trust needs to be painstakingly built and then maintained
perhaps in the cases where you would be ‘selling’ your solutions to ‘suspecting’ orgs, but here you would be just entertaining their thinking and the solutions would be actually theirs (EA does not already have solutions, it would have advanced them)
help them spend [funds] more effectively.
hm, this does seem to require some significant trust development effort because organizations may be hesitant to include external comers in their budgeting. Maybe, we are here to get them more funds by pro bono increasing their efficiency, highlighting their programs among donors if they meet evaluation transparency and effectiveness targets, and encouraging applying for grant opportunities they may not be aware of and helping them come up with effective evidence-based solutions by consultancy of experts in the field and its context.
Sure, I think HLI can be enthusiastic about sharing the wellbeing metric among global network-based orgs, beyond their current focus of within EA, due to the direct impact and attracting positive attention/developing trust by sharing something useful and innovative.
Some orgs have only local knowledge, maybe smaller local NGOs, possibly not those which you list (although I can imagine that IAESTE can have lesser awareness about cool ways of global powers’ advocacy than EA due to its focus—but maybe not the networks (who can e. g. work in the government)).
Cool!
meeting them where they are … how they currently function
makes sense
wait would you just like copy some parts of newsletters? I think for coordination/copiable material at CEA that is Jessica McCurdy. EA London has also great newsletter and could allow you to copy it. Presentations, I think Naomi Nederlof has some templates/reusable ones. The GWWC Giving Game could be a good intro (although the charities may still not be the best ones absolutely) - there should be GWWC representatives with it.
existing materials made by different EA orgs to spread good ideas
makes sense. Maybe the CE-incubated orgs will have more time to share ideas and it will sound more sincerely sharing ideas not e. g. AMF trying to get them donate for nets?
show us that we have more fields to work in
to prevent a negative perception, such as of large funders (who may be thinking - ‘almost at the end of the galaxy’) being overwhelmed or ‘slowed down’ by additional issues, I would present more opportunities (with possibly greater cost-effectiveness...) in the one or few existing fields (global health and development, global mental health and wellbeing, …). This seems like ‘getting’ better bargains that boost one’s progress (e. g. so that intergalactic expansion happens with an optimal system already in place).
still not run out of places to fund
yes, if this is the case then either the solutions did not work (the less cost-effective were selected) or market-based and institutionalized solutions are interpreted as ‘places to fund.’ It should really be possible to upskill people in emerging (and industrialized) economies to take good care for themselves (preventive healthcare, good relationships, skill building norms, animal welfare) for the cost of a radio campaign plus some community members’ word and get some profit-seeking investors build capital needed for some aspects (healthcare, relationships education, employment training and business recommendations, plant-based products processing). This should be all what people need to live good lives (do not need cars etc).
“lost ownership” you mean when a funder starts funding a program (e. g. builds a school) but then does not fund continued expenses (e. g. teachers’ pay)? It should always be the target that the maintenance ownership is ideally with the community/government/other responsible party since the beginning—or as soon as it is possible.
identifying [non-GiveWell EA-related orgs] and supporting them is an opportunity
yes, some ‘lazy’ funders can like it. Scaling these up can still be a great win.
Cool!
alternative lateral ways to influence the field and make it more aware of the issues that exist
… yeah, the problem of EA ah hah. But no—they know the issues exist just with them finding ways that these are applicable to their work (vice versa). For example, is a specific language model racially biased beyond court justice? How can the digital aspects of animal sanctuaries assure that no catastrophic event occurs (e. g. breakages, eliminated food supply due to calculation error, …)? - But ok, an argument for AI safety inclusion.
Cool!
learning by doing—reaching out, talking, finding common points, and then reporting back to others
yeah, that makes sense. You think the orgs would be interested in what their colleagues/‘competitors’ are saying? I suggest centering the dialogue around EA more explicitly.
ideas need to be well presented
yes, there should be some resource.
people and presentation skills … and at a later stage analytical
There should be plenty of people in EA with these skills. For past experience, maybe people who worked for EA orgs or ones in similar areas which are also quite effectiveness-focused? Maybe check out the Who wants to be hired? post (could apply for EAIF or some groups have project incubation funding …)
perhaps in the cases where you would be ‘selling’ your solutions to ‘suspecting’ orgs, but here you would be just entertaining their thinking and the solutions would be actually theirs (EA does not already have solutions, it would have advanced them)
I am actually not sure about this. In my experience, coming and saying “here, have some money, media exposure, and more attendees to your event in exchange for just putting a logo on the banner with no mandate on mentioning anything or changing anything, just keep doing what you’re doing” has been met with militant resistance. People (sometimes justly) believe that there’s always an end goal, and if we approach and say we wanna help, a reasonable answer is a raised eyebrow. Trust thus needs to be built even when we are merely trying to advance their ideas.
hm, this does seem to require some significant trust development effort because organizations may be hesitant to include external comers in their budgeting. Maybe, we are here to get them more funds by pro bono increasing their efficiency, highlighting their programs among donors if they meet evaluation transparency and effectiveness targets, and encouraging applying for grant opportunities they may not be aware of and helping them come up with effective evidence-based solutions by consultancy of experts in the field and its context.
As above, yeah
wait would you just like copy some parts of newsletters? I think for coordination/copiable material at CEA that is Jessica McCurdy. EA London has also great newsletter and could allow you to copy it. Presentations, I think Naomi Nederlof has some templates/reusable ones. The GWWC Giving Game could be a good intro (although the charities may still not be the best ones absolutely) - there should be GWWC representatives with it.
I agree, but there’d need to be someone possibly smarter than me selecting best articles, myself to advise on which ones would fly well with these audiences, perhaps even editing them. Even better is if we would give interviews for their internal magazines—so we need to pick speakers and such. Thanks for the resources, I’ve marked them all down, but once the effort starts, it’ll be quite a workload ahead!
makes sense. Maybe the CE-incubated orgs will have more time to share ideas and it will sound more sincerely sharing ideas not e. g. AMF trying to get them donate for nets?
Perhaps!
to prevent a negative perception, such as of large funders (who may be thinking - ‘almost at the end of the galaxy’) being overwhelmed or ‘slowed down’ by additional issues, I would present more opportunities (with possibly greater cost-effectiveness...) in the one or few existing fields (global health and development, global mental health and wellbeing, …). This seems like ‘getting’ better bargains that boost one’s progress (e. g. so that intergalactic expansion happens with an optimal system already in place).
Agreed!
yes, if this is the case then either the solutions did not work (the less cost-effective were selected) or market-based and institutionalized solutions are interpreted as ‘places to fund.’ It should really be possible to upskill people in emerging (and industrialized) economies to take good care for themselves (preventive healthcare, good relationships, skill building norms, animal welfare) for the cost of a radio campaign plus some community members’ word and get some profit-seeking investors build capital needed for some aspects (healthcare, relationships education, employment training and business recommendations, plant-based products processing). This should be all what people need to live good lives (do not need cars etc).
There is also the issue of “there are more problems than money/power/people to solve them”. Adding more money and helping existing money be better spent itself are all viable options, but even doubling current charity spending would hardly run out of things to fund.
“lost ownership” you mean when a funder starts funding a program (e. g. builds a school) but then does not fund continued expenses (e. g. teachers’ pay)? It should always be the target that the maintenance ownership is ideally with the community/government/other responsible party since the beginning—or as soon as it is possible.
When I say “Lost ownership” I mean the fear that a project gets overtaken by another organization and then mismanaged. If we approach a local Bosnian start-up charity and say “we have billions in our fund and want to fund you” they might fear losing autonomy. If we approach Rotary and say “the project you are doing, we could do more efficient” they also fear we will take the project and “run with it”. While rationally I can say “hey, as long as it gets done, it’s all good” but I understand people wanting to see something through. So we can say “hey, there’s so much to do, you do you, we’ll fund you a bit, help you be more efficient, and still have plenty of problems to assist outside of this area”.
yeah, that makes sense. You think the orgs would be interested in what their colleagues/‘competitors’ are saying? I suggest centering the dialogue around EA more explicitly.
I found that to be at least somewhat the case. They all keep their eyes on others to see what’s happening.
yes, there should be some resource.
I am going in this direction too with another EA, let’s see if we make something useful, we’ll share here!
There should be plenty of people in EA with these skills. For past experience, maybe people who worked for EA orgs or ones in similar areas which are also quite effectiveness-focused? Maybe check out the Who wants to be hired? post (could apply for EAIF or some groups have project incubation funding …)
Trust thus needs to be built even when we are merely trying to advance their ideas.
Gotcha.
Picking resources/speakers: Hm, ok. Some good ones which they’d also like..
even doubling current charity spending would hardly run out of things to fund
I am not arguing the upper limit ..
“there are more problems than money/power/people to solve them”
No, there is enough people with funding and agency just the skills to develop solutions and coordination to scale-up the inclusive and sustainable ones at the lowest marginal cost ..
Lost ownership: that sounds like a particularly suboptimal concept. I am sure when you approach the actual people, then it does not apply—they are like ‘why don’t you give us some more expert advice we really like your experts and also they help us apply for some of your funding which we are majorly concerned about—grantwriting’ If there are organizations that are not actually so much about solving problems as they are about caring in a way that perpetuates an unequal relationship and is based on emotional appeal then it can be ok to just let them be, in which case the approach can be: ‘you do you, what do you do here? well, that is very nice—we do some cost-effectiveness analyses for rational philanthropes—they love all these calculations and have grants open’ ‘grants open?’ ‘...’ But perhaps we are exactly agreeing here, or the outcome is equivalent.
perhaps in the cases where you would be ‘selling’ your solutions to ‘suspecting’ orgs, but here you would be just entertaining their thinking and the solutions would be actually theirs (EA does not already have solutions, it would have advanced them)
hm, this does seem to require some significant trust development effort because organizations may be hesitant to include external comers in their budgeting. Maybe, we are here to get them more funds by pro bono increasing their efficiency, highlighting their programs among donors if they meet evaluation transparency and effectiveness targets, and encouraging applying for grant opportunities they may not be aware of and helping them come up with effective evidence-based solutions by consultancy of experts in the field and its context.
Sure, I think HLI can be enthusiastic about sharing the wellbeing metric among global network-based orgs, beyond their current focus of within EA, due to the direct impact and attracting positive attention/developing trust by sharing something useful and innovative.
Some orgs have only local knowledge, maybe smaller local NGOs, possibly not those which you list (although I can imagine that IAESTE can have lesser awareness about cool ways of global powers’ advocacy than EA due to its focus—but maybe not the networks (who can e. g. work in the government)).
Cool!
makes sense
wait would you just like copy some parts of newsletters? I think for coordination/copiable material at CEA that is Jessica McCurdy. EA London has also great newsletter and could allow you to copy it. Presentations, I think Naomi Nederlof has some templates/reusable ones. The GWWC Giving Game could be a good intro (although the charities may still not be the best ones absolutely) - there should be GWWC representatives with it.
makes sense. Maybe the CE-incubated orgs will have more time to share ideas and it will sound more sincerely sharing ideas not e. g. AMF trying to get them donate for nets?
to prevent a negative perception, such as of large funders (who may be thinking - ‘almost at the end of the galaxy’) being overwhelmed or ‘slowed down’ by additional issues, I would present more opportunities (with possibly greater cost-effectiveness...) in the one or few existing fields (global health and development, global mental health and wellbeing, …). This seems like ‘getting’ better bargains that boost one’s progress (e. g. so that intergalactic expansion happens with an optimal system already in place).
yes, if this is the case then either the solutions did not work (the less cost-effective were selected) or market-based and institutionalized solutions are interpreted as ‘places to fund.’ It should really be possible to upskill people in emerging (and industrialized) economies to take good care for themselves (preventive healthcare, good relationships, skill building norms, animal welfare) for the cost of a radio campaign plus some community members’ word and get some profit-seeking investors build capital needed for some aspects (healthcare, relationships education, employment training and business recommendations, plant-based products processing). This should be all what people need to live good lives (do not need cars etc).
“lost ownership” you mean when a funder starts funding a program (e. g. builds a school) but then does not fund continued expenses (e. g. teachers’ pay)? It should always be the target that the maintenance ownership is ideally with the community/government/other responsible party since the beginning—or as soon as it is possible.
yes, some ‘lazy’ funders can like it. Scaling these up can still be a great win.
Cool!
… yeah, the problem of EA ah hah. But no—they know the issues exist just with them finding ways that these are applicable to their work (vice versa). For example, is a specific language model racially biased beyond court justice? How can the digital aspects of animal sanctuaries assure that no catastrophic event occurs (e. g. breakages, eliminated food supply due to calculation error, …)? - But ok, an argument for AI safety inclusion.
Cool!
yeah, that makes sense. You think the orgs would be interested in what their colleagues/‘competitors’ are saying? I suggest centering the dialogue around EA more explicitly.
yes, there should be some resource.
There should be plenty of people in EA with these skills. For past experience, maybe people who worked for EA orgs or ones in similar areas which are also quite effectiveness-focused? Maybe check out the Who wants to be hired? post (could apply for EAIF or some groups have project incubation funding …)
Thanks for another well thought out response!
I am actually not sure about this. In my experience, coming and saying “here, have some money, media exposure, and more attendees to your event in exchange for just putting a logo on the banner with no mandate on mentioning anything or changing anything, just keep doing what you’re doing” has been met with militant resistance. People (sometimes justly) believe that there’s always an end goal, and if we approach and say we wanna help, a reasonable answer is a raised eyebrow. Trust thus needs to be built even when we are merely trying to advance their ideas.
As above, yeah
I agree, but there’d need to be someone possibly smarter than me selecting best articles, myself to advise on which ones would fly well with these audiences, perhaps even editing them. Even better is if we would give interviews for their internal magazines—so we need to pick speakers and such. Thanks for the resources, I’ve marked them all down, but once the effort starts, it’ll be quite a workload ahead!
Perhaps!
Agreed!
There is also the issue of “there are more problems than money/power/people to solve them”. Adding more money and helping existing money be better spent itself are all viable options, but even doubling current charity spending would hardly run out of things to fund.
When I say “Lost ownership” I mean the fear that a project gets overtaken by another organization and then mismanaged. If we approach a local Bosnian start-up charity and say “we have billions in our fund and want to fund you” they might fear losing autonomy. If we approach Rotary and say “the project you are doing, we could do more efficient” they also fear we will take the project and “run with it”. While rationally I can say “hey, as long as it gets done, it’s all good” but I understand people wanting to see something through. So we can say “hey, there’s so much to do, you do you, we’ll fund you a bit, help you be more efficient, and still have plenty of problems to assist outside of this area”.
I found that to be at least somewhat the case. They all keep their eyes on others to see what’s happening.
I am going in this direction too with another EA, let’s see if we make something useful, we’ll share here!
That’s the idea!
Thank you too.
Gotcha.
Picking resources/speakers: Hm, ok. Some good ones which they’d also like..
I am not arguing the upper limit ..
No, there is enough people with funding and agency just the skills to develop solutions and coordination to scale-up the inclusive and sustainable ones at the lowest marginal cost ..
Lost ownership: that sounds like a particularly suboptimal concept. I am sure when you approach the actual people, then it does not apply—they are like ‘why don’t you give us some more expert advice we really like your experts and also they help us apply for some of your funding which we are majorly concerned about—grantwriting’ If there are organizations that are not actually so much about solving problems as they are about caring in a way that perpetuates an unequal relationship and is based on emotional appeal then it can be ok to just let them be, in which case the approach can be: ‘you do you, what do you do here? well, that is very nice—we do some cost-effectiveness analyses for rational philanthropes—they love all these calculations and have grants open’ ‘grants open?’ ‘...’ But perhaps we are exactly agreeing here, or the outcome is equivalent.