Nonprofit accounting researcher. I mostly study private foundations and how donors use accounting information in their giving decision-making. My agenda aligns strongly with the effective giving topic.
Trustee at CEEALAR
Kyle Smith
Karma: 449
Perfect!! Thank you.
Project Idea:
While completing the EA intro course, I was thinking about how private foundations give $60b a year, largely to ineffective charities. I was wondering if that may present an opportunity for a small organization that works to redirect PF grants to effective charities.
I see two potential angles of attack:
Lobby/consult with PF on making effective grants. Givewell does the hard job of evaluating charities, but a more boutique solution could be useful to private foundations.
I have a large dataset of electronically filed 990-PFs, and I thought it may be useful to try to identify PF that are more likely to be persuaded by this sort of lobbying. For example, foundations that are younger, already give to international charities, and give to a large number of charities (there’s a lot of interesting criteria that could be used). A list could be generated for PF that are more likely to redirect funds which could be targeted.
Target grantmakers by offering training, attending conferences, etc. on effective grantmaking. (maybe some other EA aligned org is doing this?)
Givewell says they have directed ~$1b in effective gifts since 2011. Even if only a small number of foundations could be persuaded, the total dollars driven could be pretty large. And for a pretty small investment I think.Short introduction: My name is Kyle Smith, I am an assistant professor of accounting at Mississippi State University. My research is mostly on how donors use accounting reports in their giving decisions. I have done some archival research examining how private foundations use accounting information, and am starting up a qualitative study where we are going to interview grantmakers to understand how they use accounting information in their grantmaking process.
Does anyone know of any orgs specifically working on this problem?
I’ve thought about something similar. I’m surprised no one has done it yet.
I was thinking you could click on a bunch of different organizations, and it will show the resulting QALY or whatever metric.
Like for example, there’d be a bunch of orgs with nice ‘cost to save a life’ information, then if you clicked on donating to your university it will display something like the annual interest of your donation as part of the endowment..? Just as a way to illustrate differences in impact.
Hi Ben, thanks for the note. It does appear these two orgs are doing something fairly similar, primarily offering bespoke consulting for large donors.
I’d agree these two aren’t taking a systematic approach, which is really what I had in mind. I think I’ll reach out to both to figure out their scope.
I read that CE post, it does make sense as a way to reach the goal. But they are focused on creating new foundations.
Your point about statutes is well taken. For example, community foundations would be a poor target. I think the data approach could help deal with that.
Oh I think I misread the post a bit—I thought all of the foundations were brand new but it seems there is a part that says that some had already existed before the program.
This program is pretty similar to what I had in mind. It seems though that this program will only reach a small number of foundations and likely those already semi-aligned with EA.
This looks great! Thanks.
This looks great Irene, thank you!!!
I think it would be very cool if you could find a way to pay for the credit card fees for donors. It seems donors really love these “100% model” approaches where they pay for 0 overhead. And I think they may like the idea that $10 given is $10 donated.
Though I’m not sure there is really any logistical way for you to do so? If it all happens on their end?
I am definitely working on that. Early returns suggest that this type of approach is outside their strategic plan. I think option (2) is ideal, but I’m not sure they will be up for that.
Fair point, the name is really just a placeholder.
Great observation Geoffrey. One of the data points most important is to determine if the PF is a family foundation. I don’t have much knowledge of family offices that don’t include a PF, but that seems like a very smart group to target!
Hi Nick,
I really appreciate your insight here. I’ve been thinking lately about lobbying the IRS in the US to require cost effectiveness disclosures in yearly reports. There are a couple concerns I have...
1: if it is even possible to convince the IRS to add cost effectiveness disclosures to the 990
2: if orgs have the expertise/capacity to evaluate their programs
3: I think the disclosure requirement must be VERY vague to allow orgs to disclose what they think is most appropriate
4: lack of oversight means these disclosure could be easily exaggerated
Benefits:
Within a similar outcome, effectiveness could be compared across orgs. Something we have never been able to do without folks like Givewell, so things like the program ratio (ew) are used by many donors.
What gets measured gets managed, so this will likely lead to orgs operating more effectively overall.
Fair points, and the idea is certainly a massive longshot.
It’s unclear to me exactly how the decision for the big redesign in 2007 was made, and if congress was involved at all. My guess is that a change like this could be made just by the IRS.
I am FAR from an expert on evaluation but even if orgs just reported outputs (X people helped, Y houses built, etc.), that information would be immensely useful. Guidestar is allowing orgs to disclose output metrics to get a platinum seal, but this is a voluntary disclosure. Form 990 could use a similar library of metrics for orgs to select from and make disclosure mandatory. I don’t think the form would be like EA at all—but the data would be extremely useful for donors/orgs trying to actually evaluate charity effectiveness.
At the end of the day, orgs may just completely BS the outputs so the idea certainly needs some work. Maybe encourage audits of outcomes?
I think an important aspect of the theory of change could be showing participants that their priors on the cost to save a life are very wrong especially with regard to domestic v. international charities. Ultimately, this could lead to donors giving more internationally.
My understanding is that most donors prefer to make an impact on their local community/country, but that preference may weaken if they learn that the impact of their dollars are an order of magnitude more impactful internationally.
I’m going to be annoying and not really answer your question.
I think you should focus on yourself and your mental health. Go to therapy, build some skills, and ultimately help yourself before you try to help others.
I firmly believe IQ really does not matter. In my view, different people simply have different strengths and weaknesses. There are aspects of me that made it possible for me to complete a PhD, but those same aspects (and others) made me a poor worker in a traditional work environment. It is critical that you identify the things you like and are good at. Every person has something to offer, you just have to figure out what that thing is. There is a career that makes sense for you.
Below you say you are really useless, I can assure you that you are not.
I’m an early career academic (accounting) and this was a big discussion in my phd program.
As a phd student, we completed multiple replications as an exercise in learning the research process. It is exhausting work, in part because authors often don’t explain their methodology in sufficient detail to complete an exact replication. Best we could hope for was similar sample/descriptives/coefficients on main tests after following their process as best we could.
Another issue is that in many cases, the data used is proprietary and cannot be shared due to a data license agreement.
As you allude to, the main problem is that there is no real incentive for active researchers to work on replications, because generally journals do not usually publish replications (and of course, publish or perish!). You do occasionally see papers that are published which point out a major flaw in a published article, but these are rare and controversial (why make an enemy?).
I know there have been some studies that basically show that a very large (50%?) percentage of papers (I think in econ/finance/accounting) cannot be replicated, which is obviously concerning, and points to the scope of the problem.
I think the most successful work that could be done in this area is lobbying journals to:
Require authors to include both their data and code and open-source it.
If that isn’t possible, require authors to include data and code specifically to the anonymous reviewers + editor.
If that isn’t possible, journals should employ an expert on methods who’s full time job is replicating new studies.
I cannot stress enough how expensive this person would be and journals probably wouldn’t be willing to pay.
You would have to 3x my compensation AND you would have to guarantee me I would only replicate studies in my niche research area to do this job. And I still would probably decline an offer to do this work, it would suck that much.
I appreciate this post and agree with your points. Especially that of having some outside-EA board members. I am an academic and my research is EA-adjacent, but I have no ties to any EA org/cause area, which would reduce perceived conflicts of interest (which I have seen discussed on the forum). I also believe there is a lot that an EA org could learn (especially related to governance/transparency best practices) from a board member that has a lot of experience in traditional nonprofit work (especially at a large organization).
I would add that it would be very desirable for prominent EA organizations to also create junior boards (or just have a few designated junior board members). Junior boards have a lot of benefits:
Younger professionals may be able to invest more time than more senior/prominent professionals
It creates a pipeline of board talent in the EA community
There are a TON of early-career EAs who are passionate about advancing their career and a junior board is an excellent opportunity for them to do so
For me personally, I am a relatively-early career professional (not working at an EA org) who wants to give back to the community as a board member, but frankly I don’t believe I quite have the experience to join a big-time board (for example, I applied for the EV open call, but really have 0 expectation that I qualify for a short list). The alternative is to find a smaller org to join, but that is also quite challenging.
I think it depends a lot on the org and their needs. In an EA context, I think it makes sense for junior boards to possibly take on a larger share of the board work, while taking a smaller share of the decision making. Then eventually they can move into more senior board positions when they have more experience.
My experience is with university young alumni boards, which do a few things differently than the main board:
The junior board is pretty large, and a big purpose is to bring in the successful early career alumni to cultivate them as future board members/donors.
Junior boards do a lot of committee/active work with students/departments. In part this is good because they are more relatable than big time CEOs in their 50s, and in part it keeps them engaged for point 1 above.
They have pretty much no decision making authority, other than their own internal board rules/membership. Though my experience is with college-level boards, where even the main board has no real power/authority.
Does something similar exist for orgs looking for board members? I’m interested in joining a board.