Thanks Ben! An earlier version of our strategy had a target timeline for achieving the BHAG, but we decided to delete it after receiving feedback that it's generally better for BHAGs not to have a specific timeline attached (e.g. given the large uncertainty and as it wouldn't really add much on top of the 1-3 year targets which we have set internally). However, if you pushed me, I'd personally say ballpark 10-15 years :).
Yep indeed, we're scaling up rather than down, but to achieve our ambitious goals we'll still need to focus :).
Sorry but I can't provide you with a precise time/cost estimate for all these projects currently (it also varies a lot over time, and could have varied a lot in the future); my best guess would be in the order of a few percentage points across the board, so a significant amount of resources and potential "distraction" from our strategy but not an overwhelming amount.
Thanks for these questions! I understand this may be a bit confusing.
On (1): as Karla suggests, this is a "back-end" change (i.e. about whether we do grantmaking for funds ourselves or transfer to the fund host organisations to do this), and it doesn't impact which supported programs we continue offering on our donation platform, including EA Funds and other funds, which will all become "charitable projects" by this definition.
On (2): Yes, we'll continue to maintain ANBI status in the Netherlands.
Thanks Harfe, I think it's technically captured by the framework (e.g. one can promote earning to give either through pledges or broad fundraising), but it doesn't fit neatly into it / come out of it naturally, so thanks for pointing it out! See also this other memo I wrote for my broader thoughts on this topic :).
Thank you for sharing this clear write-up with many lessons and best practices/tips that seem valuable for other organisations as well.
I've personally been consistently impressed with AAC's work and the way you are evaluating and constantly improving on your programmes over the past years, and very excited to see where you'll be going next!
Thanks a lot for doing this evaluation, Joel! You've been great to work with throughout the process, e.g. respectful of our time but also asking some good, challenging questions. I hope we'll see more external evaluations from CEARCH (and others) of effective giving organisations in the near future, as I think it will benefit the whole space in multiple ways (increased transparency and accountability, shared learnings, information for potential donors, etc.).
Thanks Elizabeth, Owen, Brad and Kirsten for the constructive feedback! I agree that the post in its current form doesn't live up to the epistemic standards we aspire to at GWWC, for many of the reasons you mention. My apologies for this.
The research team usually reviews any public impact claims we make, but this post slipped through the cracks of our review process in part because the main topic (i.e. "misconceptions about the pledge") didn't immediately seem research-related. We'll tighten up the process to prevent this from happening in the future. I've now also reviewed and we'll edit the post on the points you mentioned + a few others. We'll post here once that's done.
Congratulations both to Zach for taking on this important role and to CEA for finding such a capable candidate! Based on my personal interactions with Zach, I'm excited to see where he'll lead CEA and optimistic about him contributing to a strong, principles-based EA community. He seems to me a person both of high integrity and professionalism, who deeply cares about making the world a better place, and who is able to set and execute on a vision. From a GWWC perspective, also looking forward to collaborating with him in his new capacity on making effective giving and effective altruism principles more broadly more of a global norm!
Very excited about this, both about the clarification of scope and the scope itself.
I strongly agree there is currently a gap in terms of principles-first EA funders, and also largely agree with the way you've outlined "principles-first EA" here. I think this new scope will make me seriously consider becoming a donor to the EAIF in the new year.
Thanks Ben! An earlier version of our strategy had a target timeline for achieving the BHAG, but we decided to delete it after receiving feedback that it's generally better for BHAGs not to have a specific timeline attached (e.g. given the large uncertainty and as it wouldn't really add much on top of the 1-3 year targets which we have set internally). However, if you pushed me, I'd personally say ballpark 10-15 years :).
Yep indeed, we're scaling up rather than down, but to achieve our ambitious goals we'll still need to focus :).
Sorry but I can't provide you with a precise time/cost estimate for all these projects currently (it also varies a lot over time, and could have varied a lot in the future); my best guess would be in the order of a few percentage points across the board, so a significant amount of resources and potential "distraction" from our strategy but not an overwhelming amount.
Thanks for these questions! I understand this may be a bit confusing.
On (1): as Karla suggests, this is a "back-end" change (i.e. about whether we do grantmaking for funds ourselves or transfer to the fund host organisations to do this), and it doesn't impact which supported programs we continue offering on our donation platform, including EA Funds and other funds, which will all become "charitable projects" by this definition.
On (2): Yes, we'll continue to maintain ANBI status in the Netherlands.
Thanks Harfe, I think it's technically captured by the framework (e.g. one can promote earning to give either through pledges or broad fundraising), but it doesn't fit neatly into it / come out of it naturally, so thanks for pointing it out! See also this other memo I wrote for my broader thoughts on this topic :).
Thank you for sharing this clear write-up with many lessons and best practices/tips that seem valuable for other organisations as well.
I've personally been consistently impressed with AAC's work and the way you are evaluating and constantly improving on your programmes over the past years, and very excited to see where you'll be going next!
Thanks a lot for doing this evaluation, Joel! You've been great to work with throughout the process, e.g. respectful of our time but also asking some good, challenging questions. I hope we'll see more external evaluations from CEARCH (and others) of effective giving organisations in the near future, as I think it will benefit the whole space in multiple ways (increased transparency and accountability, shared learnings, information for potential donors, etc.).
Thanks Elizabeth, Owen, Brad and Kirsten for the constructive feedback! I agree that the post in its current form doesn't live up to the epistemic standards we aspire to at GWWC, for many of the reasons you mention. My apologies for this.
The research team usually reviews any public impact claims we make, but this post slipped through the cracks of our review process in part because the main topic (i.e. "misconceptions about the pledge") didn't immediately seem research-related. We'll tighten up the process to prevent this from happening in the future. I've now also reviewed and we'll edit the post on the points you mentioned + a few others. We'll post here once that's done.
Thanks again for holding us accountable!
Congratulations both to Zach for taking on this important role and to CEA for finding such a capable candidate! Based on my personal interactions with Zach, I'm excited to see where he'll lead CEA and optimistic about him contributing to a strong, principles-based EA community. He seems to me a person both of high integrity and professionalism, who deeply cares about making the world a better place, and who is able to set and execute on a vision. From a GWWC perspective, also looking forward to collaborating with him in his new capacity on making effective giving and effective altruism principles more broadly more of a global norm!
Agreed (though personally I might be willing to make a bet if e.g. fund manager selection is done well)
Very excited about this, both about the clarification of scope and the scope itself.
I strongly agree there is currently a gap in terms of principles-first EA funders, and also largely agree with the way you've outlined "principles-first EA" here. I think this new scope will make me seriously consider becoming a donor to the EAIF in the new year.