Thank you for the post about our organization. We’d like to provide some additional context that may help clarify to those interested.
SPI is indeed a very young, all-volunteer organization. We spent $0 in our entire first fiscal year (2024-2025) and remain underfunded in 2025, still operating on a volunteer basis.
Regarding our work: Much of our current efforts involve policy advocacy and preparation for litigation, which we keep confidential for operational reasons—sharing details publicly would compromise potential cases and policy advocacy strategies. This is not uncommon in certain arenas of legal and policy work. We are, however, happy to share information about our specific victories and interventions confidentially with interested funders who request it.
We understand VettedCauses’ methodology of requiring more transparency before making recommendations, and we respect that approach. However, we’d note that:
The nature of legal and legislative work often requires confidentiality
As a volunteer organization with zero budget in our first year, our capacity for public communications and website maintenance has been limited
We prioritize direct impact work over public relations when resources are constrained
To Eevee: Thank you for your support. We’re happy to provide you with updates; I’ve reached out on Slack.
We’re working to improve our public transparency as we grow, while balancing the operational security needs of our work. We welcome conversations with anyone who would like to learn more about our specific activities and impact. Thank you.
Edit: In response to VettedCauses’ concerns with our wording, we have changed the phrase “Much of our current efforts involve policy advocacy and litigation” with “Much of our current efforts involve policy advocacy and preparation for litigation” and changed “sharing details publicly would compromise pending cases and policy advocacy strategies” to “sharing details publicly would compromise potential cases and policy advocacy strategies” to ensure clarity. The original wording was meant to convey that these are general strategies we employ, but given possible ambiguity on the meaning of “pending cases” and “efforts involve policy advocacy and litigation,” we think the edited wording will ensure there is a lower likelihood of misunderstanding.
Thank you for the post about our organization. We’d like to provide some additional context that may help clarify to those interested.
SPI is indeed a very young, all-volunteer organization. We spent $0 in our entire first fiscal year (2024-2025) and remain underfunded in 2025, still operating on a volunteer basis.
Regarding our work: Much of our current efforts involve policy advocacy and preparation for litigation, which we keep confidential for operational reasons—sharing details publicly would compromise potential cases and policy advocacy strategies. This is not uncommon in certain arenas of legal and policy work. We are, however, happy to share information about our specific victories and interventions confidentially with interested funders who request it.
We understand VettedCauses’ methodology of requiring more transparency before making recommendations, and we respect that approach. However, we’d note that:
The nature of legal and legislative work often requires confidentiality
As a volunteer organization with zero budget in our first year, our capacity for public communications and website maintenance has been limited
We prioritize direct impact work over public relations when resources are constrained
To Eevee: Thank you for your support. We’re happy to provide you with updates; I’ve reached out on Slack.
We’re working to improve our public transparency as we grow, while balancing the operational security needs of our work. We welcome conversations with anyone who would like to learn more about our specific activities and impact. Thank you.
Edit: In response to VettedCauses’ concerns with our wording, we have changed the phrase “Much of our current efforts involve policy advocacy and litigation” with “Much of our current efforts involve policy advocacy and preparation for litigation” and changed “sharing details publicly would compromise pending cases and policy advocacy strategies” to “sharing details publicly would compromise potential cases and policy advocacy strategies” to ensure clarity. The original wording was meant to convey that these are general strategies we employ, but given possible ambiguity on the meaning of “pending cases” and “efforts involve policy advocacy and litigation,” we think the edited wording will ensure there is a lower likelihood of misunderstanding.