Hide table of contents

You can now apply to Charity Entrepreneurship’s 2024 Incubation Programs! 

This is the 5th year of running our Incubation Program. With 27 charities started, $2.47M in seed grants disbursed, and a number of our charities being recognized as potentially 20 to even 60 times more cost-effective than top GiveWell charities, we invite you to join our community of high-impact nonprofits by applying to our two upcoming programs: 

February-March 2024, with a focus on farmed animals and global health and development mass media interventions.

August-September 2024 with a focus on the top most cost-effective Sustainable Development Goals as well as organophosphate pesticides and other neurotoxicants . 

[APPLY NOW]

Please submit your applications by September 30, 2023!
Details about the program can be found on our website: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/incubation-program

We invite people from all backgrounds, ages, and nationalities to apply. We are not looking for any specific type of work experience or formal education; we’re looking for potential. What our incubatees have in common is…

  • A deep dedication to doing good
  • Ambition to make rapid progress and achieve results
  • The drive to always keep learning
  • The grit and creativity to keep going even in the face of difficulties
  • Diverse and complementary skill sets

We recommend that you watch our video with the participants of our February-March 2023 Incubation Program if you want to learn more about why past incubatees joined the program and what their experience was like.

Announcing our top intervention ideas in mass media

For our upcoming February-March 2024 Incubation Program, we looked into mass media interventions in the area of global health and development. Our research focused on social and behaviour change communication campaigns delivered through radio advertising, TV shows, text messages and similar with the goal of improving human well-being. After going through our iterative research process, we have found two highly promising intervention ideas for new charities to start: 

1. Childhood vaccination reminders 

A simple SMS or call reminder can be all a caregiver needs to attend a child’s vaccination appointment. CE-incubated Suvita is delivering this impactful service at scale in India, and a new non-profit organization will launch it in the next top-priority country. This org will likely coordinate closely with Suvita to expand to numerous priority countries in the future or could even operate under the same umbrella. 
 

2. Entertainment-led mass media to prevent violence against women

Intimate partner violence affects millions of women, with wide-ranging health and financial consequences. A new non-profit organization can prevent this violence from ever happening by changing behaviors through edutainment mass media content. 

During the program, we will supply 80+ hour research and implementation reports on all top ideas to help participants find the their best fit and make it easy for our graduates to hit the ground running.

We will announce our top intervention ideas in the space of preventive animal welfare in our next post and provide you with longer write-ups of the mass media interventions. Keep an eye out on the forum, or subscribe to our newsletter.

Should you apply?

We hope that nonprofit entrepreneurship is already on your radar as a potential career. It’s an unconventional career step, but we genuinely believe that for those for whom it is a good fit, starting a charity could be one of the most impactful, fulfilling paths they might ever take.

1) Do it for impact

Our internal calculations of the counterfactual impact of our charities suggest that pursuing a career in nonprofit entrepreneurship could have an impact equivalent to counterfactually donating $338,000-$414,000 USD annually to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF). 

Some caveats: It's important to note that this calculation represents our current best estimate, and while we are reasonably confident that it is in the correct range, the exact number relies on several highly uncertain inputs. These inputs include assessing the impact of 23 charities that we have assisted in launching until early 2023, as well as our estimates of the counterfactuals of co-founder time, that is, of how much impact they would probably have achieved if they had pursued a more conventional, impactful nonprofit job instead of starting a charity through our program. This estimate is based on our last assessment of charity progress from early 2023. Furthermore, the impact that our co-founders have had is heavy-tailed, meaning that some co-founders are having an impact in the range of equivalent to $1,000,000 USD in counterfactual donations to AMF while a bigger number of others have less than the $338,000-$414,000 average in counterfactual impact.


2) Do it for the skills

Pursuing this career path can have an immense counterfactual impact while also providing opportunities to learn and develop a diverse set of transferable skills. Here are some things that you will learn from our program alone: 

  • Evaluation Skills
    • Building a Theory of Change
    • Basics of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)
    • Cost-effectiveness analysis
    • Scientific evidence reviews
  • Leadership Skills
    • Strategic planning and prioritization
    • Task management and productivity
    • Pitching
    • Fundraising
  • Operations Skills
    • Basic operations management
    • Human Resources (HR)
    • Financial planning
    • Legal setup

And these are just a few examples. After the program, you will gain hands-on experience in running a nonprofit, collaborating with stakeholders, designing and implementing pilot programs, and learning from our network of 27 charities and other CE-adjacent projects. All this with ongoing support from the CE team and our community of over 100+ previous incubatees, researchers, and funders.

Plus, how cool does the title “Co-founder of a GiveWell-incubated charity” or “Co-founder of the world's first organization solely dedicated to shrimp welfare, potentially improving the lives of 2.5 billion individuals annually” sound? ;) 

Our application process as a career fit assessment

We value potential over experience. We encourage everyone to use our application process as an assessment of your fit for high-impact nonprofit entrepreneurship as a career step. Over the past five years, our application process has been improved and validated to be highly predictive of an individual's potential to successfully launch a high-impact charity. Completing the initial application form will only require approximately 30 minutes of your time.

Timeline:

  • Applications are open: July 10 - September 30, 2023
  • The application process will run: October 1 - November 30
  • Offer letters: by December 1st

Some more points

  • We will contact you about the outcome of your application regardless of whether you progressed to the second stage by October 31st.
  • To protect your valuable time, we will only invite you to the next stage if we think you have a good chance of success.
  • The entire application process will take no more than 10 hours of your time from start to finish.
  • We have designed the process to help you learn more about what is important for founding a high-impact charity and how to weigh it against other career options and pathways to impact.

Learn more: 

To learn more about the application process and access resources that will help you prepare, go to our new APPLY PAGE.

To learn more about what we provide in the two-month, cost-covered program, check our new HOW IT WORKS PAGE.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
Notes  The following text explores, in a speculative manner, the evolutionary question: Did high-intensity affective states, specifically Pain, emerge early in evolutionary history, or did they develop gradually over time? Note: We are not neuroscientists; our work draws on our evolutionary biology background and our efforts to develop welfare metrics that accurately reflect reality and effectively reduce suffering. We hope these ideas may interest researchers in neuroscience, comparative cognition, and animal welfare science. This discussion is part of a broader manuscript in progress, focusing on interspecific comparisons of affective capacities—a critical question for advancing animal welfare science and estimating the Welfare Footprint of animal-sourced products.     Key points  Ultimate question: Do primitive sentient organisms experience extreme pain intensities, or fine-grained pain intensity discrimination, or both? Scientific framing: Pain functions as a biological signalling system that guides behavior by encoding motivational importance. The evolution of Pain signalling —its intensity range and resolution (i.e., the granularity with which differences in Pain intensity can be perceived)— can be viewed as an optimization problem, where neural architectures must balance computational efficiency, survival-driven signal prioritization, and adaptive flexibility. Mathematical clarification: Resolution is a fundamental requirement for encoding and processing information. Pain varies not only in overall intensity but also in granularity—how finely intensity levels can be distinguished.  Hypothetical Evolutionary Pathways: by analysing affective intensity (low, high) and resolution (low, high) as independent dimensions, we describe four illustrative evolutionary scenarios that provide a structured framework to examine whether primitive sentient organisms can experience Pain of high intensity, nuanced affective intensities, both, or neither.     Introdu
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
Article 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Obviously, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." OK, it doesn’t actually start with "obviously," but I like to imagine the commissioners all murmuring to themselves “obviously” when this item was brought up. I’m not sure what the causal effect of Article 5 (or the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture) has been on reducing torture globally, though the physical integrity rights index (which “captures the extent to which people are free from government torture and political killings”) has increased from 0.48 in 1948 to 0.67 in 2024 (which is good). However, the index reached 0.67 already back in 2001, so at least according to this metric, we haven’t made much progress in the past 25 years. Reducing government torture and killings seems to be low in tractability. Despite many countries having a physical integrity rights index close to 1.0 (i.e., virtually no government torture or political killings), many of their citizens still experience torture-level pain on a regular basis. I’m talking about cluster headache, the “most painful condition known to mankind” according to Dr. Caroline Ran of the Centre for Cluster Headache, a newly-founded research group at the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden. Dr. Caroline Ran speaking at the 2025 Symposium on the recent advances in Cluster Headache research and medicine Yesterday I had the opportunity to join the first-ever international research symposium on cluster headache organized at the Nobel Forum of the Karolinska Institutet. It was a 1-day gathering of roughly 100 participants interested in advancing our understanding of the origins of and potential treatments for cluster headache. I'd like to share some impressions in this post. The most compelling evidence for Dr. Ran’s quote above comes from a 2020 survey of cluster headache patients by Burish et al., which asked patients to rate cluster headach
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
A while back (as I've just been reminded by a discussion on another thread), David Thorstad wrote a bunch of posts critiquing the idea that small reductions in extinction risk have very high value, because the expected number of people who will exist in the future is very high: https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/my-papers/mistakes-in-moral-mathematics/. The arguments are quite complicated, but the basic points are that the expected number of people in the future is much lower than longtermists estimate because: -Longtermists tend to neglect the fact that even if your intervention blocks one extinction risk, there are others it might fail to block; surviving for billions  (or more) of years likely  requires driving extinction risk very low for a long period of time, and if we are not likely to survive that long, even conditional on longtermist interventions against one extinction risk succeeding, the value of preventing extinction (conditional on more happy people being valuable) is much lower.  -Longtermists tend to assume that in the future population will be roughly as large as the available resources can support. But ever since the industrial revolution, as countries get richer, their fertility rate falls and falls until it is below replacement. So we can't just assume future population sizes will be near the limits of what the available resources will support. Thorstad goes on to argue that this weakens the case for longtermism generally, not just the value of extinction risk reductions, since the case for longtermism is that future expected population  is many times the current population, or at least could be given plausible levels of longtermist extinction risk reduction effort. He also notes that if he can find multiple common mistakes in longtermist estimates of expected future population, we should expect that those estimates might be off in other ways. (At this point I would note that they could also be missing factors that bias their estimates of