issues, I would present more opportunities (with possibly greater cost-effectiveness...) in the one or few existing fields (global health and development, global mental health and wellbeing, ...). This seems like 'getting' better bargains that boost one's progress (e. g. so that intergalactic expansion happens with an optimal system already in place).

Agreed!

yes, if this is the case then either the solutions did not work (the less cost-effective were selected) or market-based and institutionalized solutions are interpreted as 'places to fund.' It should really be possible to upskill people in emerging (and industrialized) economies to take good care for themselves (preventive healthcare, good relationships, skill building norms, animal welfare) for the cost of a radio campaign plus some community members' word and get some profit-seeking investors build capital needed for some aspects (healthcare, relationships education, employment training and business recommendations, plant-based products processing). This should be all what people need to live good lives (do not need cars etc).

There is also the issue of "there are more problems than money/power/people to solve them". Adding more money and helping existing money be better spent itself are all viable options, but even doubling current charity spending would hardly run out of things to fund.

"lost ownership" you mean when a funder starts funding a program (e. g. builds a school) but then does not fund continued expenses (e. g. teachers' pay)? It should always be the target that the maintenance ownership is ideally with the community/government/other responsible party since the beginning - or as soon as it is possible.

When I say "Lost ownership" I mean the fear that a project gets overtaken by another organization and then mismanaged. If we approach a local Bosnian start-up charity and say "we have billions in our fund and want to fund you" they might fear losing autonomy. If we approach Rotary and say "the project you are doing, we could do more efficient" they also fear we will take the project and "run with it". While rationally I can say "hey, as long as it gets done, it's all good" but I understand people wanting to see something through. So we can say "hey, there's so much to do, you do you, we'll fund you a bit, help you be more efficient, and still have plenty of problems to assist outside of this area". 

yeah, that makes sense. You think the orgs would be interested in what their colleagues/'competitors' are saying? I suggest centering the dialogue around EA more explicitly.

I found that to be at least somewhat the case. They all keep their eyes on others to see what's happening.

yes, there should be some resource.

I am going in this direction too with another EA, let's see if we make something useful, we'll share here!

There should be plenty of people in EA with these skills. For past experience, maybe people who worked for EA orgs or ones in similar areas which are also quite effectiveness-focused? Maybe check out the Who wants to be hired? post (could apply for EAIF or some groups have project incubation funding ...)

That's the idea!

Thank you too.

Trust thus needs to be built even when we are merely trying to advance their ideas.

Gotcha.

Picking resources/speakers: Hm, ok. Some good ones which they'd also like..

even doubling current charity spending would hardly run out of things to fund

I am not arguing the upper limit ..

"there are more problems than money/power/people to solve them"

No, there is enough people with funding and agency just the skills to develop solutions and coordination to scale-up the inclusive and sustainable ones at the lowest marginal cost ..

Lost ownership: that sounds like a particularly suboptimal concept. I am sure when you approach the actual people, then it does not apply - they  are like 'why don't you give us some more expert advice we really like your experts and also they help us apply for some of your funding which we are majorly concerned about - grantwriting' If there are organizations that are not actually so much about solving problems as they are about caring in a way that perpetuates an unequal relationship and is based on emotional appeal then it can be ok to just let them be, in which case the approach can be: 'you do you, what do you do here? well, that is very nice - we do some cost-effectiveness analyses for rational philanthropes - they love all these calculations and have grants open' 'grants open?' '...' But perhaps we are exactly agreeing here, or the outcome is equivalent.