Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

any research on anti-slavery charities?

Expand Messages
  • Brian Slesinsky
    I m seeing an uptick in interest in anti-slavery charities after Google s recent donations. Perhaps this would be a fruitful area of research for GiveWell? -
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm seeing an uptick in interest in anti-slavery charities after
      Google's recent donations. Perhaps this would be a fruitful area of
      research for GiveWell?

      - Brian
    • Eric Rogstad
      The page on IJM (mentioned in the article) says, We investigated International Justice Mission but found they were ineligible for our review because of one of
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 31, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The page on IJM (mentioned in the article) says,

        We investigated International Justice Mission but found they were ineligible for our review because of one of the following reasons:
          • Scope - the charity's program was outside the scope of areas we planned to cover (e.g., slavery, refugees, orphans and other abandoned children) or focused on research or advocacy as opposed to direct provision of services.

        Is there any discussion (perhaps a blog post) of why these issues were not targeted?  I can guess that they are assumed to be much less cost-effective than other efforts (e.g. international health-related ones), but I don't remember coming across that reasoning explicitly stated somewhere.

        -Eric

        On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Brian Slesinsky <bslesinsky@...> wrote:
         

        I'm seeing an uptick in interest in anti-slavery charities after
        Google's recent donations. Perhaps this would be a fruitful area of
        research for GiveWell?

        - Brian


      • Holden Karnofsky
        Hi all, We ve excluded these groups to date because we haven t (a) found useful literature on the effects of their interventions; (b) developed a good way of
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi all,

          We've excluded these groups to date because we haven't (a) found useful literature on the effects of their interventions; (b) developed a good way of assessing them. Our sense is that these areas aren't as promising as the ones we've focused on, but at this point that's just a rough sense, and we hope eventually to further investigate these areas and to be able to say more about them.

          Best,
          Holden

          On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Eric Rogstad <esrogs@...> wrote:
           

          The page on IJM (mentioned in the article) says,


          We investigated International Justice Mission but found they were ineligible for our review because of one of the following reasons:
            • Scope - the charity's program was outside the scope of areas we planned to cover (e.g., slavery, refugees, orphans and other abandoned children) or focused on research or advocacy as opposed to direct provision of services.

          Is there any discussion (perhaps a blog post) of why these issues were not targeted?  I can guess that they are assumed to be much less cost-effective than other efforts (e.g. international health-related ones), but I don't remember coming across that reasoning explicitly stated somewhere.

          -Eric

          On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Brian Slesinsky <bslesinsky@...> wrote:
           

          I'm seeing an uptick in interest in anti-slavery charities after
          Google's recent donations. Perhaps this would be a fruitful area of
          research for GiveWell?

          - Brian



        • Ben Hoskin
          It seems a prior they d be a lot less effective, as slavers fight back in a way malaria doesn t.
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            It seems a prior they'd be a lot less effective, as slavers fight back in a way malaria doesn't.

            On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Holden Karnofsky <holden0@...> wrote:
             

            Hi all,

            We've excluded these groups to date because we haven't (a) found useful literature on the effects of their interventions; (b) developed a good way of assessing them. Our sense is that these areas aren't as promising as the ones we've focused on, but at this point that's just a rough sense, and we hope eventually to further investigate these areas and to be able to say more about them.

            Best,
            Holden

            On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Eric Rogstad <esrogs@...> wrote:
             

            The page on IJM (mentioned in the article) says,


            We investigated International Justice Mission but found they were ineligible for our review because of one of the following reasons:
              • Scope - the charity's program was outside the scope of areas we planned to cover (e.g., slavery, refugees, orphans and other abandoned children) or focused on research or advocacy as opposed to direct provision of services.

            Is there any discussion (perhaps a blog post) of why these issues were not targeted?  I can guess that they are assumed to be much less cost-effective than other efforts (e.g. international health-related ones), but I don't remember coming across that reasoning explicitly stated somewhere.

            -Eric

            On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Brian Slesinsky <bslesinsky@...> wrote:
             

            I'm seeing an uptick in interest in anti-slavery charities after
            Google's recent donations. Perhaps this would be a fruitful area of
            research for GiveWell?

            - Brian




          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.