EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Aaron Gertler 🔸8
0
0

I work part-time with a foundation that sometimes uses a "hits-based" approach to global development support. Here are some of the things we've looked at, though we didn't end up funding all of them:

  • Funding fundraising (especially fundraising "experiments") for some of GiveWell's recommended charities
  • Funding the Innovation in Government Initiative
  • Funding various studies through J-PAL's regional offices
  • Funding IPA program officers to work alongside governments

My impression from this experience, though I'm certainly not an expert in the area:

For a donor who is giving sub-$10,000 amounts, many of these approaches are difficult to take; there isn't a lot of public information on individual research projects, the state of a project might change quickly, and it's hard to get much additional information by talking to researchers. Because the foundation gives larger amounts, we're able to routinely arrange phone calls with charities and even with outside researchers who are interested in an opportunity to educate a large donor.

Something like a crowdfunding platform (or some other running list of "underfunded projects") might help to close the gap, but it would take a lot of work from J-PAL, IPA, and other development research organizations to put this together, and I don't know how high the demand would be outside a fraction of the EA community.

Reply
DavidNash1
0
0

I agree that individuals will find it hard when donating individually but the call to action is about using the EA fund or creating a separate one with these aims in mind.

Similar to how people might choose to invest in a low/medium/high risk fund for their own savings.

Reply
See in context
by DavidNash
3 min read 10

24

Building effective altruismGlobal health & developmentPolicyEffective altruism fundingEffective Altruism Funds
Frontpage

Summary

There is a lack of advice in EA for individuals on where to donate if they value global development and are okay with high risk, high reward interventions - hit based giving.

This gap could be closed by using the EA fund for global development. This could also lead to increased funding for more experimental, neglected organisations and interventions that are less likely to receive institutional money.

Problem

There may be a missing gap when it comes to effective altruism and systemic change in global development. This post from 80,000 Hours in 2015 - “Effective altruists love systemic change” - highlights many ways in which effective altruism can be used to pursue legal, cultural and political changes. But it seems that when it comes to individuals donating, who value global development, most advice is still to give via charities that have evidence mainly based on randomised control trials rather than higher risk, higher reward options.

When looking at other cause areas traditionally supported within effective altruism, these kind of interventions are often seen as worth funding. ACE recommends many system changing and research organisations. This AI alignment charity comparison post highlights organisations working on research and lobbying. Open Philanthropy has expanded their giving - but focused on U.S. policy, science funding and history of philanthropy research.

For individuals who want to support potentially more impactful organisations there isn’t much dedicated research out there.

GiveWell

Givewell does look at qualitative info, but reputationally are looking for harder evidence, so may not want to expand their criteria. These two quotes below highlight their position.

“We have strict criteria about the sorts of charities we recommend. These criteria are partly about achieving maximum impact, but partly about having recommendations that others can fairly easily be confident in...Thus, we think there may be many giving opportunities that are better than our top charities but don't meet our criteria and/or are not known to us.”

“Root-causes-based approaches are, in our view, the kind of speculative and long-term undertakings that are best suited to highly engaged donors”

New Approach

There is starting to be a shift in this area though. Founders Pledge have a new report on evidence based policy. In January 2019, the EA fund for global development gave $1,000,000 to J-PAL's Innovation in Government Initiative.

“[IGI] plans to make grants to partnerships between governments, J-PAL offices, and affiliated researchers to help pilot and scale evidence-informed programs in education, health, and social assistance.”

There is also a chance that donations from people interested in effective altruism can be given to more experimental and/or newer organisations and interventions.

This might be the main advantage of EA donations in this space, willingness to fund hard or impossible to measure interventions that might be neglected by larger funders. This could be donating to meta organisations like GiveWell or AidGrade. It could be donations for organisations working directly on lobbying, research, accountability checking, advocacy, improving journalism, data collection, etc. It could also fund think tanks, such as CGD, JPAL.

Possible Next Steps

If there is positive feedback about the recent donation choice by the EA fund for global development it may make more sense to use that fund to donate to organisations in a more portfolio based approach similar to the EA fund for animal welfare. - “The fund [animal welfare] could support newer but still promising organizations with less evidence to support them or organizations with smaller funding gaps”.

If there is negative feedback about the direction the EA fund for global development has taken with it’s latest donation there could be a new fund, managed by a team of people who have a variety of backgrounds in global development. This allows donors to give to the fund that matches their risk appetite.

A third but less likely option is setting up an organisation similar to GiveWell or ACE to research these kinds of interventions from the point of view of individual donors.

24

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments10


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Avi Norowitz13
0
0

This announcement today on GiveWell's blog looks relevant. It seems GiveWell is beginning to look at interventions consistent with a hits-based giving approach.

Reply
Aaron Gertler 🔸8
0
0

I work part-time with a foundation that sometimes uses a "hits-based" approach to global development support. Here are some of the things we've looked at, though we didn't end up funding all of them:

  • Funding fundraising (especially fundraising "experiments") for some of GiveWell's recommended charities
  • Funding the Innovation in Government Initiative
  • Funding various studies through J-PAL's regional offices
  • Funding IPA program officers to work alongside governments

My impression from this experience, though I'm certainly not an expert in the area:

For a donor who is giving sub-$10,000 amounts, many of these approaches are difficult to take; there isn't a lot of public information on individual research projects, the state of a project might change quickly, and it's hard to get much additional information by talking to researchers. Because the foundation gives larger amounts, we're able to routinely arrange phone calls with charities and even with outside researchers who are interested in an opportunity to educate a large donor.

Something like a crowdfunding platform (or some other running list of "underfunded projects") might help to close the gap, but it would take a lot of work from J-PAL, IPA, and other development research organizations to put this together, and I don't know how high the demand would be outside a fraction of the EA community.

Reply
DavidNash1
0
0

I agree that individuals will find it hard when donating individually but the call to action is about using the EA fund or creating a separate one with these aims in mind.

Similar to how people might choose to invest in a low/medium/high risk fund for their own savings.

Reply
Michael_Wiebe3
0
0

How should we think about the big players in the field (World Bank, IMF, DFID, etc) — are they doing hits-based giving?

Reply
DavidNash1
0
0

I don't know as much about them.

I think that it would make sense to have experts that know this landscape pretty well to work out where the potential gaps are.

Reply
Varsha2
0
0

Thanks for this useful blog, David. I agree this is a gap area for individuals funding global development. Some other potential sources of information/advice for individuals:

· following the rationale and results of Give Well's incubation grants

· looking into cause areas identified by Charity Science which could benefit from funding and entrepreneurship

· looking into organisations and related broader interventions showcased in 'Life You Can Save' website, I’m unclear on the rigour of the research underpinning those recommendations though.

I also hope to follow the research on impact of advocacy projects such as the one Rachel Glennerster mentioned in the 80000 hours podcast late last year. I agree, in the immediate term EA global is a good choice though I am less clear on how the feedback loop for EA funds works. You recommend following the feedback on EA funds to determine next steps. Who provides positive/negative feedback on the direction of EA global funds? Would love to know your thoughts and learn further.

Reply
DavidNash1
0
0

I don't think there is a systematic process for feedback for the EA funds at the moment. It's mainly ad hoc with the fund managers gathering feedback themselves, people emailing them or forum posts like this one.

There may also be a way of telling by looking at how much people continue to give to each fund, although I don't know how closely donors are monitoring the eventual impact.

Reply
More from DavidNash
144
Nigeria's Missing 50 Million People
DavidNash
· · 14m read
17
17
56
Looking into Project 2025: USAID
DavidNash
· · 7m read
6
6
32
Impact in Global Development: A Discussion Series
DavidNash
· · 5m read
1
1
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 40m read
 · 
I am Jason Green-Lowe, the executive director of the Center for AI Policy (CAIP). Our mission is to directly convince Congress to pass strong AI safety legislation. As I explain in some detail in this post, I think our organization has been doing extremely important work, and that we’ve been doing well at it. Unfortunately, we have been unable to get funding from traditional donors to continue our operations. If we don’t get more funding in the next 30 days, we will have to shut down, which will damage our relationships with Congress and make it harder for future advocates to get traction on AI governance. In this post, I explain what we’ve been doing, why I think it’s valuable, and how your donations could help.  This is the first post in what I expect will be a 3-part series. The first post focuses on CAIP’s particular need for funding. The second post will lay out a more general case for why effective altruists and others who worry about AI safety should spend more money on advocacy and less money on research – even if you don’t think my organization in particular deserves any more funding, you might be convinced that it’s a priority to make sure other advocates get more funding. The third post will take a look at some institutional problems that might be part of why our movement has been systematically underfunding advocacy and offer suggestions about how to correct those problems. OUR MISSION AND STRATEGY The Center for AI Policy’s mission is to directly and openly urge the US Congress to pass strong AI safety legislation. By “strong AI safety legislation,” we mean laws that will significantly change AI developers’ incentives and make them less likely to develop or deploy extremely dangerous AI models. The particular dangers we are most worried about are (a) bioweapons, (b) intelligence explosions, and (c) gradual disempowerment. Most AI models do not significantly increase these risks, and so we advocate for narrowly-targeted laws that would focus their att
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Are you looking for a project where you could substantially improve indoor air quality, with benefits both to general health and reducing pandemic risk? I've written a bunch about air purifiers over the past few years, and its frustrating how bad commercial market is. The most glaring problem is the widespread use of HEPA filters. These are very effective filters that, unavoidably, offer significant resistance to air flow. HEPA is a great option for filtering air in single pass, such as with an outdoor air intake or a biosafety cabinet, but it's the wrong set of tradeoffs for cleaning the air that's already in the room. Air passing through a HEPA filter removes 99.97% of particles, but then it's mixed back in with the rest of the room air. If you can instead remove 99% of particles from 2% more air, or 90% from 15% more air, you're delivering more clean air. We should compare in-room purifiers on their Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), not whether the filters are HEPA. Next is noise. Let's say you do know that CADR is what counts, and you go looking at purifiers. You've decided you need 250 CFM, and you get something that says it can do that. Except once it's set up in the room it's too noisy and you end up running it on low, getting just 75 CFM. Everywhere I go I see purifiers that are either set too low to achieve much or are just switched off. High CADR with low noise is critical. Then consider filter replacement. There's a competitive market for standardized filters, where most HVAC systems use one of a small number of filter sizes. Air purifiers, though, just about always use their own custom filters. Some of this is the mistaken insistence on HEPA filters, but I suspect there's also a "cheap razors, expensive blades" component where manufacturers make their real money on consumables. Then there's placement. Manufacturers put the buttons on the top and send air upwards, because they're designing them to sit on the floor. But a purifier on the floor takes up
Relevant opportunities
1
EA Organization Updates: May 2025
2 authors
· · 9m read
0
0
54
New EA-adjacent Philosophy Lab
Walter Veit
· · 1m read
2
2
13
Project Proposal Looking for Feedback: Making Policy Impacts Transparent — A Reasoning Model for Trade, Jobs, and Prices
Echo Huang
· · 9m read
4
4
View more