A lot of EA is focused on charity evaluation, which involves looking at a charity's strategy and impact and cost-effectiveness. 

But to analyze cost-effectiveness well, you have to understand what the charity is actually trying to do. When the charity's strategy is (1) straightforward and (2) pubicly acceptable, this is easy to do. Give Directly gives folks living in extreme poverty money to make their lives better. You can measure what they do (giving people money) and the output (how happy people are) -- it can be complicated to do the latter, but there is a robust research ecosystem dedicated to that, lots of RCTs and other studies to point to, etc. 

What happens when a charity doesn't have an intelligible-to-nonexperts or public facing strategy? Consider a hypothetical animal welfare charity trying to influence scientific research to be more animal friendly. I've chosen this example specifically because (AFAIK) there are no strongly EA aligned charities trying to do this; I'm not thinking of any group in particular. 

Instead of doing this in an obvious way (telling everyone that they are trying to change scientific practice) they think it's more effective to play some kind of 4D chess. They are planning to ingratiate themselves to scientists, do everything they can to look like insiders, and change the field from the inside. They plan to fund some scientists to do work that harms animals but is less harmful than status quo methods, for example, because they are planning to do some kind of slow-scale modification of practices one step at a time. And because a lot of their staff are scientist themselves, they have a detailed inside knowledge of academia works that feeds into their strategic decisions. 

How does this hypothetical charity talk about their work? There are two problems: 

  1. Talking publicly about what they are trying to do is literally antithetical to their strategy. So a random donor or even possibly a charity evaluator who reaches out to them to assess cost effectiveness literally cannot be told the actual mission along which to assess cost effectiveness.
  2. Even if they are speaking to someone who can safely be told their actual mission, if that person is not an expert in academic culture, they may not understand why the group has made the decision they have. These decisions rely on a deep knowledge of academia and scientists and how scientists choose what methods they use. It would take a significant amount of time to explain to Average Joe Donor why they have chosen the approach they are taking; time that could be spent focusing on their mission. 

I bring up this problem because I've had it in my work, and I've seen it in the work of others. I know of an EA charity whose long term mission, if discussed publicly, would not be as effective. They can't post on the EA forum about what they are actually trying to do. I won't say who they are or even which part of EA they are in because I don't want to mess things up for them!

The reason I bring this up is that people have criticized charities for having publicly facing messages that don't always align with what the critic thinks is right. This group Vetted Causes (example) is just one recent example of this sort of pattern.

But a lot of the time, these critics are not necessarily well-positioned to understand what is going on. They might not be enough of an insider to know the strategy of the organization, or they might not have enough context on the space the organization operates in to understand the strategic choices made. 

I obviously wish things were different and the world was such we could all have EA transparency norms and do our work well, but it isn't. I'm aware this places the average donor in a difficult position: how can you tell if one of these two things is going on, or if the charity is just bad at it's work? I'm not sure; I definitely don't have great answers here. I would just encourage people to wonder, before they criticize groups whose strategies they don't understand, if they don't really have the full picture. 

20

4
1

Reactions

4
1

More posts like this

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I think that the animal welfare space is especially opaque for strategic reasons. For example, most of the publicly available descriptions of corporate animal welfare strategy are, in my opinion, not particularly accurate. I think most of the actual strategy becoming public would make it significantly less effective. I don't think it is kept secret with a deep amount of intentionality, but more like there is a shared understanding among many of the best campaigners to not share exactly how they are working outside a circle of collaborators to avoid strategies losing effectiveness.

I think outside organizations' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of individual corporate campaigning organizations (including ACE unfortunately) is really low due to this (I think that evaluating ecosystems of organizations / the intervention as a whole is easier though).

Yeah that's a good point; maybe cause level assessments are much easier to do in light of this. 

That said, it doesn't really help donors decide where to give. In my personal case, I give in my area of greatest expertise -- I'm pretty sure I do have enough context to assess which organizations are effective, because I know the decision makers, etc. But I don't know how I'd advise other people who aren't in that position.

In the case of campaigns, do you think you can look at campaigns after they are won as evidence of past success being a sign of future success? Or are specific campaigners more useful to watch than organizations? I'm not in that world at all, but maybe some kinds of broad guidelines could be shared for donors interested in supporting the most effective campaigns... 

I suspect there are other cause areas where that wouldn't be helpful though, because even pointing out how to assess effectiveness would be too revealing. I suppose organizations taking that approach just wouldn't really be supportable by folks committed to only supporting organizations with validated effectiveness. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Summary Following our co-founder Joey's recent transition announcement we're actively searching for exceptional leadership to join our C-level team and guide AIM into its next phase. * Find the full job description here * To apply, please visit the following link * Recommend someone you think could be a great fit here * Location: London strongly preferred. Remote candidates willing to work from London at least 3 months a year and otherwise overlapping at least 6 hours with 9 am to 5 pm BST will be considered. We are happy to sponsor UK work visas. * Employment Type: Full-time (35 hours) * Application Deadline: rolling until August 10, 2025 * Start Date: as soon as possible (with some flexibility for the right candidate) * Compensation: £45,000–£90,000 (for details on our compensation policy see full job description) Leadership Transition On March 15th, Joey announced he's stepping away from his role as CEO of AIM, with his planned last day as December 1st. This follows our other co-founder Karolina's completed transition in 2024. Like Karolina, Joey will transition to a board member role while we bring in new leadership to guide AIM's next phase of growth. The Opportunity AIM is at a unique inflection point. We're seeking an exceptional leader to join Samantha and Devon on our C-level team and help shape the next era of one of the most impactful organizations in the EA ecosystem. With foundations established (including a strong leadership team and funding runway), we're ready to scale our influence dramatically and see many exciting pathways to do so. While the current leadership team has a default 2026 strategic plan, we are open to a new CEO proposing radical departures. This might include: * Proposing alternative ways to integrate or spin off existing or new programs * Deciding to spend more resources trialling more experimental programs, or double down on Charity Entrepreneurship * Expanding geographically or deepening impact in existing region
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under