I think willingness to start new charities to fill identified gaps is important for the ecosystem.
There are already mechanisms working at each stage of this process. Trying to improve the system at one of these points sounds valuable. I have initial concerns about over-reach in trying to do all of it at once.
There might be a time-lag of years between step 2 and step 3.
I see two gaps that you might be addressing:
(1) The interventions with the highest potential aren’t the ones which get properly evaluated by RCTs (or there isn’t enough of this).
(2) The interventions with very good evidence from RCTs aren’t implemented by charities or aren’t scaled up appropriately.
I’m not certain whether either of these is a genuine gap, but they could be very valuable to address if they are. I’d love to see attention on figuring that out and choosing what to work on accordingly.
There are already mechanisms working at each stage of this process. Trying to improve the system at one of these points sounds valuable. I have initial concerns about over-reach in trying to do all of it at once.
One of the mechanisms working at one stage of this process is “people start charities because they learn about an under-implemented effective intervention.” You can “improve the system” by having there be more people who do this, i.e. by being one of those people. This isn’t doing a bunch of things at once, this is being one of the stages in the process.
(2) The interventions with very good evidence from RCTs aren’t implemented by charities or aren’t scaled up appropriately.
It’s pretty clear that this is true; for instance, GiveWell has a number of priority interventions that they do not currently recommend any charities in.
One of the mechanisms working at one stage of this process is “people start charities because they learn about an under-implemented effective intervention.” You can “improve the system” by having there be more people who do this, i.e. by being one of those people. This isn’t doing a bunch of things at once, this is being one of the stages in the process.
Absolutely agree with this—this was the major method of improving the system I had in mind (perhaps could have stood to be clearer about that).
It’s pretty clear that this is true; for instance, GiveWell has a number of priority interventions that they do not currently recommend any charities in.
I think this is a helpful data point but it doesn’t follow from this. GiveWell has had finite resources and has only been able to evaluate a certain number of charities. Additionally they have (with good reasons) strong desires for transparency in charities that they recommend. Both of these mean that there is quite a space of possibility for these interventions to be well-executed and scaled by existing charities. However, I’d ask GiveWell!
Does EA Ventures not share the goal—to facilitate and support high impact ventures that wouldn’t have happened (as well) otherwise? I’d have thought you’d have already discussed these issues having the fantastic staff etc. that you do?
No obligation to explain, but I’d love to know the reason for the downvote. I think downvotes are a useful source of feedback, and usually when I get one if I re-read my comment I can make an educated guess why. Here I’m not sure!
Thanks Owen. I agree with you on every point. Re. the possibility it might be too much to do all of them at once—this is why I want to focus now on having general research done that is needed before an EA could start a direct charity, before we focus on actually founding a charity.
Especially agree with your last paragraphs—this is why we’re (very likely) trying to fund someone to do this research.
(I’d love to do it myself, but unfortunately won’t have time for a project this size within the next year. If we can’t find someone willing to do it in that time frame, I might end up doing it myself.)
Is there not some value to tying up what we currently have for each of these stages in one place for potential entrepreneurs / people with potential RCT resource to see?
Quick thoughts:
I think willingness to start new charities to fill identified gaps is important for the ecosystem.
There are already mechanisms working at each stage of this process. Trying to improve the system at one of these points sounds valuable. I have initial concerns about over-reach in trying to do all of it at once.
There might be a time-lag of years between step 2 and step 3.
I see two gaps that you might be addressing:
(1) The interventions with the highest potential aren’t the ones which get properly evaluated by RCTs (or there isn’t enough of this).
(2) The interventions with very good evidence from RCTs aren’t implemented by charities or aren’t scaled up appropriately.
I’m not certain whether either of these is a genuine gap, but they could be very valuable to address if they are. I’d love to see attention on figuring that out and choosing what to work on accordingly.
One of the mechanisms working at one stage of this process is “people start charities because they learn about an under-implemented effective intervention.” You can “improve the system” by having there be more people who do this, i.e. by being one of those people. This isn’t doing a bunch of things at once, this is being one of the stages in the process.
It’s pretty clear that this is true; for instance, GiveWell has a number of priority interventions that they do not currently recommend any charities in.
Absolutely agree with this—this was the major method of improving the system I had in mind (perhaps could have stood to be clearer about that).
I think this is a helpful data point but it doesn’t follow from this. GiveWell has had finite resources and has only been able to evaluate a certain number of charities. Additionally they have (with good reasons) strong desires for transparency in charities that they recommend. Both of these mean that there is quite a space of possibility for these interventions to be well-executed and scaled by existing charities. However, I’d ask GiveWell!
Where did EA ventures get to with this? If human capital constrained—some kind of Teach First model might work / Rocket Internet model might work?
I’m not sure what you mean—where does EA Ventures come into this?
Does EA Ventures not share the goal—to facilitate and support high impact ventures that wouldn’t have happened (as well) otherwise? I’d have thought you’d have already discussed these issues having the fantastic staff etc. that you do?
No obligation to explain, but I’d love to know the reason for the downvote. I think downvotes are a useful source of feedback, and usually when I get one if I re-read my comment I can make an educated guess why. Here I’m not sure!
Your comment now seems to be at 100% positive, so maybe they downvoted you by accident and subsequently reversed it.
Looks right! I’d delete this comment thread, but don’t think I can.
You can ‘retract’ which crosses it out, signalling ‘don’t bother reading’.
Thanks Owen. I agree with you on every point. Re. the possibility it might be too much to do all of them at once—this is why I want to focus now on having general research done that is needed before an EA could start a direct charity, before we focus on actually founding a charity.
Especially agree with your last paragraphs—this is why we’re (very likely) trying to fund someone to do this research. (I’d love to do it myself, but unfortunately won’t have time for a project this size within the next year. If we can’t find someone willing to do it in that time frame, I might end up doing it myself.)
Is there not some value to tying up what we currently have for each of these stages in one place for potential entrepreneurs / people with potential RCT resource to see?
Yes—this is (before doing more research) what we want our intern to do. :-)