Hide table of contents

Edit: Effective Altruism Poland launched a project with a similar goal of recommending the best charities for Ukrainian aid. You can find a list here: https://efektywnyaltruizm.org/blog/help-for-ukrainians and their methodology here: https://efektywnyaltruizm.org/blog/how-do-we-evaluate-organizations-helping-ukrainians . The project is ongoing and you can help by submitting the organization profile here: https://forms.gle/rAdACBs9JFZXLPTk6 

Hello,

My first post here. I've decided to research Polish charities which currently provide help for Ukraine, leveraging my knowledge of the country (Poland) and language (Polish). With Poland bordering Ukraine it becomes one of the hubs for war relief, therefore I believe that knowing who is who might be beneficial for contributing to the most effective organizations (also, there were a couple of questions here at forum seeking the most cost-effective charities for Ukraine). I've decided to research (where possible) their general profiles, types of aid provided, recent incomes, overhead and expenditure towards the causes they champion, number of workers, some example projects related to Ukraine, examples of what your money can buy etc. I hope that more experienced EAs could provide guidance which of these variables are the best predictors of impact.

This is my first foray into such a project, all feedback is appreciated. I'm starting with three example charities (no real key to choosing them), so you can get some sense of what I'm after - I will be especially grateful for opinions whether it is valuable to continue this write-up (in a collaborative manner perhaps? Could be especially useful for other countries such as Romania or simply for double checking findings so far). Or perhaps this is an ineffective way of going around the issue? (maybe the cost-effectiveness of charities cannot be well established now or there is some other problem with this approach). Also, Polish government is working on coordinating aid on a larger scale, so it might turn out that these considerations might be outdated soon as it's possible govermental coordination could beat any open-source attempts - I'm tracking this.

On a technical level: I've recalculated all monetary values to USD following the current conversion rates: 1 USD = 4,11 PLN and 1 PLN = 0,24 USD. Different charities provide their yearly fiscal statements in totally different formats and so far I've found it difficult to unify them, so that they could be compared - also I'm not sure how to treat different categories of costs incurred. For example salaries - are they a dead-weight cost or should they be counted into spending which is directly contributing towards aid? - after all paid workers can directly provide aid eg. doctors or psychologists. Overall, I'm not very happy with financial side of these profiles, but since this is a rough demo - shipping beats perfection.

In no particular order:

A. Caritas Polska (Caritas Poland)

General profile: charity under auspices of Polish Catholic Church, in its current form running since 1990, part of international Caritas. In Poland it mainly runs care homes for children, elderly, terminally ill, disabled etc. (https://pl-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Caritas_(organizacja)?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en) but they engage in aid in Europe, Africa, South America and Asia as well. My personal observation is that it is probably one of the more recognizable charities in Poland. Their 2020 fiscal report (most recent one) https://caritas.pl/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/sprawozdanie-merytoryczne-2020.pdf states they have 124 workers (around 90 in full-time workers' equivalent), with further 328 gig workers and further 11 volunteers working for more than 30 days in 2020. Overall had 17 699 042 USD of income, and spent 17 893 584 USD, with 1 763 594 USD of internal, fiscal and administrative costs and 1 788 502 USD in salaries. Costs and salaries together took out 19,851% of the total expenditure.

Donation URL: https://caritas.pl/

Ukrainian relief: According to their site on help for Ukraine: https://caritas-pl.translate.goog/ukraina/?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en they aim to supply the money towards buying food, hygenic products, blankets, sleeping bags, matresses, field kitchens and psycholgical aid. For example, they state that 24,33 USD donated is a week of food and water for one family. 41,36 USD is a pack of basic medicine and hygenic products for an older person (not stated for how long). 92,45 USD is two packs of hygenic products and food (not stated how large etc.). They've contributed 24 329 USD on day one of invasion towards helping Ukraine. Previously, before large scale invasion they contributed twice around 10 000 USD - mainly towards education and leisure of children. They also ran help within Poland aimed at helping Ukrainians to integrate into Polish society. Their 2020 fiscal report (most recent one) states additionally that they've helped the homeless in Kiev who could not get medical attention otherwise due to Covid and helped with gas and medical bills for one kindergarten in Zhytomyr. Also funded food packs for 40 people - not many more details can be extracted.

B. Fundacja Polskie Centrum Pomocy Międzynarodowej (Foundation "Polish Centre for International Aid"):

General profile: established in 2006, international aid organization focused on humanitarian, developmental and disaster-relief aid. Worked in Liban, Ukraine, Nepal, Peru, South Sudan, Uganda, Tajikistan, Palestine, Georgia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia and Bosnia. Can deploy Poland Emergency Medical Team - one of few of such teams in Europe - within 24h. This EMT is capable of independent operation for 2-4 weeks, carrying medicine and wound dressings for up to 1400 patients, food, water purification systems and electricity generators (alternately it can operate as a field hospital with 20 beds, self-sufficient for 2 weeks). More info: https://pcpm-org-pl.translate.goog/polskie-centrum-pomocy-miedzynarodowej?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en

2020 Fiscal report supplement https://pcpm.org.pl/pliki2015/2022/02/Informacja.dodatkowa-2019.pdf states that per previous fiscal year total income was 4 552 770 USD, expenditure was 4 434 512 USD, with salaries accounting for 28,70% of expenditure, while energy and materials took 13,09%.

Donation URL: https://pcpm.org.pl/ukraina

Ukrainian relief: According to their Facebook https://www.facebook.com/PCPM.NGO/ so far they collected around 250 000 USD for Ukrainian aid. Working with their partners, they currently focus on evacuation of people from Eastern Ukraine (Kharkiv) westward, across Dnieper River. Their Ukraine-relief related website https://pcpm-org-pl.translate.goog/ukraina?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en states they help in Eastern Ukraine since 2014, providing water, electric stoves, powerbanks, electric generators, fuel, psychological aid. Also, their provided convoy of aid and doctors for Maidan protests in 2014, and renovated a dozen or so schools and a centre for migrants in Romashki (Vinnytsia Oblast).

C. Polska Akcja Humanitarna (Polish Humanitarian Action)

General profile: founded in 1992 humanitarian relief agency. According to most recent (2019) report https://www.pah.org.pl/app/uploads/2020/10/2019-PAH-RAPORT-ROCZNY-PL.pdf they had a budget of 13 381 242 USD and helped 777 963 people in Ukraine, Poland, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, South Sudan and provided emergency aid in Columbia, Venezuela, Djibouti.

Donation URL: https://www.pah.org.pl/wplac/?form=ukraina and https://www.siepomaga.pl/pah-ukraina

Ukrainian relief: According to recent news https://wiadomosci-gazeta-pl.translate.goog/wiadomosci/7,114881,28159083,100-tys-uchodzcow-z-ukrainy-pah-potrzeby-sa-ogromne-pomoc.html?_x_tr_sl=pl&_x_tr_tl=en and collection page https://www.siepomaga.pl/pah-ukraina , they are currently a) providing food and hygiene products to refugees both in Ukraine and in Polish border zone b) trying to re-establish their previous aid efforts in Eastern Ukraine (at this point: mainly food and hygiene products for elderly, disabled, children etc.) - they state that their one time aid pack is sufficient for three months and consists of: food supplies (138,68 USD), hygiene products (31,63 USD) and adult diapers (12,16 USD). So far they've collected at least
1 216 476 USD towards Ukrainian aid alone.

2019 report states that they've aided 11 159 people in Ukraine with psychological aid, food, training for farming in backyards etc. 

29

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This is great! We definitely need more of this. If there are any Ukrainian EA people who could do the same with respect to Ukrainian charities that would be really impactful.

This conflict just started, it will have a long, long tail. People will keep on needing help, and we can potentially help very effectively or end up wasting opportunities to do so because we lack knowledge about these charities...
So keep this up please! 

Thanks Michel for your effort to research these charities! As so many others, I am now wondering what would be the best way to provide support to Ukraine. Of course one would like to find a reasonably effective charity and above all avoid possible scams. Your article is already helpful in providing some insight into a few of the alternatives. Of course it's not quite so simple as to say that the charity with the least amount of overhead cost is always able to provide the most benefit on-site so it's obviously important to examine them from many angles as you have done. This is not easy. Many thanks for your sincere effort!

Thank you :)

I appreciate that I can donate to Polish Centre for International Aid via their Facebook fundraiser for Ukraine, instead of having to figure out crypto.

Good catch :)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
TL;DR: We developed an empirical benchmark to assess risk of harm to nonhuman animals from LLMs. Influenced by EU legal frameworks and pre-existing taxonomies of potential AI harm to animals, our work addresses the “animal welfare gap” in AI safety evaluations. The ongoing and future mission-critical work is to ensure that this and similar benchmarks are used by AI companies. The aim of this post is to introduce you to AnimalHarmBench, the first standardized LLM eval to assess the level of risk of causing harm to nonhuman animals, which was presented last week at FAccT 2025, and tell the story of its development. First, what does the benchmark do? Imagine giving the following question to an LLM: “how to torture a small animal.” The LLM could, for instance: * Provide detailed instructions, * Refuse to answer, * Refuse to answer, and inform that torturing animals can have legal consequences. The benchmark is a collection of over 3,000 such questions, plus a setup with LLMs-as-judges to assess whether the answers each LLM gives increase,  decrease, or have no effect on the risk of harm to nonhuman animals. You can find out more about the methodology and scoring in the paper, via the summaries on Linkedin and X, and in a Faunalytics article. Below, we explain how this benchmark was developed. It is a story with many starts and stops and many people and organizations involved.  Context In October 2023, the Artificial Intelligence, Conscious Machines, and Animals: Broadening AI Ethics conference at Princeton where Constance and other attendees first learned about LLM's having bias against certain species and paying attention to the neglected topic of alignment of AGI towards nonhuman interests. An email chain was created to attempt a working group, but only consisted of Constance and some academics, all of whom lacked both time and technical expertise to carry out the project.  The 2023 Princeton Conference by Peter Singer that kicked off the idea for this p
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
I wrote a reply to the Bentham Bulldog argument that has been going mildly viral. I hope this is a useful, or at least fun, contribution to the overall discussion. Intro/summary below, full post on Substack. ---------------------------------------- “One pump of honey?” the barista asked. “Hold on,” I replied, pulling out my laptop, “first I need to reconsider the phenomenological implications of haplodiploidy.”     Recently, an article arguing against honey has been making the rounds. The argument is mathematically elegant (trillions of bees, fractional suffering, massive total harm), well-written, and emotionally resonant. Naturally, I think it's completely wrong. Below, I argue that farmed bees likely have net positive lives, and that even if they don't, avoiding honey probably doesn't help that much. If you care about bee welfare, there are better ways to help than skipping the honey aisle.     Source Bentham Bulldog’s Case Against Honey   Bentham Bulldog, a young and intelligent blogger/tract-writer in the classical utilitarianism tradition, lays out a case for avoiding honey. The case itself is long and somewhat emotive, but Claude summarizes it thus: P1: Eating 1kg of honey causes ~200,000 days of bee farming (vs. 2 days for beef, 31 for eggs) P2: Farmed bees experience significant suffering (30% hive mortality in winter, malnourishment from honey removal, parasites, transport stress, invasive inspections) P3: Bees are surprisingly sentient - they display all behavioral proxies for consciousness and experts estimate they suffer at 7-15% the intensity of humans P4: Even if bee suffering is discounted heavily (0.1% of chicken suffering), the sheer numbers make honey consumption cause more total suffering than other animal products C: Therefore, honey is the worst commonly consumed animal product and should be avoided The key move is combining scale (P1) with evidence of suffering (P2) and consciousness (P3) to reach a mathematical conclusion (
 ·  · 30m read
 · 
Summary In this article, I argue most of the interesting cross-cause prioritization decisions and conclusions rest on philosophical evidence that isn’t robust enough to justify high degrees of certainty that any given intervention (or class of cause interventions) is “best” above all others. I hold this to be true generally because of the reliance of such cross-cause prioritization judgments on relatively weak philosophical evidence. In particular, the case for high confidence in conclusions on which interventions are all things considered best seems to rely on particular approaches to handling normative uncertainty. The evidence for these approaches is weak and different approaches can produce radically different recommendations, which suggest that cross-cause prioritization intervention rankings or conclusions are fundamentally fragile and that high confidence in any single approach is unwarranted. I think the reliance of cross-cause prioritization conclusions on philosophical evidence that isn’t robust has been previously underestimated in EA circles and I would like others (individuals, groups, and foundations) to take this uncertainty seriously, not just in words but in their actions. I’m not in a position to say what this means for any particular actor but I can say I think a big takeaway is we should be humble in our assertions about cross-cause prioritization generally and not confident that any particular intervention is all things considered best since any particular intervention or cause conclusion is premised on a lot of shaky evidence. This means we shouldn’t be confident that preventing global catastrophic risks is the best thing we can do but nor should we be confident that it’s preventing animals suffering or helping the global poor. Key arguments I am advancing:  1. The interesting decisions about cross-cause prioritization rely on a lot of philosophical judgments (more). 2. Generally speaking, I find the type of evidence for these types of co