I think there are a lot of different ways to calculate impact. We generally try to follow GiveWellâs model as closely as possible as we have found them to be consistently stronger at truthful impact reporting. If we had used other meta-charitiesâ ways of calculating our impact, it would have been far higher (e.g. if we had included projections of future donations, or did not exclude counterfactuals as harshly as we did).
As for calculating our opportunity costs, I think this is an interesting question and a good thing to take into account. In our next impact report we will be sure to include these figures. For the time being we will put the calculations in this comment.
We based our calculations on what would happen if we did earning to give instead of running Charity Science. We took into account an estimate of earning based on each of our ages, time worked on CS, degree level, rate of taxes we would have to pay, cost of living, and the percentage each individual would donate, etc. We think we would have donated $45,500 in the first year. This may be substantially lower though, as Joey and I may have had to do some capacity-building to enter the for-profit sector, which would have cost time and money. It also assumes we find jobs immediately and have no extra job expenses such as clothing or travel. This gives a ratio of about 1:3 over the year, or 1:6 over the last 6 months.
In terms of replacements, I currently expect to hire minimum wage non-EA workers to do a large amount of the future fundraising (with either one ED staying as ED, or just having an EA heavy board). That is also worth keeping in mind if someone wants to calculate it from that perspective.
I really like people asking these sorts of questions. I hope to see this sort of rigour and these sorts of strong questions applied to all meta-charities consistently.
For the record, I think the $45,500 donations figure is a significant overestimate, even just considering the donations Iâd have counterfactually made given the limited amount of time I spent on fundraising this yearâindeed based on those I know that it is. (Iâd ask people to just trust that Iâm most aware of the factors behind my estimates for my donations.)
One thing which I guess we can spell out since people are wondering how much weâd donate is that this figure has Joey and Xio donating everything above $6,000 (ÂŁ3,157) a year each, post-tax. And it has me donating much more than I actually would, as my earnings in this limited time wouldnât push me over my theshold for donating everything as opposed to giving 10%. As it happens we think Charity Science is the best donation opportunity that we know of, so weâd donate to it.
I also think that a 1:6 ratio, let alone a 1:3 one, is misleadingly low.
Iâd be keen to see you include projections of future donations and other potentially important factors as well. I think itâs fine to do both so long as you make it clear. It seems silly to judge all EA orgs just by âmoney moved over the last yearâ (e.g. if we all did that, no-one would have given to GiveWell in their first couple of years, which would have been bad).
I think there are a lot of different ways to calculate impact. We generally try to follow GiveWellâs model as closely as possible as we have found them to be consistently stronger at truthful impact reporting. If we had used other meta-charitiesâ ways of calculating our impact, it would have been far higher (e.g. if we had included projections of future donations, or did not exclude counterfactuals as harshly as we did).
As for calculating our opportunity costs, I think this is an interesting question and a good thing to take into account. In our next impact report we will be sure to include these figures. For the time being we will put the calculations in this comment.
We based our calculations on what would happen if we did earning to give instead of running Charity Science. We took into account an estimate of earning based on each of our ages, time worked on CS, degree level, rate of taxes we would have to pay, cost of living, and the percentage each individual would donate, etc. We think we would have donated $45,500 in the first year. This may be substantially lower though, as Joey and I may have had to do some capacity-building to enter the for-profit sector, which would have cost time and money. It also assumes we find jobs immediately and have no extra job expenses such as clothing or travel. This gives a ratio of about 1:3 over the year, or 1:6 over the last 6 months.
In terms of replacements, I currently expect to hire minimum wage non-EA workers to do a large amount of the future fundraising (with either one ED staying as ED, or just having an EA heavy board). That is also worth keeping in mind if someone wants to calculate it from that perspective.
I really like people asking these sorts of questions. I hope to see this sort of rigour and these sorts of strong questions applied to all meta-charities consistently.
-Xio
For the record, I think the $45,500 donations figure is a significant overestimate, even just considering the donations Iâd have counterfactually made given the limited amount of time I spent on fundraising this yearâindeed based on those I know that it is. (Iâd ask people to just trust that Iâm most aware of the factors behind my estimates for my donations.)
One thing which I guess we can spell out since people are wondering how much weâd donate is that this figure has Joey and Xio donating everything above $6,000 (ÂŁ3,157) a year each, post-tax. And it has me donating much more than I actually would, as my earnings in this limited time wouldnât push me over my theshold for donating everything as opposed to giving 10%. As it happens we think Charity Science is the best donation opportunity that we know of, so weâd donate to it.
I also think that a 1:6 ratio, let alone a 1:3 one, is misleadingly low.
Iâd be keen to see you include projections of future donations and other potentially important factors as well. I think itâs fine to do both so long as you make it clear. It seems silly to judge all EA orgs just by âmoney moved over the last yearâ (e.g. if we all did that, no-one would have given to GiveWell in their first couple of years, which would have been bad).