With what staff? Maybe GiveWell or someone could answer this but right now we have no reason to think they could scale up to a budget 100x what they had last year. We also don’t know what level of efficiency they could maintain with the increased size.
With staff they hire. Certain kinds of problems are both inevitable and
fixable once money is in the pipeline.
When you add that much money, you’re giving it to the planners, not the
plan. If what they’re doing doesn’t scale to the money they get (though
I think it will) they’ll do something else. Treat it like one of those
business plan contests. Their success so far shows that they know how
to do charity work.
It will also get people to join on Facebook, without which there will be
no money for anyone.
But I’m not married to that particular charity. I just think that with
so much money waiting to be claimed, we’re having a little too much fun
seeing who can predict the smallest nitty-gritties the farthest away.
I’d rather give a lot of the money to GiveWell, earmarked for international charities. They can then decide how much would be effective in the hands of Village Reach.
They do separate, regional projects, and that number is what they need to carry out the projects they’ve already committed to.
If they get on Craigslist and start seeing steady money out of it, they can start a bunch of new projects in new areas.
With what staff? Maybe GiveWell or someone could answer this but right now we have no reason to think they could scale up to a budget 100x what they had last year. We also don’t know what level of efficiency they could maintain with the increased size.
With staff they hire. Certain kinds of problems are both inevitable and fixable once money is in the pipeline.
When you add that much money, you’re giving it to the planners, not the plan. If what they’re doing doesn’t scale to the money they get (though I think it will) they’ll do something else. Treat it like one of those business plan contests. Their success so far shows that they know how to do charity work.
It will also get people to join on Facebook, without which there will be no money for anyone.
But I’m not married to that particular charity. I just think that with so much money waiting to be claimed, we’re having a little too much fun seeing who can predict the smallest nitty-gritties the farthest away.
GiveWell disagrees with you about the importance of scalability.
I’d rather give a lot of the money to GiveWell, earmarked for international charities. They can then decide how much would be effective in the hands of Village Reach.
OK, let’s do that. You win.
We can probably still use “Save babies on Craigslist” or something similar as the slogan if we make some baby-oriented charity the “poster child.”
EDIT: spelling