June 2017 | Open Philanthropy
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/system/system.base.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/system/system.menus.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/system/system.messages.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/system/system.theme.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/jquery_update/replace/ui/themes/base/minified/jquery.ui.core.min.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/jquery_update/replace/ui/themes/base/minified/jquery.ui.theme.min.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/jquery_update/replace/ui/themes/base/minified/jquery.ui.accordion.min.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/comment_notify/comment_notify.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/comment/comment.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/date/date_api/date.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/date/date_popup/themes/datepicker.1.7.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/field/theme/field.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/footnotes/footnotes.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/custom/grants_summary/grants_summary.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/node/node.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/search/search.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/modules/user/user.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/views/css/views.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/caption_filter/caption-filter.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/ckeditor/css/ckeditor.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/ctools/css/ctools.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/typogrify/typogrify.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/content_type_extras/css/content_type_extras.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/global/normalize.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/global/op-fonts.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/global/html.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/global/meanmenu.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/global/global.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/pages/pages.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/pages/custom.css?qgstca");
@import url("https://web.archive.org./web/20201104152313cs_/https://www.openphilanthropy.org/sites/all/themes/op_basic/styles/css/global/admin.css?qgstca");
Jump to Navigation
Research & IdeasCause Selection
Notable Lessons
Cause Reports
Conversations
History of Philanthropy
Focus AreasU.S. Policy
Criminal Justice Reform
Farm Animal Welfare
Macroeconomic Stabilization Policy
Immigration Policy
Land Use Reform
Global Catastrophic Risks
Biosecurity and Pandemic Preparedness
Potential Risks from Advanced Artificial Intelligence
Scientific Research
Global Health & Development
Other areas
GivingGrants Database
Current Priorities
Guide for Grant Seekers
Grantmaking Stages
About UsWho We Are
Vision & Values
Openness
Progress to Date
Team
Press Kit
Blog
Get InvolvedContact Us
Stay Updated
Working at Open Phil
Search form
Search
Home /
Blog /
Archive
June 2017
Projects, People and Processes
by Holden Karnofsky Published June 26, 2017
One of the challenges of large-scale philanthropy is: how can a small number of decision-maker(s) (e.g., donors) find a large number of giving opportunities that they understand well enough to feel good about funding?
Most of the organizations I’ve seen seem to use some combination of project-based, people-based, and process-based approaches to delegation. To illustrate these, I’ll use the hypothetical example of a grant to fund research into new malaria treatments. I use the term “Program Officers” to refer to the staff primarily responsible for making recommendations to decision-makers.
Project-based approaches: the decision-makers hire Program Officers to look for projects; decision-makers ultimately evaluate the projects themselves. Thus, decision-makers delegate the process of searching for potential grants, but don’t delegate judgment and decision-making. For example, a Program Officer might learn about proposed research on new malaria treatments and then make a presentation to a donor or foundation Board, explaining how the project will work, and trying to convince the donor or Board that it is likely to succeed.
People-based approaches: decision-makers delegate essentially everything to trusted individuals. They look for staff they trust, and then defer heavily to them. For example, a Program Officer might become convinced of the merits of research on new malaria treatments and propose a grant, with the funder deferring to their judgment despite not knowing the details of the proposed research.
Process-based approaches: the decision-makers establish consistent, systematic criteria for grants, and processes that aim to meet these criteria. Decisions are often made by aggregating opinions from multiple grant reviewers. For example, a donor might solicit proposals for research on new malaria treatments, assemble a technical review board, ask each reviewer to rate each proposal on several criteria, and use a pre-determined aggregation system to make the final decisions about which grants are funded. Government funders such as the National Institutes of Health often use such approaches. These approaches often seek to minimize the need for individual judgment, effectively delegating to a process.
These different classifications can also be useful in thinking about how Program Officers relate to grantees. Program Officers can recommend grants based on being personally convinced of a particular project; recommend grants based primarily on the people involved, deferring heavily on the details of those people’s plans; or recommend grants based on processes that they set up to capture certain criteria.
This post discusses how I currently see the pros and cons of each, and what our current approach is. In large part, we find the people-based approach ideal for the kind of hits-based giving we’re focused on. But we use elements of project-based evaluation (and to a much lesser degree, process-based evaluation) as well - largely in order to help us better evaluate people over time. [node:read-more:link]
Holden Karnofsky's blog
1 comment
Add new comment
Updating My Risk Estimate for the Geomagnetic “Big One”
by David Roodman Published June 21, 2017
In 2015, I researched and wrote about the risk to industrial society from geomagnetic storms—terrestrial phenomena that, despite their name, originate on the sun. Mild storms give us the ineffable beauty of the Northern Lights, and the Southern Lights too. Severe geomagnetic maelstroms might, some fear, knock out key satellites or cause continent-wide blackouts that would take months to undo.
I concluded that the risk had been exaggerated in the studies that gained the most attention. Still, given the potential stakes and the historical neglect of the problem, the issue deserved more attention from people in science, business, and government.
As I wrapped up my investigation, I tripped on a question of statistical method that I did not have time to fully explore. I have since put more time into the question. I just finalized a working paper about the results and submitted it to a journal. The upshot for the geomagnetic storm investigation is that I have modified my methods for extrapolating storm risks from the historical record. As a result, I have raised my best estimate of the chance of a really big storm, like the storied one of 1859, from 0.33% to 0.70% per decade. And I have expanded my 95% confidence interval for this estimate from 0.0–4.0% to 0.0–11.6% per decade.
More explanation follows. [node:read-more:link]
Global Catastrophic Risks
Geomagnetic Storms