Hmm, haven't bothered to change their website yet. Doesn't it even exist?
To measure our impact, we'd have to fully implement our vision.
We created a successful pilot. Now we need to raise funds to fully implement our vision.
"Healthy life"? You mean, access to food and water? Great! That's essential.
But this silver bullet idea you're promoting isn't possible. People need nutrition AND education. Does EA really promote the idea that we have to choose between nutrition AND education?
Most problems have multiple causes, and need multiple solutions. The idea that people should all support one thing is a grave disservice to communities in need. We need people to support a MIX of solutions.
EA sounds anti-innovation. One of the biggest innovation-killers is the inclination of funders to support a handful of large projects. Large projects are complacent and conservative. Only fresh new projects have the courage to innovate.
The idea that people should eliminate their personal biases/connections/preferences is absurd and counter-effective. Effective social impact requires that people on the front lines apply their PASSION and SKILLS. That's what they're good at.
Our org isn't "thriving". It has been exceedingly difficult to obtain major funding.
We focus on Appropriate Technology and School Building, which are listed.
Our model is low-cost infrastructure, to facilitate rollouts in many regions.
"Closer"? You mean, you don't consider Poverty to be an 80,000 Hours priority?
I don't know if their "Global Poverty" problem area would qualify my org for support. Do you think so?
I'm amazed that "Poverty" isn't listed as one of the most pressing world problems.
Our project is based on finding the optimum solution to a problem.
However, we reject the notion of data as god. Data is only as good as assumptions, collection, and interpretation. A deep knowledge of a particular target community, based on years of experience with the community, may be far more reliable than a particular set of data generated by a questionnaire.
Whether based on hard data, anecdotal data, or personal experience, we are motivated by continual improvement.
We also believe that for maximum effectiveness, any social impact activity must match the skills and passions of the social workers. If data suggested school uniforms were more beneficial than engineering-training, then we'd let someone else handle the uniforms, as our project embodies passion and skills in engineering-training.
We reject the notion of a silver bullet. We recognize that social problems are usually the result of a mix of causes, and require a mix of fixes. By that logic, a mix of engineering-training plus other fixes (say, for example, school uniforms) will have greater impact than one fix alone. Therefor, it's logically justified to continue our work with engineering-training, and let others handle other fixes (such as, for example, school uniforms).
"is training teens in California the best way to do that? If you were instead to train teens in Dakar, or New Delhi, or Mexico City, would that get more "bang for your buck?"
-- Our delivery model is designed for a global presence. Our pilot program is in California, but we are developing a model that can scale out to marginalized communities all over the world at minimal cost. Our model can reach teens in California, Dakar, New Delhi, and Mexico City.
Apparently, my original post received downvotes. I'd like to understand why.