Hide table of contents

Tl;dr

  • Organizational update: Gisele took over as the new Executive Director at doebem, and will work alongside Luan and Vevila to identify cost-effective organizations and direct funds to impactful charities.
  • The organization extensively studied pressing issues in Brazil to inform their selection process. The report can be accessed in English or Portuguese.
  • The study aims to identify cost-effective organizations addressing poverty and human development, employing the ITN criteria (Importance, Tractability, Neglectedness) for cause prioritization.
  • The study's methodology included constructing a comprehensive cause map, expert analysis, and ranking causes based on importance, tractability, and neglectedness.
  • The top three strategic causes identified are (i) non-communicable chronic diseases, (ii) hunger, malnutrition, and nutritional deficiencies, and (iii) lack of access to treated water.
  • Despite limitations such as the study's qualitative nature, there is recognition of the need for greater diversity among the experts involved.
  • Engagement from the community is encouraged, and gratitude is expressed towards contributors, underscoring the collaborative nature of the study.

 

Introduction

Hello, everyone. I'm Gisele Fior, and I recently assumed the Executive Director position at doebem. A few months ago, we shared on this forum our transition from being solely volunteer-run to having a full-time team with a strong focus on researching and evaluating cost-effective causes and organizations. 

A bit about myself: I am a passionate advocate for positive social change, driven by a commitment to ethical leadership and resource optimization. With a background in Environmental Engineering and Public Management, I've dedicated my career to impactful initiatives, from environmental education to improving public management. As the incoming CEO of doebem, I'm excited to promote further effective giving values in Brazil, fostering collaborative solutions that prioritize equity, inclusion, and leadership development.

We have two main goals: researching the cost-effectiveness of interventions and organizations in Brazil and promoting a culture of effective giving by directing funds to local and global organizations. Over the past months, we've conducted a detailed study of the most strategic causes in the Brazilian context to guide our evaluation and selection of organizations recommended on our donation platform in this new round. We pointed out three causes with the greatest potential impact on the allocation of doebem’s resources: (1) non-communicable chronic diseases, (2) access to treated water, and (3) hunger, malnutrition and nutritional deficiency. The study is available in both English and Portuguese, and I invite you to read it and provide us with your valuable feedback, insights, and comments. This study precedes other documents already in production, delving deeper into prioritized causes.

Purpose of the Study

The commitment of doebem is to identify and recommend the most cost-effective organizations working on the macro cause of poverty and human development. The cause prioritization study is one step in our research process, based on the hypothesis that identifying the most strategic causes in Brazil, with the highest levels of importance, tractability, and neglectedness, will contribute to identify cost-effective organizations more efficiently.

Once we've prioritized the causes, we conduct an in-depth study of each one. We then evaluate organizations that offer solutions and interventions addressing each cause. The most effective organizations, regardless of the cause they relate to, will receive support from doebem in this round.

We have a sequential organization evaluation pipeline, starting with assessing organizations related to the lack of access to treated water, then moving to hunger, malnutrition, and nutritional deficiencies, and finally to non-communicable chronic diseases. If other organizations are identified as potentially more effective while already in a more advanced research stage, we will evaluate them when we finish this round.

While we don't have the list of recommended organizations yet, we maintain the organizations recommended in the first evaluation by doebem on our website, for which we continue to collect donations.

Methodology

We used an approach based on the criteria of Importance, Tractability, and Neglectedness, summarized as ITN, and described below:

  • Importance: Size of the problem, considering not only the number of people impacted but also the magnitude of the impact on those affected by it.
  • Tractability: Ease of solving or the likelihood of feasible solutions to the problem.
  • Neglectedness: The effort exerted to solve the problem compared to what is necessary.

Causes that are significant in size and intensity, solvable with relatively simple interventions, and not receiving due attention are more promising in terms of return per monetary unit.

This was the methodological framework we used for this study, which involved experts in 7 areas related to poverty and human development, members of the Effective Altruism Brazil community, volunteers, our team, and board members. The study was conducted in four main stages detailed below:

1. Construction of the Cause Map

As a starting point, we built a map of potential causes, identifying social problems that are either causes or consequences of poverty and low development in Brazil. This work was done in partnership with the community members of Effective Altruism Brazil. The conclusion of this stage was a map of 59 causes grouped into seven areas: education, employment and income, food insecurity, obesity and malnutrition, housing, basic sanitation, health, and violence and crime.

2. Expert Analysis

To ensure the robustness of our study, we invited experts in the areas that emerged in the previous stage to evaluate the causes within their specialties. Sixteen experts, each with significant expertise in their areas through academic qualifications and/or practical experience, volunteered to participate in the study. Their contributions have been invaluable, enabling us to ensure at least 2 different assessments in each area.

The evaluations were conducted using a form composed of items related to the criteria of importance, tractability, and neglectedness on Likert scales, which were aimed at capturing the size or intensity of each cause and aspect evaluated.

The table below presents the causes with the highest scores in each criterion and area according to the evaluations made by the group:

3. Harmonization of responses and ranking of causes by area

The causes that should be prioritized are those that meet all three criteria together. Thus, it was necessary to find a way to create a synthetic index that combined the criteria of Importance, Tractability, and Neglectedness. Due to the nature of our work, being a multiplier organization that aims to reduce the country's most urgent problems through donations to organizations implementing effective solutions, we understood that the Tractability criterion should have a higher weight than the others. Thus, the composite index is a weighted average of the requirements, with 50% in tractability and the other 50% equally divided between the other two criteria of Importance and Neglectedness.

The causes with the highest scores in each area were:

  • Education: Absence of psychological support and social assistance in schools
  • Employment and Income: Low education/technical qualification
  • Food Insecurity, Obesity, and Malnutrition: Hunger and malnutrition
  • Housing: Real estate speculation
  • Basic Sanitation: Lack of access to treated water
  • Health: Non-communicable chronic diseases
  • Violence and Crime: Mass incarceration, prison violence, and criminal recidivism

4. Final ranking and prioritized causes

Since the ultimate goal of this study is to identify the three most strategic causes, we needed to compare the causes across different areas. To this end, we conducted a new round of evaluation starting from the top-ranked causes in each area, still using the ITN criteria through the analysis of public official indicators, research, and news, and subjective evaluations by the doebem team, board, and volunteers. This new round indicated that the three most strategic causes were, in this order, Non-communicable chronic diseases (Health), Hunger and malnutrition (Food Insecurity, Obesity, and Malnutrition), and Lack of access to treated water (Basic Sanitation).

The final stage of the process, detailed in the doebem cause prioritization report, was incorporating subsequent causes from the mentioned areas above to check if there could be any change in the final ranking. This did not occur. The only change was the expansion of the causes of food insecurity, obesity, and malnutrition.

Results

This study concluded that the three causes that yield the highest social impact per monetary unit are:

  • Non-communicable chronic diseases
  • Hunger, malnutrition, and nutritional deficiencies
  • Lack of access to treated water

Study Limitations

Number and Profile of Experts: Considering the ambitious goal of the study to identify the most strategic causes in Brazil, it would be interesting to involve a more significant number of experts. Moreover, it is essential to diversify the profile across different social dimensions, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and region, to encompass various perspectives on the country's social context.

Results Dependent on the Sequence of Steps: Given our institutional context, we chose to phase the study to make it feasible. Consequently, the results depended on the order in which the steps occurred. In future iterations, we would like to have resources to evaluate the causes simultaneously, avoiding this problem.

Primarily Qualitative Approach: Many study steps were based on subjectivity or qualitative parameters. This could be better balanced by incorporating more quantitative metrics to compare causes. Given the considerable scope of the study (evaluating 59 causes) and considering the relatively high limitation of knowledge production and official data in some areas in Brazil, this was not possible, but it's certainly a path we would like to pursue.

How you can help

We would love to hear your perceptions and analyses regarding this study. You can leave comments or speak directly with our Research Director, Luan Paciencia, via email at <luan@doebem.org.br>. Let us know what else you would like to know about the work of doebem; it will be a pleasure to share more about us and our research work.

Acknowledgments

Numerous people contributed to this study, providing valuable feedback that expanded our perspective on this research. In particular, I would like to thank @SoGive for the financial support that made this research possible, @Spencer Ericson  for providing inputs and insights throughout this process, the experts who generously shared their knowledge with us, making this research reach higher levels of robustness, volunteers Felipe Amorim and @João Pedro Parreira Rodrigues for their support during the research, the Effective Altruism Brazil community, especially Davi Romão, Fernando Moreno, @Juana Martínez, @Leo Arruda, Rafael Proença, Ramiro Peres, and @Renan Araujo, who contributed significantly to the cause mapping stage, all the people we interacted with over the past months who directly or indirectly contributed to this research by sharing their perceptions, opinions, and suggestions related to the work of doebem, and finally, @Bruno Sterenberg, @luanpaciencia, our Research Director, and @DorneVv , our researcher, and the doebem Advisors @Lucas Giannini, @Elisa Mansur and @Alexandre Teixeira  for their continuous support throughout this period.


 

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing, Gisele!

1. Construction of the Cause Map

As a starting point, we built a map of potential causes, identifying social problems that are either causes or consequences of poverty and low development in Brazil. This work was done in partnership with the community members of Effective Altruism Brazil. The conclusion of this stage was a map of 59 causes grouped into seven areas: education, employment and income, food insecurity, obesity and malnutrition, housing, basic sanitation, health, and violence and crime.

Have you considered analysing animal welfare interventions? It is not related to poverty and low development, but Brazil's rising incomes are resulting in more factory-farming.

From 2002 to 2022, the number of poultry birds in Brazil increased 78.2 % (= 1.60*10^9/(898*10^6) - 1).

From 2000 to 2020, aquaculture production in Brazil increased 266 % (= 630*10^3/(172*10^3) - 1).

Hi there, I was wondering what you mean by "real estate speculation": what the issue is and in what ways it is tractable? Thank you for any insights you can give, hoping to do some research into housing issues in LMICs :-) 

Hi Gisele,

At CEARCH (https://exploratory-altruism.org/), we generally agree that combating non-communicable chronic diseases is highly cost-effective (e.g. salt reduction policies to combat high blood pressure, sugar drinks taxes to combat obesity, also things like trans fat bans or alcohol taxes).

As part of our grantmaking work, we're on the lookout for charities/NGOs working on these issues (or more generally on advocating for health policy, and helping governments implement such policies). If you are aware of any organizations in this space, do let us know!

Thanks for sharing Gisele! Hoping the best for you and doebem.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal
Rasool
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
In 2023[1] GiveWell raised $355 million - $100 million from Open Philanthropy, and $255 million from other donors. In their post on 10th April 2023, GiveWell forecast the amount they expected to raise in 2023, albeit with wide confidence intervals, and stated that their 10th percentile estimate for total funds raised was $416 million, and 10th percentile estimate for funds raised outside of Open Philanthropy was $260 million.  10th percentile estimateMedian estimateAmount raisedTotal$416 million$581 million$355 millionExcluding Open Philanthropy$260 million$330 million$255 million Regarding Open Philanthropy, the April 2023 post states that they "tentatively plans to give $250 million in 2023", however Open Philanthropy gave a grant of $300 million to cover 2023-2025, to be split however GiveWell saw fit, and it used $100 million of that grant in 2023. However for other donors I'm not sure what caused the missed estimate Credit to 'Arnold' on GiveWell's December 2024 Open Thread for bringing this to my attention   1. ^ 1st February 2023 - 31st January 2024
Recent opportunities in Global health & development