A story in the NY Times about how a town's mayor made an appeal on
YouTube and got lots of donations. I think this counts as a "call for
aid". It might be interesting to see how effective it actually was:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/world/asia/07plea.html

In the 11-minute recording, the mayor, Katsunobu Sakurai, described
the dire situation facing Minamisoma, whose residents were still
reeling from a devastating earthquake and 60-foot tsunami when they
were ordered to stay indoors because of radiation leaks from Japan’s
crippled nuclear plant, 15 miles away. Those who had not fled now
faced starvation, he said, as they were trapped in their homes or
refugee shelters by the nuclear alert, which also prevented shipments
of food from arriving.

“We are left isolated,” Mr. Sakurai said urgently into the camera, his
brow furrowed and his voice strained with exhaustion. “I beg you, as
the mayor of Minamisoma city, to help us.”

The video, posted on YouTube a day after it was recorded late on the
night of March 24, became an instant sensation, and has since drawn
more than 200,000 viewers. Almost two weeks later, the city hall is
still getting phone calls, most from non-Japanese calling from abroad
with offers to help. The city has also received hundreds of boxes of
food and other supplies from individuals, and truckloads of relief
goods from nonprofit organizations.

“It’s amazing how many of these donors say they saw us on YouTube,”
said Noriyoshi Saito, who works in the City Hall economic section and
is in charge of handling donated goods.

Mr. Sakurai described the online plea as a turning point in
Minamisoma’s struggle against the triple disaster, which for a time
had transformed this city of 75,000 people into a virtual ghost town.
Some 50,000 residents fled in the first two weeks after the
earthquake, though a small number have begun trickling back.

Mr. Sakurai credited the large-scale response to his video with
helping those who remained in the stricken city to carry on.

Dear Givewell folk,

[Note: The email was originally sent to info@... but they
replied suggesting that I broadcast this to the GiveWell mailing list
so that both the questions and their answers are on official record]

This is a somewhat miscellaneous email with some
questions/concerns. I'd love to hear your responses:

(1) Japan: You seem to have been spending a lot of effort in recent
weeks on Japan. What's the rationale behind this? It seems to me that
too much of the news media and popular attention is anyway focused on
Japan. I see GiveWell's strength in thinking about medium-to-long-term
solutions rather than disaster relief.

I understand that GiveWell's main effort has been to try to caution
people against giving money to Japan, but what about the effort that
you as an organization have been spending in the process? This is
effort that could be devoted to identifying the next gold medal
charity.

I'm probably missing some information or thinking behind your recent
Japan focus, and would be interested in knowing more. Also, it may be
that the impression I get about the effort you are putting in is
exaggerated because of the number of blog posts. Or that many other
prospective donors are asking you questions about Japan and you must
respond to their needs.

(2) India orgs: You said you were going to do a series of blog posts
about the charities in India that you visited during your stay in
Mumbai. When will these blog posts be forthcoming?

(3) Identifying the next gold medal organization: What
success/progress have you had so far in identifying the next gold
medal organization?

If you will not be able to identify the next gold medal organization,
then to me that is an argument _against_ my donating to
VillageReach. I have given my reasoning below, and I would be
interested if you have thoughts on the matter.

Here's my reasoning: Based on current estimates, assuming that
VillageReach continues to retain its Gold Medal status and GiveWell
maintains or slightly increases its influence and donation amounts,
VillageReach will get all the money necessary for its Mozambique
expansion. It's also unclear whether they will be able to absorb
additional funds to consider wholly new programs -- I get the
impression that they took some time to fully adjust to the funding
influx after December. On the other hand, if VillageReach loses its
Gold Medal status, then donating to them may not make that much
sense. So either way, it seems that unless you think you are on the
verge of identifying new gold medal orgs, donating to VillageReach
makes less sense than it used to.

A little clarification: By and large, I find the silver medal orgs
fairly good, but not worth my money. There are a number of other
philanthropic endeavors that I am interested in, and silver medal orgs
get beaten by some of those other causes. In the absence of gold medal
orgs, I would not use GiveWell's recommendations. However, for those
who find the silver medal orgs fairly good uses of their money as
well, the reasoning I have given above does not apply.

Keep up the good work!

Vipul

I'd like to stick up a bit for GiveWell here.  It is difficult when
the disaster in Japan is so salient and has tugged at everyone's
heartstrings, to recommend putting your money elsewhere.  It can sound
like Givewell doesn't care about people in Japan.

I don't think that is the case.  GiveWell tries to find the charities
that do the most good for the dollar.  There are many reasons why
disaster relief, in general, may be far down the list in terms of good
for the dollar.  One is that attempts to save lives be very, very
costly per life saved.  Rescue efforts with expensive equipment might
costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per life actually
saved.  Also, money rushed in in a crisis may be poorly used due to
inevitable confusion about how to proceed quickly.

Meanwhile, there are other charities where a life of a child might be
saved for a hundred dollars or less.  That child will not be part of
your awareness, because there is no day to day coverage of the
thousands of people dying every day from AIDS, TB, malaria, and so on.
   But his/her life matters just as much.

If television made it as possible to vividly imagine the plight of
people in poor countries dying from preventable diseases as it does to
vividly imagine the plight of people in Japan, you might feel
differently.

Ron




Quoting Vipul Naik <vipul@...>:

> Dear Givewell folk,
>
> [Note: The email was originally sent to info@... but they
> replied suggesting that I broadcast this to the GiveWell mailing list
> so that both the questions and their answers are on official record]
>
> This is a somewhat miscellaneous email with some
> questions/concerns. I'd love to hear your responses:
>
> (1) Japan: You seem to have been spending a lot of effort in recent
> weeks on Japan. What's the rationale behind this? It seems to me that
> too much of the news media and popular attention is anyway focused on
> Japan. I see GiveWell's strength in thinking about medium-to-long-term
> solutions rather than disaster relief.
>
> I understand that GiveWell's main effort has been to try to caution
> people against giving money to Japan, but what about the effort that
> you as an organization have been spending in the process? This is
> effort that could be devoted to identifying the next gold medal
> charity.
>
> I'm probably missing some information or thinking behind your recent
> Japan focus, and would be interested in knowing more. Also, it may be
> that the impression I get about the effort you are putting in is
> exaggerated because of the number of blog posts. Or that many other
> prospective donors are asking you questions about Japan and you must
> respond to their needs.
>
> (2) India orgs: You said you were going to do a series of blog posts
> about the charities in India that you visited during your stay in
> Mumbai. When will these blog posts be forthcoming?
>
> (3) Identifying the next gold medal organization: What
> success/progress have you had so far in identifying the next gold
> medal organization?
>
> If you will not be able to identify the next gold medal organization,
> then to me that is an argument _against_ my donating to
> VillageReach. I have given my reasoning below, and I would be
> interested if you have thoughts on the matter.
>
> Here's my reasoning: Based on current estimates, assuming that
> VillageReach continues to retain its Gold Medal status and GiveWell
> maintains or slightly increases its influence and donation amounts,
> VillageReach will get all the money necessary for its Mozambique
> expansion. It's also unclear whether they will be able to absorb
> additional funds to consider wholly new programs -- I get the
> impression that they took some time to fully adjust to the funding
> influx after December. On the other hand, if VillageReach loses its
> Gold Medal status, then donating to them may not make that much
> sense. So either way, it seems that unless you think you are on the
> verge of identifying new gold medal orgs, donating to VillageReach
> makes less sense than it used to.
>
> A little clarification: By and large, I find the silver medal orgs
> fairly good, but not worth my money. There are a number of other
> philanthropic endeavors that I am interested in, and silver medal orgs
> get beaten by some of those other causes. In the absence of gold medal
> orgs, I would not use GiveWell's recommendations. However, for those
> who find the silver medal orgs fairly good uses of their money as
> well, the reasoning I have given above does not apply.
>
> Keep up the good work!
>
> Vipul
>

Dear Anil,

I applaud your compassion, and I want people in Japan to be saved too.
   I think what GiveWell is saying is, if you are just going to give a
fixed number of dollars, where should those dollars go?  If you are
only going to give a fixed amount, you might save more lives by giving
to something other than disaster relief.

That isn't to say disaster relief isn't worthwhile.  If someone who
wasn't going to give anything at all to charity decides to give to
disaster relief, then I think that is probably a very good thing.
That money, hopefully, is better spent on victims of disaster than it
is on whatever it would have been spent on otherwise:  A few more
lattes, a few more dinners at fancy restaurants, etc.  If I'm giving
nothing, I have no business criticizing someone giving to disaster
relief for Japan.

And we agree whatever the aim of the charity, it is best if the money
is used efficiently.  GiveWell is aware of this issue.  That's why
they've done a lot of research and identified Village Reach as an
organization that not only aims at medical interventions which can be
cost-effective, but actually intervenes in a cost-effective manner.



Quoting anil mahajan <anilanilm@...>:

> Dear ron
>
> i agree with you, partially. What u said about the high costs involved in
> saving lives is too high, the question is then what happens to people who
> are victims of disastors, such as the one which took place in Japan and for
> that matter elsewhere in the world. Who will save them. Yes money sent is
> poorly used and also chances that some would never reach the victims.
> Inspite of these factors and facts, we need to devise strategies to save
> lives.
>
> You are fully justified when you talk of HIV/ Malaria and so on. However, my
> experience for last twelve years when I am associated with HIV programs is
> different. Here also only 20-25 percent of funds coming for helping HIV
> infected and affected is actually utilized for the cause and rest goes into
> the account (personal) of people incharge of implementation and this is in a
> way amounts to cheating and misuse of funds.
>
> I feel we have somewhere failed to seal these gaps even though we all are
> aware of there existance and this may be solely due to lack of a system of
> identifying honest NGOs to implement programs and secondly most of the NGOs
> are choosen because someone knows someone there. These are quite disturbing
> facts and very rarely someone shows interest to discuss and find solutions
> for those.
>
> Anil
> mumbai/India
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM, <rnoble@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to stick up a bit for GiveWell here. It is difficult when
>> the disaster in Japan is so salient and has tugged at everyone's
>> heartstrings, to recommend putting your money elsewhere. It can sound
>> like Givewell doesn't care about people in Japan.
>>
>> I don't think that is the case. GiveWell tries to find the charities
>> that do the most good for the dollar. There are many reasons why
>> disaster relief, in general, may be far down the list in terms of good
>> for the dollar. One is that attempts to save lives be very, very
>> costly per life saved. Rescue efforts with expensive equipment might
>> costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per life actually
>> saved. Also, money rushed in in a crisis may be poorly used due to
>> inevitable confusion about how to proceed quickly.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there are other charities where a life of a child might be
>> saved for a hundred dollars or less. That child will not be part of
>> your awareness, because there is no day to day coverage of the
>> thousands of people dying every day from AIDS, TB, malaria, and so on.
>> But his/her life matters just as much.
>>
>> If television made it as possible to vividly imagine the plight of
>> people in poor countries dying from preventable diseases as it does to
>> vividly imagine the plight of people in Japan, you might feel
>> differently.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> Quoting Vipul Naik <vipul@...>:
>>
>> > Dear Givewell folk,
>> >
>> > [Note: The email was originally sent to info@... but they
>> > replied suggesting that I broadcast this to the GiveWell mailing list
>> > so that both the questions and their answers are on official record]
>> >
>> > This is a somewhat miscellaneous email with some
>> > questions/concerns. I'd love to hear your responses:
>> >
>> > (1) Japan: You seem to have been spending a lot of effort in recent
>> > weeks on Japan. What's the rationale behind this? It seems to me that
>> > too much of the news media and popular attention is anyway focused on
>> > Japan. I see GiveWell's strength in thinking about medium-to-long-term
>> > solutions rather than disaster relief.
>> >
>> > I understand that GiveWell's main effort has been to try to caution
>> > people against giving money to Japan, but what about the effort that
>> > you as an organization have been spending in the process? This is
>> > effort that could be devoted to identifying the next gold medal
>> > charity.
>> >
>> > I'm probably missing some information or thinking behind your recent
>> > Japan focus, and would be interested in knowing more. Also, it may be
>> > that the impression I get about the effort you are putting in is
>> > exaggerated because of the number of blog posts. Or that many other
>> > prospective donors are asking you questions about Japan and you must
>> > respond to their needs.
>> >
>> > (2) India orgs: You said you were going to do a series of blog posts
>> > about the charities in India that you visited during your stay in
>> > Mumbai. When will these blog posts be forthcoming?
>> >
>> > (3) Identifying the next gold medal organization: What
>> > success/progress have you had so far in identifying the next gold
>> > medal organization?
>> >
>> > If you will not be able to identify the next gold medal organization,
>> > then to me that is an argument _against_ my donating to
>> > VillageReach. I have given my reasoning below, and I would be
>> > interested if you have thoughts on the matter.
>> >
>> > Here's my reasoning: Based on current estimates, assuming that
>> > VillageReach continues to retain its Gold Medal status and GiveWell
>> > maintains or slightly increases its influence and donation amounts,
>> > VillageReach will get all the money necessary for its Mozambique
>> > expansion. It's also unclear whether they will be able to absorb
>> > additional funds to consider wholly new programs -- I get the
>> > impression that they took some time to fully adjust to the funding
>> > influx after December. On the other hand, if VillageReach loses its
>> > Gold Medal status, then donating to them may not make that much
>> > sense. So either way, it seems that unless you think you are on the
>> > verge of identifying new gold medal orgs, donating to VillageReach
>> > makes less sense than it used to.
>> >
>> > A little clarification: By and large, I find the silver medal orgs
>> > fairly good, but not worth my money. There are a number of other
>> > philanthropic endeavors that I am interested in, and silver medal orgs
>> > get beaten by some of those other causes. In the absence of gold medal
>> > orgs, I would not use GiveWell's recommendations. However, for those
>> > who find the silver medal orgs fairly good uses of their money as
>> > well, the reasoning I have given above does not apply.
>> >
>> > Keep up the good work!
>> >
>> > Vipul
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

Dear all,

Thanks to Anil and Ron for their responses. I do want to point out
that my original point regarding Japan was somewhat different. My
question wasn't so much about whether donor money should or should not
go to Japan, but about whether GiveWell was spending too much effort
investigating the Japan disaster relief issues at the expense of other
activities that might go into identifying more gold and silver medal
charities.

Given that, like Ron Noble and GiveWell, I think that disaster relief
is not the best use of donor money, I'm asking whether it is the best
use of GiveWell's investigative resources.

For instance, in a past post, GiveWell suggests that finding great
charities is a top priority:

http://blog.givewell.org/2011/02/04/givewells-annual-self-evaluation-and-plan-a-\
big-picture-change-in-priorities/

This says: "(1) We see it as urgent to find more "gold medal"
charities than we have so far, (2) The benefits of covering extra
causes doesn't seem very large"

They elaborate on this further here:

http://blog.givewell.org/2011/02/14/givewells-plan-for-2011-top-level-priorities\
/

As I pointed out, I may be mistaken about the extent of effort
GiveWell is putting into Japan, because I'm only going by the visible
activity (6 of the last 8 blog posts). Or, it may be in response to
donor questions and concerns. Or (I didn't mention this possibility
earlier, since it sounds cynical) it may be strategically a good move
to attract more people to GiveWell's website. Or (I didn't mention
this last time) it may be an opportunity for GiveWell to review the
area and operations of disaster relief as a whole.

Whatever the case, I would like to hear from GiveWell folk what their
take on this issue is. Also, I'm curious to know what others on the
list think about the issue of GiveWell's investigative resources being
spent on investigating Japan. And more generally whether every time a
disaster of some sort strikes, GiveWell should redirect resources to
investigating the disaster relief effort, particularly if it appears
unlikely that they'll be able to identify excellent charities in the
process.

Vipul

* Quoting rnoble@... who at 2011-04-19 14:31:21+0000 (Tue) wrote
>
>
> Dear Anil,
>
> I applaud your compassion, and I want people in Japan to be saved too.
>   I think what GiveWell is saying is, if you are just going to give a
> fixed number of dollars, where should those dollars go?  If you are
> only going to give a fixed amount, you might save more lives by giving
> to something other than disaster relief.
>
> That isn't to say disaster relief isn't worthwhile.  If someone who
> wasn't going to give anything at all to charity decides to give to
> disaster relief, then I think that is probably a very good thing.
> That money, hopefully, is better spent on victims of disaster than it
> is on whatever it would have been spent on otherwise:  A few more
> lattes, a few more dinners at fancy restaurants, etc.  If I'm giving
> nothing, I have no business criticizing someone giving to disaster
> relief for Japan.
>
> And we agree whatever the aim of the charity, it is best if the money
> is used efficiently.  GiveWell is aware of this issue.  That's why
> they've done a lot of research and identified Village Reach as an
> organization that not only aims at medical interventions which can be
> cost-effective, but actually intervenes in a cost-effective manner.
>
>
>
> Quoting anil mahajan <anilanilm@...>:
>
> > Dear ron
> >
> > i agree with you, partially. What u said about the high costs involved in
> > saving lives is too high, the question is then what happens to people who
> > are victims of disastors, such as the one which took place in Japan and for
> > that matter elsewhere in the world. Who will save them. Yes money sent is
> > poorly used and also chances that some would never reach the victims.
> > Inspite of these factors and facts, we need to devise strategies to save
> > lives.
> >
> > You are fully justified when you talk of HIV/ Malaria and so on. However, my
> > experience for last twelve years when I am associated with HIV programs is
> > different. Here also only 20-25 percent of funds coming for helping HIV
> > infected and affected is actually utilized for the cause and rest goes into
> > the account (personal) of people incharge of implementation and this is in a
> > way amounts to cheating and misuse of funds.
> >
> > I feel we have somewhere failed to seal these gaps even though we all are
> > aware of there existance and this may be solely due to lack of a system of
> > identifying honest NGOs to implement programs and secondly most of the NGOs
> > are choosen because someone knows someone there. These are quite disturbing
> > facts and very rarely someone shows interest to discuss and find solutions
> > for those.
> >
> > Anil
> > mumbai/India
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM, <rnoble@...> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to stick up a bit for GiveWell here. It is difficult when
> >> the disaster in Japan is so salient and has tugged at everyone's
> >> heartstrings, to recommend putting your money elsewhere. It can sound
> >> like Givewell doesn't care about people in Japan.
> >>
> >> I don't think that is the case. GiveWell tries to find the charities
> >> that do the most good for the dollar. There are many reasons why
> >> disaster relief, in general, may be far down the list in terms of good
> >> for the dollar. One is that attempts to save lives be very, very
> >> costly per life saved. Rescue efforts with expensive equipment might
> >> costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per life actually
> >> saved. Also, money rushed in in a crisis may be poorly used due to
> >> inevitable confusion about how to proceed quickly.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, there are other charities where a life of a child might be
> >> saved for a hundred dollars or less. That child will not be part of
> >> your awareness, because there is no day to day coverage of the
> >> thousands of people dying every day from AIDS, TB, malaria, and so on.
> >> But his/her life matters just as much.
> >>
> >> If television made it as possible to vividly imagine the plight of
> >> people in poor countries dying from preventable diseases as it does to
> >> vividly imagine the plight of people in Japan, you might feel
> >> differently.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>
> >> Quoting Vipul Naik <vipul@...>:
> >>
> >> > Dear Givewell folk,
> >> >
> >> > [Note: The email was originally sent to info@... but they
> >> > replied suggesting that I broadcast this to the GiveWell mailing list
> >> > so that both the questions and their answers are on official record]
> >> >
> >> > This is a somewhat miscellaneous email with some
> >> > questions/concerns. I'd love to hear your responses:
> >> >
> >> > (1) Japan: You seem to have been spending a lot of effort in recent
> >> > weeks on Japan. What's the rationale behind this? It seems to me that
> >> > too much of the news media and popular attention is anyway focused on
> >> > Japan. I see GiveWell's strength in thinking about medium-to-long-term
> >> > solutions rather than disaster relief.
> >> >
> >> > I understand that GiveWell's main effort has been to try to caution
> >> > people against giving money to Japan, but what about the effort that
> >> > you as an organization have been spending in the process? This is
> >> > effort that could be devoted to identifying the next gold medal
> >> > charity.
> >> >
> >> > I'm probably missing some information or thinking behind your recent
> >> > Japan focus, and would be interested in knowing more. Also, it may be
> >> > that the impression I get about the effort you are putting in is
> >> > exaggerated because of the number of blog posts. Or that many other
> >> > prospective donors are asking you questions about Japan and you must
> >> > respond to their needs.
> >> >
> >> > (2) India orgs: You said you were going to do a series of blog posts
> >> > about the charities in India that you visited during your stay in
> >> > Mumbai. When will these blog posts be forthcoming?
> >> >
> >> > (3) Identifying the next gold medal organization: What
> >> > success/progress have you had so far in identifying the next gold
> >> > medal organization?
> >> >
> >> > If you will not be able to identify the next gold medal organization,
> >> > then to me that is an argument _against_ my donating to
> >> > VillageReach. I have given my reasoning below, and I would be
> >> > interested if you have thoughts on the matter.
> >> >
> >> > Here's my reasoning: Based on current estimates, assuming that
> >> > VillageReach continues to retain its Gold Medal status and GiveWell
> >> > maintains or slightly increases its influence and donation amounts,
> >> > VillageReach will get all the money necessary for its Mozambique
> >> > expansion. It's also unclear whether they will be able to absorb
> >> > additional funds to consider wholly new programs -- I get the
> >> > impression that they took some time to fully adjust to the funding
> >> > influx after December. On the other hand, if VillageReach loses its
> >> > Gold Medal status, then donating to them may not make that much
> >> > sense. So either way, it seems that unless you think you are on the
> >> > verge of identifying new gold medal orgs, donating to VillageReach
> >> > makes less sense than it used to.
> >> >
> >> > A little clarification: By and large, I find the silver medal orgs
> >> > fairly good, but not worth my money. There are a number of other
> >> > philanthropic endeavors that I am interested in, and silver medal orgs
> >> > get beaten by some of those other causes. In the absence of gold medal
> >> > orgs, I would not use GiveWell's recommendations. However, for those
> >> > who find the silver medal orgs fairly good uses of their money as
> >> > well, the reasoning I have given above does not apply.
> >> >
> >> > Keep up the good work!
> >> >
> >> > Vipul
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

Vipul (and everyone),

maybe it would be better to hear from other people now, and I think
Vipul has followed GiveWell's efforts more closely than I have.  Just
a general observation, though:  There could be a lot of circumstances
where pointing out what not to do could be just as important as
pointing out what to do.  I could imagine that the huge coverage Japan
is receiving could result in many people to give most or all or the
charity they will give this year to Japan, instead of to other needs.
If the truth is that disaster relief in general is a lot less
cost-effective than other things, and perhaps also that most of money
given won't go to Japan relief at all, it could do a huge amount of
good to point this out.  Maybe more good than would be done right now
focusing on finding the best charities.  I'm not saying I know that is
the case, but I think it is possible.

Ron

Quoting Vipul Naik <vipul@...>:

> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to Anil and Ron for their responses. I do want to point out
> that my original point regarding Japan was somewhat different. My
> question wasn't so much about whether donor money should or should not
> go to Japan, but about whether GiveWell was spending too much effort
> investigating the Japan disaster relief issues at the expense of other
> activities that might go into identifying more gold and silver medal
> charities.
>
> Given that, like Ron Noble and GiveWell, I think that disaster relief
> is not the best use of donor money, I'm asking whether it is the best
> use of GiveWell's investigative resources.
>
> For instance, in a past post, GiveWell suggests that finding great
> charities is a top priority:
>
>
http://blog.givewell.org/2011/02/04/givewells-annual-self-evaluation-and-plan-a-\
big-picture-change-in-priorities/
>
> This says: "(1) We see it as urgent to find more "gold medal"
> charities than we have so far, (2) The benefits of covering extra
> causes doesn't seem very large"
>
> They elaborate on this further here:
>
>
http://blog.givewell.org/2011/02/14/givewells-plan-for-2011-top-level-priorities\
/
>
> As I pointed out, I may be mistaken about the extent of effort
> GiveWell is putting into Japan, because I'm only going by the visible
> activity (6 of the last 8 blog posts). Or, it may be in response to
> donor questions and concerns. Or (I didn't mention this possibility
> earlier, since it sounds cynical) it may be strategically a good move
> to attract more people to GiveWell's website. Or (I didn't mention
> this last time) it may be an opportunity for GiveWell to review the
> area and operations of disaster relief as a whole.
>
> Whatever the case, I would like to hear from GiveWell folk what their
> take on this issue is. Also, I'm curious to know what others on the
> list think about the issue of GiveWell's investigative resources being
> spent on investigating Japan. And more generally whether every time a
> disaster of some sort strikes, GiveWell should redirect resources to
> investigating the disaster relief effort, particularly if it appears
> unlikely that they'll be able to identify excellent charities in the
> process.
>
> Vipul
>
> * Quoting rnoble@... who at 2011-04-19 14:31:21+0000 (Tue) wrote
>>
>>
>> Dear Anil,
>>
>> I applaud your compassion, and I want people in Japan to be saved too.
>>   I think what GiveWell is saying is, if you are just going to give a
>> fixed number of dollars, where should those dollars go?  If you are
>> only going to give a fixed amount, you might save more lives by giving
>> to something other than disaster relief.
>>
>> That isn't to say disaster relief isn't worthwhile.  If someone who
>> wasn't going to give anything at all to charity decides to give to
>> disaster relief, then I think that is probably a very good thing.
>> That money, hopefully, is better spent on victims of disaster than it
>> is on whatever it would have been spent on otherwise:  A few more
>> lattes, a few more dinners at fancy restaurants, etc.  If I'm giving
>> nothing, I have no business criticizing someone giving to disaster
>> relief for Japan.
>>
>> And we agree whatever the aim of the charity, it is best if the money
>> is used efficiently.  GiveWell is aware of this issue.  That's why
>> they've done a lot of research and identified Village Reach as an
>> organization that not only aims at medical interventions which can be
>> cost-effective, but actually intervenes in a cost-effective manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> Quoting anil mahajan <anilanilm@...>:
>>
>> > Dear ron
>> >
>> > i agree with you, partially. What u said about the high costs involved in
>> > saving lives is too high, the question is then what happens to people who
>> > are victims of disastors, such as the one which took place in
>> Japan and for
>> > that matter elsewhere in the world. Who will save them. Yes money sent is
>> > poorly used and also chances that some would never reach the victims.
>> > Inspite of these factors and facts, we need to devise strategies to save
>> > lives.
>> >
>> > You are fully justified when you talk of HIV/ Malaria and so on.
>> However, my
>> > experience for last twelve years when I am associated with HIV programs is
>> > different. Here also only 20-25 percent of funds coming for helping HIV
>> > infected and affected is actually utilized for the cause and rest
>> goes into
>> > the account (personal) of people incharge of implementation and
>> this is in a
>> > way amounts to cheating and misuse of funds.
>> >
>> > I feel we have somewhere failed to seal these gaps even though we all are
>> > aware of there existance and this may be solely due to lack of a system of
>> > identifying honest NGOs to implement programs and secondly most
>> of the NGOs
>> > are choosen because someone knows someone there. These are quite
>> disturbing
>> > facts and very rarely someone shows interest to discuss and find solutions
>> > for those.
>> >
>> > Anil
>> > mumbai/India
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM, <rnoble@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'd like to stick up a bit for GiveWell here. It is difficult when
>> >> the disaster in Japan is so salient and has tugged at everyone's
>> >> heartstrings, to recommend putting your money elsewhere. It can sound
>> >> like Givewell doesn't care about people in Japan.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think that is the case. GiveWell tries to find the charities
>> >> that do the most good for the dollar. There are many reasons why
>> >> disaster relief, in general, may be far down the list in terms of good
>> >> for the dollar. One is that attempts to save lives be very, very
>> >> costly per life saved. Rescue efforts with expensive equipment might
>> >> costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per life actually
>> >> saved. Also, money rushed in in a crisis may be poorly used due to
>> >> inevitable confusion about how to proceed quickly.
>> >>
>> >> Meanwhile, there are other charities where a life of a child might be
>> >> saved for a hundred dollars or less. That child will not be part of
>> >> your awareness, because there is no day to day coverage of the
>> >> thousands of people dying every day from AIDS, TB, malaria, and so on.
>> >> But his/her life matters just as much.
>> >>
>> >> If television made it as possible to vividly imagine the plight of
>> >> people in poor countries dying from preventable diseases as it does to
>> >> vividly imagine the plight of people in Japan, you might feel
>> >> differently.
>> >>
>> >> Ron
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Quoting Vipul Naik <vipul@...>:
>> >>
>> >> > Dear Givewell folk,
>> >> >
>> >> > [Note: The email was originally sent to info@... but they
>> >> > replied suggesting that I broadcast this to the GiveWell mailing list
>> >> > so that both the questions and their answers are on official record]
>> >> >
>> >> > This is a somewhat miscellaneous email with some
>> >> > questions/concerns. I'd love to hear your responses:
>> >> >
>> >> > (1) Japan: You seem to have been spending a lot of effort in recent
>> >> > weeks on Japan. What's the rationale behind this? It seems to me that
>> >> > too much of the news media and popular attention is anyway focused on
>> >> > Japan. I see GiveWell's strength in thinking about medium-to-long-term
>> >> > solutions rather than disaster relief.
>> >> >
>> >> > I understand that GiveWell's main effort has been to try to caution
>> >> > people against giving money to Japan, but what about the effort that
>> >> > you as an organization have been spending in the process? This is
>> >> > effort that could be devoted to identifying the next gold medal
>> >> > charity.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm probably missing some information or thinking behind your recent
>> >> > Japan focus, and would be interested in knowing more. Also, it may be
>> >> > that the impression I get about the effort you are putting in is
>> >> > exaggerated because of the number of blog posts. Or that many other
>> >> > prospective donors are asking you questions about Japan and you must
>> >> > respond to their needs.
>> >> >
>> >> > (2) India orgs: You said you were going to do a series of blog posts
>> >> > about the charities in India that you visited during your stay in
>> >> > Mumbai. When will these blog posts be forthcoming?
>> >> >
>> >> > (3) Identifying the next gold medal organization: What
>> >> > success/progress have you had so far in identifying the next gold
>> >> > medal organization?
>> >> >
>> >> > If you will not be able to identify the next gold medal organization,
>> >> > then to me that is an argument _against_ my donating to
>> >> > VillageReach. I have given my reasoning below, and I would be
>> >> > interested if you have thoughts on the matter.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's my reasoning: Based on current estimates, assuming that
>> >> > VillageReach continues to retain its Gold Medal status and GiveWell
>> >> > maintains or slightly increases its influence and donation amounts,
>> >> > VillageReach will get all the money necessary for its Mozambique
>> >> > expansion. It's also unclear whether they will be able to absorb
>> >> > additional funds to consider wholly new programs -- I get the
>> >> > impression that they took some time to fully adjust to the funding
>> >> > influx after December. On the other hand, if VillageReach loses its
>> >> > Gold Medal status, then donating to them may not make that much
>> >> > sense. So either way, it seems that unless you think you are on the
>> >> > verge of identifying new gold medal orgs, donating to VillageReach
>> >> > makes less sense than it used to.
>> >> >
>> >> > A little clarification: By and large, I find the silver medal orgs
>> >> > fairly good, but not worth my money. There are a number of other
>> >> > philanthropic endeavors that I am interested in, and silver medal orgs
>> >> > get beaten by some of those other causes. In the absence of gold medal
>> >> > orgs, I would not use GiveWell's recommendations. However, for those
>> >> > who find the silver medal orgs fairly good uses of their money as
>> >> > well, the reasoning I have given above does not apply.
>> >> >
>> >> > Keep up the good work!
>> >> >
>> >> > Vipul
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

For what it's worth, I found GiveWell's investigation of the disaster relief
situation in Japan to be highly valuable both on an intellectual and personal
level. My girlfriend's family is from Japan, and when she asked me for advice
regarding how to help, I pointed her to GiveWell and to Brigid's excellent post
on the subject. More generally, I think what's missing from your analysis,
Vipul, is the fact that disasters (which provoke huge amounts of giving by
donors as well as major ongoing media coverage) provide GiveWell with an
opportunity not only to educate the public on their options, but to evangelize a
bit on behalf of the "smart giving" philosophy to which GiveWell subscribes.
This was the first time I have ever seen media outlets advise restraint and not
giving in to the first emotional impulse in their donations in response to a
disaster. I believe that is at least in part due to GiveWell's influence on the
conversation among media professionals who cover philanthropy over the past few
years. GiveWell may never reach a majority or even a large minority of all
donors in the marketplace, but if participating helpfully in the conversation
about disaster relief can bring GiveWell's work to the attention of more people
and thus ultimately direct more money to "Gold Medal" charities, I believe the
time invested is worthwhile.

--- In givewell@yahoogroups.com, Vipul Naik <vipul@...> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks to Anil and Ron for their responses. I do want to point out
> that my original point regarding Japan was somewhat different. My
> question wasn't so much about whether donor money should or should not
> go to Japan, but about whether GiveWell was spending too much effort
> investigating the Japan disaster relief issues at the expense of other
> activities that might go into identifying more gold and silver medal
> charities.
>
> Given that, like Ron Noble and GiveWell, I think that disaster relief
> is not the best use of donor money, I'm asking whether it is the best
> use of GiveWell's investigative resources.
>
> For instance, in a past post, GiveWell suggests that finding great
> charities is a top priority:
>
>
http://blog.givewell.org/2011/02/04/givewells-annual-self-evaluation-and-plan-a-\
big-picture-change-in-priorities/
>
> This says: "(1) We see it as urgent to find more "gold medal"
> charities than we have so far, (2) The benefits of covering extra
> causes doesn't seem very large"
>
> They elaborate on this further here:
>
>
http://blog.givewell.org/2011/02/14/givewells-plan-for-2011-top-level-priorities\
/
>
> As I pointed out, I may be mistaken about the extent of effort
> GiveWell is putting into Japan, because I'm only going by the visible
> activity (6 of the last 8 blog posts). Or, it may be in response to
> donor questions and concerns. Or (I didn't mention this possibility
> earlier, since it sounds cynical) it may be strategically a good move
> to attract more people to GiveWell's website. Or (I didn't mention
> this last time) it may be an opportunity for GiveWell to review the
> area and operations of disaster relief as a whole.
>
> Whatever the case, I would like to hear from GiveWell folk what their
> take on this issue is. Also, I'm curious to know what others on the
> list think about the issue of GiveWell's investigative resources being
> spent on investigating Japan. And more generally whether every time a
> disaster of some sort strikes, GiveWell should redirect resources to
> investigating the disaster relief effort, particularly if it appears
> unlikely that they'll be able to identify excellent charities in the
> process.
>
> Vipul
>
> * Quoting rnoble@... who at 2011-04-19 14:31:21+0000 (Tue) wrote
> >
> >
> > Dear Anil,
> >
> > I applaud your compassion, and I want people in Japan to be saved too.
> >   I think what GiveWell is saying is, if you are just going to give a
> > fixed number of dollars, where should those dollars go?  If you are
> > only going to give a fixed amount, you might save more lives by giving
> > to something other than disaster relief.
> >
> > That isn't to say disaster relief isn't worthwhile.  If someone who
> > wasn't going to give anything at all to charity decides to give to
> > disaster relief, then I think that is probably a very good thing.
> > That money, hopefully, is better spent on victims of disaster than it
> > is on whatever it would have been spent on otherwise:  A few more
> > lattes, a few more dinners at fancy restaurants, etc.  If I'm giving
> > nothing, I have no business criticizing someone giving to disaster
> > relief for Japan.
> >
> > And we agree whatever the aim of the charity, it is best if the money
> > is used efficiently.  GiveWell is aware of this issue.  That's why
> > they've done a lot of research and identified Village Reach as an
> > organization that not only aims at medical interventions which can be
> > cost-effective, but actually intervenes in a cost-effective manner.
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting anil mahajan <anilanilm@...>:
> >
> > > Dear ron
> > >
> > > i agree with you, partially. What u said about the high costs involved in
> > > saving lives is too high, the question is then what happens to people who
> > > are victims of disastors, such as the one which took place in Japan and
for
> > > that matter elsewhere in the world. Who will save them. Yes money sent is
> > > poorly used and also chances that some would never reach the victims.
> > > Inspite of these factors and facts, we need to devise strategies to save
> > > lives.
> > >
> > > You are fully justified when you talk of HIV/ Malaria and so on. However,
my
> > > experience for last twelve years when I am associated with HIV programs is
> > > different. Here also only 20-25 percent of funds coming for helping HIV
> > > infected and affected is actually utilized for the cause and rest goes
into
> > > the account (personal) of people incharge of implementation and this is in
a
> > > way amounts to cheating and misuse of funds.
> > >
> > > I feel we have somewhere failed to seal these gaps even though we all are
> > > aware of there existance and this may be solely due to lack of a system of
> > > identifying honest NGOs to implement programs and secondly most of the
NGOs
> > > are choosen because someone knows someone there. These are quite
disturbing
> > > facts and very rarely someone shows interest to discuss and find solutions
> > > for those.
> > >
> > > Anil
> > > mumbai/India
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:14 PM, <rnoble@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to stick up a bit for GiveWell here. It is difficult when
> > >> the disaster in Japan is so salient and has tugged at everyone's
> > >> heartstrings, to recommend putting your money elsewhere. It can sound
> > >> like Givewell doesn't care about people in Japan.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think that is the case. GiveWell tries to find the charities
> > >> that do the most good for the dollar. There are many reasons why
> > >> disaster relief, in general, may be far down the list in terms of good
> > >> for the dollar. One is that attempts to save lives be very, very
> > >> costly per life saved. Rescue efforts with expensive equipment might
> > >> costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per life actually
> > >> saved. Also, money rushed in in a crisis may be poorly used due to
> > >> inevitable confusion about how to proceed quickly.
> > >>
> > >> Meanwhile, there are other charities where a life of a child might be
> > >> saved for a hundred dollars or less. That child will not be part of
> > >> your awareness, because there is no day to day coverage of the
> > >> thousands of people dying every day from AIDS, TB, malaria, and so on.
> > >> But his/her life matters just as much.
> > >>
> > >> If television made it as possible to vividly imagine the plight of
> > >> people in poor countries dying from preventable diseases as it does to
> > >> vividly imagine the plight of people in Japan, you might feel
> > >> differently.
> > >>
> > >> Ron
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Quoting Vipul Naik <vipul@...>:
> > >>
> > >> > Dear Givewell folk,
> > >> >
> > >> > [Note: The email was originally sent to info@... but they
> > >> > replied suggesting that I broadcast this to the GiveWell mailing list
> > >> > so that both the questions and their answers are on official record]
> > >> >
> > >> > This is a somewhat miscellaneous email with some
> > >> > questions/concerns. I'd love to hear your responses:
> > >> >
> > >> > (1) Japan: You seem to have been spending a lot of effort in recent
> > >> > weeks on Japan. What's the rationale behind this? It seems to me that
> > >> > too much of the news media and popular attention is anyway focused on
> > >> > Japan. I see GiveWell's strength in thinking about medium-to-long-term
> > >> > solutions rather than disaster relief.
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand that GiveWell's main effort has been to try to caution
> > >> > people against giving money to Japan, but what about the effort that
> > >> > you as an organization have been spending in the process? This is
> > >> > effort that could be devoted to identifying the next gold medal
> > >> > charity.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm probably missing some information or thinking behind your recent
> > >> > Japan focus, and would be interested in knowing more. Also, it may be
> > >> > that the impression I get about the effort you are putting in is
> > >> > exaggerated because of the number of blog posts. Or that many other
> > >> > prospective donors are asking you questions about Japan and you must
> > >> > respond to their needs.
> > >> >
> > >> > (2) India orgs: You said you were going to do a series of blog posts
> > >> > about the charities in India that you visited during your stay in
> > >> > Mumbai. When will these blog posts be forthcoming?
> > >> >
> > >> > (3) Identifying the next gold medal organization: What
> > >> > success/progress have you had so far in identifying the next gold
> > >> > medal organization?
> > >> >
> > >> > If you will not be able to identify the next gold medal organization,
> > >> > then to me that is an argument _against_ my donating to
> > >> > VillageReach. I have given my reasoning below, and I would be
> > >> > interested if you have thoughts on the matter.
> > >> >
> > >> > Here's my reasoning: Based on current estimates, assuming that
> > >> > VillageReach continues to retain its Gold Medal status and GiveWell
> > >> > maintains or slightly increases its influence and donation amounts,
> > >> > VillageReach will get all the money necessary for its Mozambique
> > >> > expansion. It's also unclear whether they will be able to absorb
> > >> > additional funds to consider wholly new programs -- I get the
> > >> > impression that they took some time to fully adjust to the funding
> > >> > influx after December. On the other hand, if VillageReach loses its
> > >> > Gold Medal status, then donating to them may not make that much
> > >> > sense. So either way, it seems that unless you think you are on the
> > >> > verge of identifying new gold medal orgs, donating to VillageReach
> > >> > makes less sense than it used to.
> > >> >
> > >> > A little clarification: By and large, I find the silver medal orgs
> > >> > fairly good, but not worth my money. There are a number of other
> > >> > philanthropic endeavors that I am interested in, and silver medal orgs
> > >> > get beaten by some of those other causes. In the absence of gold medal
> > >> > orgs, I would not use GiveWell's recommendations. However, for those
> > >> > who find the silver medal orgs fairly good uses of their money as
> > >> > well, the reasoning I have given above does not apply.
> > >> >
> > >> > Keep up the good work!
> > >> >
> > >> > Vipul
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Dear GiveWell folk and others on the list,

In a recent email thread, I mentioned that there were some charitable
organizations that I would consider to compete closely with silver
medal charities, and a couple of others (Brigid, Holden) suggested I
share what these are. I'm not trying to convince others on the list to
support any of these causes, and I have not yet made financial
contributions to any of these.

Many of these charities are high upside, long shot type efforts aimed
at some kind of technological or social breakthrough. The drawbacks
are: (i) the feasibility/relevance of such breakthroughs is highly
contested, (ii) the desirability of such breakthroughs is contested
(though not as highly), (iii) even for those who consider them
feasible and desirable, the breakthroughs are unlikely to have short
run effects, so if you have high discount rates for the future, then
these are not the best use of money, (iv) also, for those who see the
goal of charity as primarily focused on helping the poorest people,
these organizations may not be that attractive since the benefits of
the social and technological breakthroughs are likely to first be
captured by richer people, and take a little more time to percolate to
poorer people in the developing world.

So, I don't think that these organizations fit the profile that
GiveWell has so far been evaluating, or would consider
recommending. Also, I don't expect that the majority of GiveWell's
donors would consider reallocating charitable contributions to these
organizations. In my case, I do consider these organizations as
stronger cases than some of GiveWell's silver medal charities.

A starting list is the organizations covered in the Breakthrough
Philanthropy conference covered by Peter Thiel. Link to conference
videos on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=breakthrough+philanthropy&aq=f

Here is the press release:

http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemi\
d=23

Here are some of the organizations covered:

* Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which works on
   the question of a smarter-than-human, faster-than-human,
   self-improving artificial intelligence: http://singinst.org -- this
   also received some coverage from GiveWell here:
   http://blog.givewell.org/2010/06/29/singularity-summit/

* SENS Foundation, which works on radical life extension:
   http://www.sens.org

* The Seasteading Institute, which works on creating autonomous ocean
   communities and introducing competition into government:
   http://seasteading.org

Other organizations are Singularity University, the X Prize
Foundation, the Foresight Institute, Humanity Plus, and the Santa Fe
Institute (they do research in complexity theory for various kinds of
complex systems).

These organizations, and I think the others covered in Breakthrough
Philanthropy, have annual budgets in the range of somewhere between
500,000 and 5 million dollars. Much of their budget comes from Peter
Thiel (as an individual and through the Thiel Foundation) both through
matching grants and through isolated grants.

Vipul

Thought this was interesting:

More Than 1 Billion People Are Hungry in the World
But what if the experts are wrong?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/25/more_than_1_billion_people_are_\
hungry_in_the_world?page=full

"Beyond India, one hidden assumption in our description of the poverty
trap is that the poor eat as much as they can. If there is any chance
that by eating a bit more the poor could start doing meaningful work
and get out of the poverty trap zone, then they should eat as much as
possible. Yet most people living on less than a dollar a day do not
seem to act as if they are starving. If they were, surely they would
put every available penny into buying more calories. But they do not.
In an 18-country data set we assembled on the lives of the poor, food
represents 36 to 79 percent of consumption among the rural extremely
poor, and 53 to 74 percent among their urban counterparts."

[...]

"If the gains are so obvious, why don't the poor eat better? Eating
well doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive. Most mothers could
surely afford iodized salt, which is now standard in many parts of the
world, or one dose of iodine every two years (at 51 cents per dose).
Poor households could easily get a lot more calories and other
nutrients by spending less on expensive grains (like rice and wheat),
sugar, and processed foods, and more on leafy vegetables and coarse
grains. But in Kenya, when the NGO that was running the deworming
program asked parents in some schools to pay a few cents for deworming
their children, almost all refused, thus depriving their children of
hundreds of dollars of extra earnings over their lifetime.

"Why? And why did anemic Indonesian workers not buy iron-fortified
fish sauce on their own? One answer is that they don't believe it will
matter -- their employers may not realize that they are more
productive now. (In fact, in Indonesia, earnings improved only for the
self-employed workers.) But this does not explain why all pregnant
women in India aren't using only iodine-fortified salt, which is now
available in every village. Another possibility is that people may not
realize the value of feeding themselves and their children better --
not everyone has the right information, even in the United States.
Moreover, people tend to be suspicious of outsiders who tell them that
they should change their diet. When rice prices went up sharply in
1966 and 1967, the chief minister of West Bengal suggested that eating
less rice and more vegetables would be both good for people's health
and easier on their budgets. This set off a flurry of outrage, and the
chief minister was greeted by protesters bearing garlands of
vegetables wherever he went.

"It is simply not very easy to learn about the value of many of these
nutrients based on personal experience. Iodine might make your
children smarter, but the difference is not huge, and in most cases
you will not find out either way for many years. Iron, even if it
makes people stronger, does not suddenly turn you into a superhero.
The $40 extra a year the self-employed man earned may not even have
been apparent to him, given the many ups and downs of his weekly
income."

Dear Holden/GiveWell,

Thanks a lot for this update. In the transcript, the SIAI people
mention two people, Peter Thiel (also mentioned in my earlier email)
and Jaan Tallin. You say that you already know about Peter Thiel. Does
this mean that you at GiveWell have already talked to him, or that you
have read enough of his public writings/speeches that you think you
have a fair idea of his reasons for supporting SIAI?

If you have a record of a conversation that you have had with Peter
Thiel (or somebody from his foundation) on these organizations, would
it be possible for you to make it public?

More generally, have you made public any of your records of
conversations with foundations or other large-scale donors whom you've
approached for information on the charities that they fund?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Vipul

* Quoting Holden Karnofsky who at 2011-04-30 14:38:02+0000 (Sat) wrote
> We've had a fair number of requests to evaluate the Singularity Institute
> for Artificial Intelligence, which Vipul mentioned in a recent email. This
> organization is pretty far outside the scope of what we normally look at, so
> we haven't done a formal review, but I did have a sit-down with
> representatives from this group in February, and have gotten their
> permission to publish a paraphrased transcript of our conversation. This
> document gives a good overview of my view on SIAI.
>
> In a nutshell, I have sympathy for SIAI's goals, but I do not believe that
> it currently has the (a) track record / credibility (b) room for more
> funding that it would have to in order to interest me in donating to it.
> There is one SIAI supporter/endorser I'm interested in speaking to to learn
> more (mentioned in the transcript). We're going to keep an eye on the group.
>
> Paraphrased transcript of my conversation with SIAI representatives:
> http://www.givewell.org/files/MiscCharities/SIAI/siai%202011%2002%20III.doc
>
> SIAI website: http://www.singinst.org