EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Toby Tremlett🔹1
0
0

Hi Akhil. This seems like a great idea! 
To clarify- is this a new fund, or are new charities being added to an existing fund? I couldn't tell from this line: 

I am very excited to announce the addition of several highly impactful charities focused on preventing violence against women and girls to The Life You Can Save’s help women and girls fund, and their all charities fund. 

Thanks!

Reply
2
Akhil
Added to an existing fund, although there is the option to give specifically to VAWG charities
Toby Tremlett🔹1
0
0

Thanks Akhil!

Reply
See in context
by Akhil
2 min read 7

115

Effective givingGlobal health & developmentOpportunities to take actionGlobal health and wellbeingWomen's health and welfareGiving Season (2023)
Frontpage

Summary

Ahead of International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November, I am very excited to announce the addition of several highly impactful charities focused on preventing violence against women and girls to The Life You Can Save’s help women and girls fund, and their all charities fund. 

 

Background

One in three women will experience physical or sexual violence, or both, in their lifetime. High quality studies show that preventing violence from occurring in the first instance are effective, and that community-led programs that aim to shift individual, interpersonal and society level attitudes and norms around gender are particularly effective (more information in this previous post). Violence against women and girls is undoubtedly an important area (more information here), and there are specific, cost-effective preventative interventions that can help address this global issue (more information here)

 

What is happening

The Life You Can Save is proud to provide recommendations for a broad range of important issue areas.  They are now adding nonprofits focused on preventing violence against women and girls - with far-reaching benefits to families and entire communities.

  • Center for Domestic Violence Prevention, CEDOVIP, is an Ugandan nonprofit that implements community-driven, cost-effective programming: $150 for a woman to live a year free from violence. Their program implementation has shown a 52% reduction in intimate partner violence, with effects that continue after 3 years.
  • Breakthrough Trust in India promotes culture-based change, focusing on girls and boys at ages 11-24 by redesigning school curricula and running mass media campaigns. Breakthrough’s programs reduce early marriage, increase girls enrollment in school and increase health care access.
  • Raising Voices (inclusion in fund pending due diligence)  identifies the most impactful ways of reducing violence against women and children -( including the programming implemented by CEDOVIP), supports evidence-generation on best practice in violence prevention, and has worked with over 600 organisations throughout Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America to build the capacity of community-based violence prevention centres. 
     

Caveats

While the data underscores the measurable success  and high cost-effectiveness of community-led programs in reducing violence (you can see here for some estimations of the same), it's crucial to recognize the profound, and enduring, and more intangible impact of such initiative in changing cultural and societal norms. Changing the culture that perpetuates violence creates freedom for women to thrive - reducing ongoing fear of violence, improving family and child wellbeing, and increasing women’s ability to contribute productively in society and the workforce. Long-term social change demands a multidimensional, intersectional approach, focusing on the transformation of attitudes and norms. These intangible benefits, immeasurable in their impact, work towards creating a more just and equitable world.


What you can do

If you would like to help contribute to ensure that violence against women and girls is prevented, and we can live in a world where respect, equity and understanding flourish, please consider donating to this fund. If you are interested in having a more extended chat or would like to consider a more bespoke/tailored giving strategy, please feel to reach out to me (via DM or email at akhilbansalsa@gmail.com) or TLYCS team.

 

Acknowledgements

 It was an honour to work as a fund manager alongside Ilona Arih, Matias Nestore and Katie Stanford, as well as the rest of the The Life You Can Save team


 

115

1
0
1

Reactions

1
0
1

More posts like this

Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
NickLaing2
0
0

Thanks Akhil! Can you point me to the study on CEDOVIP program and the research you are discussing. They seem to do as bunch of different things thanks!

Reply
Mo Putera1
0
0

Hi Nick, since Akhil mentioned TLYCS you may be keen to check out https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/best-charities/cedovip/ where they mention it "scaling the SASA! community mobilization program throughout Uganda efficiently and effectively". Akhil previously mentioned this program in footnote #3 of his VAWG report https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uH9akQzJkzpBD5Duw/what-you-can-do-to-help-stop-violence-against-women-and#fnshutzmwzwyj

Reply
NickLaing4
2
0

Thanks yes I get it now! I think it might be important (if the charity even allows) to have a mechanism to share only to that program rather than just the charity "in general" itself - much like Givewell does with Malaria Consortium's seasonal malaria prevention.

Otherwise a lot of money donated to that charity might go to less effective, unproven programs.

Reply
Mo Putera3
1
0

Absolutely agree. I'm unsure if donating to CEDOVIP via TLYCS helps you achieve this (vs donating directly to CEDOVIP) -- while their webpage only talks about the SASA! program, they don't clarify if the donations are directed as such.

Reply
Toby Tremlett🔹1
0
0

Hi Akhil. This seems like a great idea! 
To clarify- is this a new fund, or are new charities being added to an existing fund? I couldn't tell from this line: 

I am very excited to announce the addition of several highly impactful charities focused on preventing violence against women and girls to The Life You Can Save’s help women and girls fund, and their all charities fund. 

Thanks!

Reply
Akhil2
0
0

Added to an existing fund, although there is the option to give specifically to VAWG charities

Reply
Toby Tremlett🔹1
0
0

Thanks Akhil!

Reply
More from Akhil
333
What you can do to help stop violence against women and girls
Akhil
· · 19m read
24
24
199
Cause area report: Antimicrobial Resistance
Akhil
· · 6m read
32
32
268
New cause area: Violence against women and girls
Akhil
· · 13m read
61
61
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Neel Nanda
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
TL;DR Having a good research track record is some evidence of good big-picture takes, but it's weak evidence. Strategic thinking is hard, and requires different skills. But people often conflate these skills, leading to excessive deference to researchers in the field, without evidence that that person is good at strategic thinking specifically. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, but it's hard, and you shouldn't assume I succeed! Introduction I often find myself giving talks or Q&As about mechanistic interpretability research. But inevitably, I'll get questions about the big picture: "What's the theory of change for interpretability?", "Is this really going to help with alignment?", "Does any of this matter if we can’t ensure all labs take alignment seriously?". And I think people take my answers to these way too seriously. These are great questions, and I'm happy to try answering them. But I've noticed a bit of a pathology: people seem to assume that because I'm (hopefully!) good at the research, I'm automatically well-qualified to answer these broader strategic questions. I think this is a mistake, a form of undue deference that is both incorrect and unhelpful. I certainly try to have good strategic takes, and I think this makes me better at my job, but this is far from sufficient. Being good at research and being good at high level strategic thinking are just fairly different skillsets! But isn’t someone being good at research strong evidence they’re also good at strategic thinking? I personally think it’s moderate evidence, but far from sufficient. One key factor is that a very hard part of strategic thinking is the lack of feedback. Your reasoning about confusing long-term factors need to extrapolate from past trends and make analogies from things you do understand better, and it can be quite hard to tell if what you're saying is complete bullshit or not. In an empirical science like mechanistic interpretability, however, you can get a lot more fe
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
145
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
19
GiveWell is hiring a Talent Acquisition Specialist
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
View more