Happy to hear that, Thanks!
Yonatan Schoen
Karma: 138
Good point, thanks for bringing this up.
As you’ve mentioned, with the time constraints of the program, it was unreasonable for all data collection to occur within the program timeframe. So in most cases, we relied on high-quality evidence from prior research conducted by the nonprofits. So yes, the cost per nonprofit I mentioned doesn’t include data collection in most cases (which can be VERY costly, specifically when doing RCTs)
Some assessments did leverage experiments that had started before and continued during the program. And in select cases, we assisted nonprofits with parts of their data collection and experiment implementation through facilitation.
Thanks! I guess GW’s top charities will remain my go-to, but happily, we found some promising options for local donations
On SFI’s room for more funding—they’ve said they’re not looking to expand internationally right now. So with their current scope, I agree their funding capacity seems limited, even maintaining effectiveness. We’ve noted that for potential donors.
The tax reform question - @EdoArad was the internal reviewer for SFI’s report. He’d be the best person to speak to that.
And I totally agree with encouraging local donors to give across each of the top nonprofits we identified, without focusing on SFI.
Within this forum, we highlighted SFI since they were the only one we found already competitive internationally. But absolutely, spreading support across all 3-5 effective charities we identified is ideal for local donors.