Rethink Priorities 2020 Impact and 2021 Strategy

post by Marcus_A_Davis · 2020-11-25T13:28:27.710Z · EA · GW · 7 comments

Contents

    
          If you’d like to support our work, you can donate to us as part of Facebook’s donation matching on Giving Tuesday or donate directly to us here. If you’re interested in supporting our work with a major gift, contact Director of Development Janique Behman.
    Mission
    Structure
      Staff
      Legal Independence
      Board
    Work and Impact in 2020
      Summary of Work Done in 2020
      Our Impact
        Impact Survey
        Qualitative Interviews
        Informal Impact Tracking
        Areas for Improvement
        Overall View of our Impact
    Current Plans
      Project Plans
      Funding Status
          We have set a goal of raising $1,567,000 in funding for 2021 to:
          Budget Low
          Budget High
          Room for More Funding
      Reasons to Fund Rethink Priorities
      How to Give
  Credits
    
None
7 comments

Summary

Our Mission

Our mission is to help funders make better grants and help organizations do higher impact work. We accomplish this by doing and communicating research that analyzes existing interventions, broadens and refines the scope of possible consideration, and deepens our understanding of what interventions are possible and effective.

Rethink Priorities Theory of Change

Organizational Structure

Staff

Over the course of 2020, we made a number of hires to improve our team. Thanks to support in 2019, Peter Hurford, Co-Executive Director, became full-time in March 2020, and in May we hired a Director of Operations, Abraham Rowe. Janique Behman joined as our Director of Development in November 2020.

We also expanded our research team, hiring five researchers (~3.75 FTE) to continue and expand our work across animal welfare, movement building, and longtermism.[1]

We expect these additions will make us a much more impactful research team, with much stronger operations support to back them up and ensure a sustainable organizational culture.

Overall, Rethink Priorities currently has a staff of 16 people, corresponding to 13 full-time equivalents (including 3 FTE operations staff). This year we spent 72% of our time working on research relevant to farmed and wild animal welfare, 9% on movement building, 8% on longtermism, and 11% on other research projects.

As of July 2020, Rethink Priorities is its own legal US 501(c) 3 with a board. We were previously a fiscally sponsored project of Rethink Charity. We’re also taking preliminary steps to become a legal entity in the United Kingdom and hope to accomplish this in 2021.

Board

We established our own Board of Directors to provide oversight, governance, and accountability for our organization. The current members of our board are:

We plan to expand our board in the coming years.

Our Work and Impact in 2020

Summary of Work Done in 2020

In 2020, within animal welfare, we covered a number of topics. These included interspecies comparisons of moral status and moral weight [EA · GW], with posts examining how to measure capacity for welfare and moral status [EA · GW], the welfare implications of the subjective experience of time [EA · GW], the use of critical flicker-fusion frequency on the experience of time [EA · GW], and differences in the intensity of valenced experiences across species [EA · GW]. We explored the impact that the coronavirus pandemic was having on animals used for human consumption [EA · GW]. We also examined the policy landscape for farm animals in Europe [EA · GW], the historical compliance of countries with EU laws [EA · GW], and Europeans’ opinion on fish welfare [EA · GW]. Lastly, we studied attitudes of the public to different slaughter methods for chickens raised for meat consumption.

Continuing our work scoping the human impact on animals, we estimated the number of global captive vertebrates [EA · GW], we did shallow reviews of farmed snails [EA · GW] and the insect farming industry [EA · GW], and we estimated the scale of direct human impact on invertebrates [EA · GW].

In the field of EA movement building, our evaluation of the 2019 EA Survey included posts on cause selection [EA · GW], careers and skills [EA · GW], geographic differences [EA · GW], donation data [EA · GW], how people get involved in EA [EA · GW], community information [EA · GW], engagement [EA · GW], the number of EAs [EA · GW], EA cities and the cost of living [EA · GW], and EAs in major EA hubs [EA · GW]. We’ve also launched the 2020 EA Survey. In partnership with CEA, we’ve also run the 2020 Local Groups Survey, and will begin publishing results in the coming months.

To inform a variety of interventions, we analyzed the potential of effective altruists to use ballot initiatives in order to enact policy change [EA · GW].

Additionally, we should note we spent significant resources privately advising a number of groups in the EA and EA-aligned space across multiple causes. This primarily involved running and analyzing private polling and surveys to inform these groups' messaging.

You can view a complete list of all of our publications on our website. This work roughly aligns with the plans for 2020 we outlined last year, which you can see here [EA · GW].

Our Impact

We are internally driven by a motto that “good research is not enough” and created a strategy to ensure our research gets put into action:

As a research organization, we’re usually a step or two removed from direct work, and thus it can be challenging to determine what impact on the world we’re having. We’re very interested in ascertaining how those in a position to implement are acting on our work, if at all, and we’re committed to tracking our impact in multiple ways.

Among those methods, we’ve conducted a formal quantitative impact survey, we did structured interviews with some key players, and, mostly informally, we track our impact via regular contacts with relevant players. We’ll now describe each of these methods, followed by the key takeaways from them.

Impact Survey

In October 2020, we launched a survey aimed at gathering feedback from key donors, grantmakers, researchers, and organizational leaders. 70 individuals returned completed surveys (of 131 solicited). Respondents answered quantitative questions about the perceived value of our work, and the effect that our work had had on changing their beliefs and actions.

In addition, respondents answered free-form qualitative questions about the quality, structure, presentation, and communication of our work. To encourage frankness and candor, respondents were promised that answers to these questions would not be made public.

Overall, largely due to methodological shortcomings and limitations discussed in the 2019 survey [EA · GW] (particularly the disproportionate importance of certain respondents), we do not believe this survey alone fully captures the strengths and weaknesses of our work or us as an organization particularly well, but it is still a useful (albeit small) part of our overall impact assessment. The quantitative and qualitative responses will be analyzed internally to help us improve strategic decision-making in 2021, and results from this analysis will be available upon request for vetting by funders.

Qualitative Interviews

Over the past two months we’ve conducted structured interviews with key decision-makers and leaders at EA organizations. We sought interviewees’ feedback on the general importance of our work for them and for the community, what they have and have not found helpful in what we’ve done, what we can do in the future that would be useful for them, and ways we can improve. To encourage frankness, interviewees were promised that the details of these conversations would not be made public.

We’ve found these interviews to be very valuable for gathering information on which of our projects did the most to change behavior and beliefs, what future projects would be useful to them, and how to adapt our approach going forward.

Informal Impact Tracking

Informally, throughout the year we’ve discussed our work and role with many of these same parties. These discussions led us to develop some rough guides on how to improve present and future projects while they are ongoing.

Areas for Improvement

One of the biggest takeaways from these attempts to assess our impact was that there was a desire for more communication with these parties, and others, along with a way to better communicate our ideas to people further removed from research. Specifically, these conversations led us to believe we can more effectively get our research findings across via more proactive communication, and improved visualizations and summaries of our work.[2]

Overall View of our Impact

Collectively, the above attempts to assess our impact lead us to believe that this year we’ve been fairly successful in improving and understanding outreach in the EA space, influencing farmed animal donors and at least one farmed animal organization, and provided significant assistance to at least two others. We further think relationships we’ve built this year, and talented staff we’ve hired, are poised to help us do much better going forward.

Based on all of the above, we’ve also begun to make rough “back of the envelope” calculations for how much impact has been achieved or may be achieved for each project (though this is not meant to fully or exclusively capture all of our impact). We do retrospectives on each project upon completion to see how they measure up to our expectations. Overall, it remains clear that evaluating the impact of Rethink Priorities is very difficult and we’re hoping to devote more resources to answering the question in 2021.

Our Current Plans

Project Plans

Last year we believed we were already well positioned to produce a large amount of impactful, high-quality research over 2020, and we strongly suspect our organizational strength and connections have improved over the past year.

We’ve restarted our longtermist work, with three hires, and plan to continue work in this space without reducing the amount or quality of research we're doing on animal welfare.

Our research going forward is expected to focus on:

Funding Status

We have set a goal of raising $1,567,000 in funding for 2021 to:

Budget Low

Rethink Priorities Budget Low 21-22

Budget High

Rethink Priorities Budget High 21-22

Room for More Funding

Rethink Priorities RFMF 21-22

Even on our “High” growth plan, we are still being careful to ensure that we continue to maintain the organization management and culture necessary to support new staff. That being said, we likely would be able absorb even more funding to maintain our growth trajectory and keep sufficient financial reserves, especially later in 2022.

Reasons to Fund Rethink Priorities

We think Rethink Priorities is a good place for individuals to donate if they are interested in improving decision-making, collective wisdom, and prioritization within EA. We think the value of information from exploring new areas is high, and that our ability to work independently to uncover new insights while also working with existing groups and funders brings a significant value add to the spaces we work in.

We also think that over the past few years we have become effective at identifying and cultivating new EA research talent, and would be able to do more of that with more funding. Multiple successful hires we’ve made were, to our knowledge, not on the research hiring radar of other organizations. Additionally, one of our board members, Luisa Rodriguez, got her start as an EA researcher at Rethink Priorities in 2018-2019 after applying unsuccessfully to other EA organizations. Since working with Rethink Priorities, she has now built and shown her skills and has moved on to work directly with Will MacAskill and will soon join 80,000 Hours. This year we got over 350 applications for our research role and had to turn away many talented hires due to lack of funding. We’re especially excited to use our new intern program to capitalize on this.

Rethink Priorities has been able to provide a lot of mentoring and support to our own researchers, which makes it a better bet than funding researchers independently. We can all collaborate and have a shared research agenda, and review each other's work. We can apply skills across disciplines and cause areas. Also, we can also just save researchers a lot of time by handling simple things like payroll and taxes.

We also need more individual donors, not just institutional backing. While we have received support from some EA institutional funds, there are limits to how much of our funding they are willing to be (and how much of our budget we are willing to have funded by them). Further diversifying our donor base with small to medium donations from individuals could go a long way to providing us a more robust budget, particularly in the non-animal space.

Overall, we believe we are entering 2021 in a really strong position, and we are excited about where we could go with your support.

How to Give

If you’d like to support our work, you can donate to us as part of Facebook’s donation matching on Giving Tuesday or donate directly to us here. If you have questions about tax-deductibility in your country or are interested in making a major gift, please contact our Director of Development Janique Behman.

Credits

This post is a project of Rethink Priorities.

It was written by Marcus A. Davis and Peter Hurford. Thanks to Michael Aird, Janique Behman, David Moss, Abraham Rowe, Jason Schukraft, and Linch Zhang for helpful comments. If you like our work, please consider subscribing to our newsletter. You can see more of our work here.

Notes


  1. We also had one staff member, Luisa Rodriguez, leave RP in early 2020. She was leading up our longtermism work and is now a Research Fellow at the Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research, as well as a member of our Board. We also expect one of current staff, Derek Foster, to depart in 2021 to return to graduate school. ↩︎

  2. We’ve taken some tentative steps towards better visualization with some PDF versions of our reports. You can find more PDF versions of our work on our publications page ↩︎

7 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by EdoArad (edoarad) · 2020-11-25T14:26:47.385Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thank you for the report! Excited about your coming plans and wish good luck to all the great new hires :)

I have noticed that the impact model and most of the summary of your impact and future plans seem to focus on research that directly maps into results usable by foundations and organizations working on these problems (even if one or two steps removed). A different model might be something like improving some collective understanding of prioritization within a given research field,  research that leads to improved understanding of prioritization generally or cause-specific among other researchers (potentially even only within RP) working on cause-prioritization without a clear immediate "client". 

Some of the items on your plans for next year seem more like the second type, although they seem like a minority. Is that true? I'm interested in how you think about the value of prioritization research that doesn't seem to have a direct interested client or concrete actions that result from the research results.

Replies from: Marcus_A_Davis, MichaelA
comment by Marcus_A_Davis · 2020-11-25T21:32:04.727Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for the question!

I think the short answer is this what we think of doing projects in the improving the collective understanding space depends on a number of factors including the nature of the project, and the probability of that general change in perspective leading to actions changed in the future, and how important it would be if that change occurred.

One very simplistic model you can use to think about possible research projects in this area is:

  1. Big considerations (classically "crucial considerations", i.e. moral weight, invertebrate sentience)
  2. New charities/interventions (presenting new ideas or possibilities that can be taken up)
  3. Immediate influence (analysis to shift ongoing or pending projects, donations, or interventions)

It's far easier to tie work in categories (2) or (3) into behavior changed. By contrast, projects or possible research that falls into the (1) can be very difficult to map to specific plausible changes ahead of time and, sometimes, even after the completion of the work. These projects can also be more likely to be boom or bust, in that the results of investigating them could have huge effects if we or others shift our beliefs but it can be fairly unlikely to change beliefs at all. That said, I think these types of projects can be very valuable and we try to dedicate some of our time to doing them.

I think it's fair to say these types of "improving some collective understanding of prioritization" projects have been a minority of the types of projects we've done and that are listed for the coming year. However, there are many caveats here including but not limited to:

  • The nature of the project, our fit, and what others are working on has a big impact on which projects we take on. So even if, in theory, we thought a particular research idea was really worth pursuing there are many factors that go into whether we take on a particular project.
  • These types of projects have historically taken longer to complete, so they may be smaller in number but a larger share of our overall work hours than counting projects would suggest at first glance.
Replies from: edoarad
comment by EdoArad (edoarad) · 2020-11-26T06:15:45.265Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks! This makes a lot of sense. 

comment by MichaelA · 2020-11-26T00:39:14.227Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

[Just my personal views] I think this is a great question/topic. I also like Marcus' answer.

In thinking about this sort of question this year - in general, not just as applied to Rethink - here are some things I found useful:

Replies from: edoarad
comment by EdoArad (edoarad) · 2020-11-26T06:36:03.104Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Great list of posts! I've collected some general notes and sources on research methodology and related matters, I've written myself a TODO to add some of it as suggestions to your doc :)

comment by BrianTan · 2020-11-26T08:02:23.676Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for this report! I am wondering if one or more of you at Rethink Priorities would be interested to create blog posts or a full guide on how someone can develop themselves to be a good researcher (enough to get into Rethink Priorities or other EA research organizations)? The blog posts or guide could tackle the following questions:

  1. How does someone figure out if they are a good fit to be a researcher?
  2. How does someone get better at research?
  3. How could other EAs create a peer group of people trying to improve their research skills?
  4. Is it valuable for non-researchers (i.e. EAs who don't have "research" in their title) to still build research skills? If so, how can they build these skills in a time-efficient way?
Replies from: edoarad
comment by EdoArad (edoarad) · 2020-11-28T20:25:03.574Z · EA(p) · GW(p)

I see that there is plenty of interest in that. I have some experience in training early-stage (mathematics) researchers and have thought quite a bit about training myself as a generalist researcher and about the EA research community more generally. 

If there are other EAs that can dedicate time to improving their research skills, I'd probably be interested to join such a group where we can learn together and develop (and test) some sort of a curriculum. One thing I had in mind was to run a series of workshops based on Charity Entrepreneurship's Handbook - there is a lot of content there about different research methodologies.