Depends what you mean by median core EA, but defining it as “someone we could bump into at EAG multiple years in a row”, I would say:

• We think there are limitations to what desktop research can uncover, especially in more neglected areas where evidence is more scarce. Therefore, we are time-capping stages of our research process and putting a lot of attention into making it more and more efficient over time (e.g., experimenting on and evaluating the research process itself and iteratively improving it). We think that some parts of research & strategy work will have to be done after a charity gets started as they will be in a better position to gain more information, design quick experiments with  fast feedback loops, and iterate. In general, we are making sure our research can be used to start a high-impact charity in the span of months and sometimes deliberately do not provide answers to all questions.  As a result, we tend to take more risks. 
• We are less focused on longtermism, and prioritize global well-being (global health and development, animal welfare ect.) based on epistemics the team shares.
• I think there is a cluster of beliefs related to: taking moral uncertainty seriously, the team being interested in greater cause diversity and in actively exploring candidates for Cause X. 

This in many ways is the default path for how many NGOs grow. I think there are quite a few reasons why CE overperforms relative to this. Decentralization broadens the risk profile that each charity is able to take, and smaller organizations move far, far quicker. I suspect the biggest factor though, is not structural but social. The level of founders we get applying are really strong relative to an organization like CE hiring program directors. Due to the psychology of ownership they work far more effectively for their project than they would as an employee of a larger organization. 

Yeah great question! There were some similarities and differences from our normal research process

Similarities

• We predominantly looked for ideas where there were good feedback loops to measure the impact of the charity and the good that it was doing
• Our research process  largely worked and could be adapted to biosecurity as a cause area
• We considered the potential of the negative impact of our ideas, and ideas where this was more likely were far less likely to pass through our research stages

Differences

•  We had to very seriously consider information hazards in our idea, which is not a consideration we had given much weight on or considered at all for other cause areas
• Had to rely a bit more on expert opinion and ‘lower’ quality forms of evidence like theoretic evidence, case studies
• We had a lot more uncertainty about our cost-effectiveness analyses, since estimates vary a lot depending on priors about likelihood of future pandemics and how bad they could be; to an extent, these uncertainties were multiplicative, which made quantification particularly challenging
• We had to coordinate and talk a lot more to EA biosecurity folk- the space is small and growing, and it was important

• Our mission is for more highly- impactful charities to exist in the world. In four years we’ve helped launch 23. We’ve proved our model works and we’re now getting ready to scale up. 
• Our research team has traditionally targeted ideas for charities that, in expectation, will be at least 5 X AMF. 
• We’ve grown in confidence, scope and capability. We’re now targeting even more ambitious  ideas and, we hope, we’re demonstrating  what’s possible. 
• We’ve grown a very tight- knit community of charity entrepreneurs, funders, researchers, and advisors. 
• Three  SAMPLE wins are… 
• 1) Fortify Health who are on the pathway to become one of the GiveWell top recommended charities. They recently received an $8.2 million incubation grant to scale their efforts in India.
• 2) Lead Exposure Elimination Project is a charity that drives effective policies to eliminate lead poisoning across the globe. In their first year they managed to convince the government of Malawi to take lead paint off the shelves. This may mean ~215,000 fewer children in Malawi getting lead poisoning . LEEP is now working on similar projects in nine other countries.  
• 3) Fish Welfare Initiative has improved the lives of well over 1.6 million aquatic farmed animals and are making progress in one of the most important, neglected and hard to work places - India, which is the second largest producer of fish globally. 

Currently: Currently we have a backend CEA that evaluates the possible scenarios and impact outcomes for each of the charities. It starts out with pretty wide confidence intervals but tends to narrow as the charities get older (e.g., 2nd or 3rd year). We also write up more narrative reviews that go to a set of external advisors. 

Long term plan: Longer term we want to hire an external evaluation organization to evaluate every charity we found two years after founding, and use those numbers instead of internal ones. 

Our policy regarding salaries has not changed as much as other meta charities; leanness tends to attract a different sort of applicant. We have a range ($40-$60k) but would consider applications from candidates who need higher than that range. In practice, we have often found the most talented candidates are less concerned with salary and more concerned about other factors (impact of the role, culture, flexibility, etc.). We are a bit skeptical about the perception that talent increases from offering higher salaries (instead of attracting new talent, we typically see the same EA people getting job roles but just for a higher cost). 

Here’s a video of a presentation: it’s purpose is to help people really consider if this path is for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpZgc0e1aaQ

If you email me steve@charityentrepreneurship.com I’m happy to talk about how you might run a group session, and share some resources.

We certainly don't vet on the basis of age. We've had 19 yr olds and 60+ yr olds. I was 43 on the program. Yes it's true that most of the applicants are younger and that youth is a reasonably good proxy for higher energy and career / location flexibility, but we do value life experience and do seek older applicants. One can imagine a particularly good founding team being made up of a younger person with their strengths and an older person with their experience. 

Hi Larks! A lot to unpack here but in general, we only decided to start a family planning organization after we concluded that it also has a positive near-term effect on human well-being, and when it comes to long-term, very uncertain flow-through effects, we don’t strongly take them into account for any of the interventions we evaluate because they are too uncertain, but we gladly will when more evidence is available. I will address your specific points below. 

In 2018 you published a report (now deleted from the internet) that advocated for reducing human populations in the third world in order to reduce meat consumption.

[...]

I see you have continued to do work on charities that would reduce human populations, though without making as explicit that the original motivation was not so much to help people directly but rather to reduce their number. 

First of all, just a clarification here, we are not focusing on reducing human populations to start with, but on reducing suffering and increasing well-being. Also, we did not assume that it would be an advocacy for reducing human populations in the third world specifically. As the summary at the top says: “The interven... (read more)

Yes - the best way to figure out if you’re a good fit is to apply. 

It's low cost and we've developed a pretty good understanding on who will do well. It's not reasonable to expect to know yourself, if you'd be a good fit for doing something that you've never done. So I'd suggest you submit an application and see how far you get. 

I will add though, not getting through doesn't mean you're NOT a good fit, it just means we had some concerns or reservations given our particular approach. However if you do get in you can be confident you ARE a good fit. We are very careful about that. 
 

Also, as said elsewhere, almost nobody is a good fit when they first join the program. That’s what the program is for. We’re looking for potential, ambition, capacity to learn and overtime to become a leader.  

I think there are a few things that fit into this category, how much deference is in the EA space would be one.  Another would be the relative importance of high-absorbency career paths. Some things we have not written about but also fit would be how EA deals with low evidence base/feedback loop spaces. Or how little skepticism is applied to EA meta charities.