CHARITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP

  • Incubation Program
    • Incubated Charities
  • Research
    • Charity Ideas
    • Animal Welfare Reports
    • Health Reports
  • About Us
    • Our Track Record
    • Jobs
    • CE Resources
    • Contact
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Sign up
  • Incubation Program
    • Incubated Charities
  • Research
    • Charity Ideas
    • Animal Welfare Reports
    • Health Reports
  • About Us
    • Our Track Record
    • Jobs
    • CE Resources
    • Contact
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Sign up

BLOG

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Cause Areas and Charity Ideas

1/23/2020

1 Comment

 
Picture

Cause areas

Unlike in previous years, we decided in 2020 to consider multiple different cause areas, which leaves more room for cause comparison. We think that generally, both entrepreneurs and donors have specific cause areas in mind when they attend or support our program. However, some have asked us for a sense of how the different cause areas, and more importantly, charities within them, compare.

We think each area has its strengths and weaknesses and at this level, it's hard to reliably compare because many assumptions (both ethical and epistemic) need to be made. This article offers a starting point for such comparisons. First we show roughly how our 2020 cause areas compare, and then we look back at and compare 
our recommended interventions from research done in 2019.
In 2019, our research focused on interventions for animals and within global health. As of 2020, we are considering the following four cause areas:
  • Mental health
  • Family planning
  • Animals
  • Health policy​​

2020 research: comparing cause areas

The table below shows our weighted factor model framing for our 2020 cause areas. Each area is color-coded from strongest to weakest.
Area Direct cost-effectiveness Relevant evidence Limiting factor* Execution difficulty Non-captured externalities**
Mental health Moderate Some Funding Easier EA movement
Family planning Low Moderate Logistical Complex Child, animals
Animals High Low Talent Easier Bar setting
Health policy High High Funding Complex Precedent
​* If the limiting factor cell is red, this means that the limiting factor will be met very quickly. Green means that the factor will be hard to meet. 
** If the non-captured externality cell is green, this means that the externalities are large and positive. If the cell is red, this means that externality is small.
Another way to frame this is in terms of more specific key strengths and weaknesses.
Area Strengths Weaknesses
Mental health
  • Directness of the subjective well-being metric and possible underrating of the area by other metrics

  • Possible promising cost-effectiveness for both low and high income countries

  • Strong to moderate evidence base and background research but limited prioritization work

  • Could encourage EA movement to consider more cause areas long term
  • Uncertain cost-effectiveness compared to top global health interventions

  • More theoretical and philosophical work that is required for assessment

  • More limited funding base particularly in the EA movement

  • Evidence base has a wider range of metrics used, making it more difficult to compare
Family planning
  • Strong funding outside of EA

  • Moderate evidence base

  • Under certain ethical views could be extremely impactful

  • Area has more limited use of CEAs than others in global health, leaving promising sub-areas neglected.

  • Diverse range of positive effects (e.g. unborn child benefits, family benefits, income benefits, etc.)
  • Maximizing multiple positive effects makes the charity harder to run

  • Size of impact depends on unsolved population ethics questions

  • Evidence is spread out between a wide range of metrics thus speculative conversions and comparisons need to be used

  • Can be a controversial intervention
Animals
  • Naive cost-effectiveness estimates generally show extremely high cost-effectiveness

  • High levels of historical neglect mean many promising charity ideas are not yet founded

  • Strong support both within and outside of the EA community

  • Very strong case that animals should be given moral weight
    • Very low evidence base compared to other areas

    • Some talent shortages in the movement that impair key charities

    • More limited externalities and flow-through effects than other cause areas
      High rate of non-effectiveness minded activists in the area
    Health policy
    • Naive cost-effectiveness estimates show higher cost-effectiveness than standard global health interventions and maybe all other human-focused areas

    • Evidence base fairly strong if confidence is established in causal relationship of lobbying
      • Extremely complex space resulting in a much higher than average chance of a charity having limited or no impact

      • More limited externalities and flow-through effects compared to other cause areas

      • Very high bar of charities that are already working in the space

      2019 research: comparing interventions

      Area Direct cost-effectiveness Relevant evidence Limiting factor Execution difficulty Non-captured externalities**
      Immunization reminders Low Moderate Funding Easy Limited
      Tobacco taxation High Mixed Policy windows Complex Precedent
      Iron and folic acid fortification Moderate Moderate Logistical Moderate Moderate
      Area Strengths Weaknesses
      Immunization reminders
      • Highly flexible and has great feedback loops. For example can move from SMS reminders to SMS + gossip reminders

      • Many impactful opportunities are still on the table due to the newness of the intervention
        Has a spectrum of success (unlike lobbying-based organizations)

      • Easier to get government buy-in on large scale projects
      • High cost-effectiveness can be hard to achieve (e.g. higher than GiveDirectly but not as high as other GiveWell top charities)

      • Behavior change makes concerns about external validity stronger

      • Almost all benefits are in saving lives of children under five, so limited externalities
      Tobacco taxation
      • Possibility of being extremely cost-effective

      • Provides learning opportunities as well as the ability to set a precedent if success is achieved

      • Often regarded as one of the most effective global health policy interventions that is not consistently applied in all countries

      • The evidence base that tobacco prevents a massive DALY burden and tobacco taxes reduce tobacco use is very strong
      • High-risk opportunity with a high chance of failure

      • Has active agents, namely tobacco companies, that push against interventions in this space
        The evidence base for the best strategies to use to get tobacco taxes raised is unclear

      • There are major difficulties in assessing the impact of a single organization in the space when multiple organizations are working in the same location
      Iron and folic acid fortification
      • Nutrition as a broad area is seen as a highly promising area by a wide range of external experts including GiveWell and the Copenhagen Consensus

      • Iron affects a wide range of health effects, often leading it to be undervalued in standard calculations. One example of this would be iron’s effects on depression rates

      • There are large gaps in fortification in lower-income countries
      • Certain locations are highly effective to run this intervention in (such as northern states in India) but there are fewer gaps than for other interventions

      • Medium risk opportunity with a medium chance of failure

      • There are many other nutrition-focused organizations, although none focusing on iron and folic acid in India

      • Sub-standard fortification may lead to a limited or non-impactful effect
      Area Direct cost-effectiveness Relevant evidence Limiting factor Execution difficulty Non-captured externalities
      Dissolved oxygen for fish Moderate High Logistical Moderate Moderate
      Food fortification for egg-laying hens Low High Logistical Low Moderate
      Ask research High Moderate Talent Moderate High
      Animal careers Moderate Low Replicability Low High
      Area Strengths Weaknesses
      Dissolved oxygen for fish
      • Extremely cost-effective when compared to other animal-focused interventions. The most cost-effective direct intervention we measured

      • Has a precedent in recent similar cage-free and broiler asks

      • Strong evidence base

      • Has strong pathways to funding as many donors consider fish a promising focus area

      • Has the possibility of shifting the animal movement’s fish focus in a much more effective direction
      • Upfront research required to determine key variables (e.g. optimal range of DO)
        Heterogeneity between species of fish makes it harder to generalize DO or other interventions.

      • Finding talent on the research side will be challenging in the animal space

      • Fish focused charities would likely eventually get started so the counterfactual impact comes from the sub-focus areas
      Food fortification for egg-laying hens
      • Strong evidence base relative to other interventions in the animal space

      • Less initial research needed before this organization could be founded

      • Feed cost is the largest single item cost in poultry production

      • Room for scaling to other food-related interventions

      • Nutrition is a well understood and cost-effective intervention
      • The timing might not be optimal due to recent cage-free campaigns

      • Lower cost-effectiveness than other animal charities
        Some concerns regarding counterfactual replaceability of the industry taking into account feed

      • There is a wide range of possible nutritional improvements with exact effects on pain of birds being less clear
      Ask research
      • There is limited research in both the animal movement as a whole and even less directly focused on asks that can be made of governments or corporations

      • This type of research seems tractable and compared to other research, has quick feedback loops

      • Given the low cost of a research organization focused on this and that it is possible to affect large corporate campaigns, it could be highly cost-effective

      • Effective altruists have a strong competitive advantage to found this idea
      • The impact depends strongly on the effectiveness of corporate and governmental campaigns
        Impact relies on NGOs and organizations updating based on research

      • Founders will have to be very strong in both research and communication skills
        Relatively few asks are chosen annually, so the feedback loops are slow and there is downtime between key choices
      Animal careers
      • Likely the charity idea the largest number of funders and activists will be excited about

      • Meta-charity that could lead to other charities being founded

      • Has a low floor for failure (even if done moderately well could have major benefits)

      • Has models that can be replicated as a starting point (CSO in testing ideas, 80,000 hours in organizational scope)

      • Could be very cost-effective if you take surveys of employee demand at face value

      • Can be done in a wide range of locations effectively
      • Relies on other charities in the animal movement being net positive and effective

      • Requires a high level of communication skills

      • Requires a broad understanding of a diverse movement

      • Co-founders will have to be comfortable with interorganizational interaction

      • Many will not understand the charity idea or how it helps the movement

      • Impact is indirect and hard to measure

      • Very limited historical research in the area so starting from scratch in many cases

      Picture

      AUTHOR

      Joey Savoie
      ​CE Strategy Director
      1 Comment
      Josh Jacobson
      2/17/2020 01:13:18 pm

      I was unfamiliar with some of these, but found CE's previous reports helpful for understanding them:

      Dissolved oxygen for fish: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vHhpzJje2UKOu2CvvaufbLyiu8WmuJfq/view

      Food fortification for egg-laying hens: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A0dGNqy7jYa5qQYeh7EOu169F8gmi-aY/view

      Ask research: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o9EyAWC0dD2RGlMpBZr8PeLUteoG450I/view

      Reply

      Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


      Leave a Reply.

        CE RESOURCES

        RSS Feed

        Categories

        All
        Animal Research
        Ask Research
        Broad Research
        CE Organization
        CE - Organization
        Corporate Outreach
        Family Planning Research
        How To Run A Charity
        Incubated Charities
        Incubation Program
        Mental Health Research
        Poverty Research
        Preparing To CE
        Reports - Animals
        Research
        Research Process
        Staying Altruistic
        Top Charity Ideas

        Additional Resources

        Archives

        January 2021
        December 2020
        November 2020
        October 2020
        September 2020
        August 2020
        June 2020
        May 2020
        April 2020
        March 2020
        February 2020
        January 2020
        December 2019
        November 2019
        October 2019
        September 2019
        August 2019
        July 2019
        May 2019
        April 2019
        March 2019
        February 2019
        January 2019
        December 2018
        November 2018
        October 2018
        September 2018
        August 2018
        July 2018
        June 2018
        August 2017
        April 2017
        February 2017
        December 2016
        November 2016
        June 2016
        May 2016
        April 2016
        March 2016
        February 2016
        January 2016
        October 2015
        August 2015
        February 2015
        December 2014
        September 2014
        May 2014
        January 2014

      About Us

      Charity Entrepreneurship (CE)  is a project of Charity Science Foundation of Canada, a foundation registered in Canada (charity number 80963 6236 RR0001). CE supports its incubated charities through a fiscal sponsorship with Players Philanthropy Fund (Federal Tax ID: 27-6601178), a Maryland charitable trust with federal tax-exempt status as a public charity under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to CE are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
      Privacy Policy: ​You can read our Privacy Policy here
      Terms of Use: You can read our Terms of Use here

      Connect

      Contact us

      Please use our contact form.