The 4 nonprofit outcomes: 1. Fundraise until you spend more raising than helping (fail) 2. Plateau (small win) 3. Get gov or private sector to scale (win) 4. Earn revenue (win) For impact at scale, the only two options are advocacy or business. Can't beat taxes or capitalism!
-
-
Replying to @ChaseAdam17
Is there a preference for 3 instead of 4, or vice versa? Under which circumstances. Especially from EA career perspective? Would love to find more writing/thoughts on this as I’ve been thinking about it a lot these days.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @buirachel
I think most EA charities fall under 2. They're effective, but will never be big (relative to gov and private sector). Given EA's priority areas, I think advocacy (3) is the preference since gov is best positioned to solve those problems at scale (e.g. global health).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChaseAdam17 @buirachel
For more context, in the US gov is $4T and nonprofits are $400B per year with only a tiny fraction of that going to EA priority areas. Even if EA doubled effectiveness of donations, that's nothing compared to gov. For big impact in those areas, you have to go advocacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChaseAdam17
Could it be possible for a new class of non-profits within next 10 years to learn from modern startups, raise private funding (say via a gov-backed ‘vision impact’ fund) and hyper-scale to reach same impact as gov but more efficiently? E.g. Social housing, health clinics etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I think they’re subject to the same outcomes, bc they still require capital to scale, tho they’ll likely do better in each category than brick and mortar orgs bc they’re more efficient. But I could be wrong! It’ll be interesting to see where orgs like Khan Academy land.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.