Hey William Kiely. I think this is a great idea and is in fact what Charity Science does. Historically we have raised $9 for ever $1 spent and we raise exclusively for GiveWell recommendations. If youâre interested in learning more, I recommend checking out our organizational breakdown page http://ââwww.charityscience.com/ââorganizational-breakdown.html
P.S. We are also looking for volunteers, employees and funding if you are interested in getting involved.
Awesome, Iâm glad to know someone is working on this. Iâm definitely going to check it out and see if it makes sense for me to get involved.
Do you have any idea why it isnât widely believed in the EA movement that donating to Charity Science is better than donating to GiveWellâs recommendations directly? (Or maybe most EAs do know this, and I just for some reason never heard people emphasizing this.)
So lots of people in the EA movement do donate to Charity Science. Some reasons others do not 1) They have not heard of Charity Science 2) Charity Science only accepts as much money as we can effectively spend (which historically has been pretty low.) 3) They are not convinced Charity Science will continue to have above 1:1 ratios on money moved. 4) They think other meta EA orgs are as effective or more effective.
I think part of the reason itâs not publicized as much as say donating directly to GW charities is for marketing/âPR reasons. e.g. Many people who are new to EA might be confused or turned off by the idea of a 100% overhead charity.
I read your organization breakdown page (as well as several of the linked documents) and will be submitting an application in the next week for an internship. Hopefully I can d something to help out.
Hey William Kiely. I think this is a great idea and is in fact what Charity Science does. Historically we have raised $9 for ever $1 spent and we raise exclusively for GiveWell recommendations. If youâre interested in learning more, I recommend checking out our organizational breakdown page http://ââwww.charityscience.com/ââorganizational-breakdown.html
P.S. We are also looking for volunteers, employees and funding if you are interested in getting involved.
Awesome, Iâm glad to know someone is working on this. Iâm definitely going to check it out and see if it makes sense for me to get involved.
Do you have any idea why it isnât widely believed in the EA movement that donating to Charity Science is better than donating to GiveWellâs recommendations directly? (Or maybe most EAs do know this, and I just for some reason never heard people emphasizing this.)
So lots of people in the EA movement do donate to Charity Science. Some reasons others do not 1) They have not heard of Charity Science 2) Charity Science only accepts as much money as we can effectively spend (which historically has been pretty low.) 3) They are not convinced Charity Science will continue to have above 1:1 ratios on money moved. 4) They think other meta EA orgs are as effective or more effective.
I think part of the reason itâs not publicized as much as say donating directly to GW charities is for marketing/âPR reasons. e.g. Many people who are new to EA might be confused or turned off by the idea of a 100% overhead charity.
Thanks, this is helpful.
I read your organization breakdown page (as well as several of the linked documents) and will be submitting an application in the next week for an internship. Hopefully I can d something to help out.