From Civil Service to Starting a Charity: An Interview With Joel Tan

“Doing something unconventional—where there’s no immediate reward and success might only come after a long time (if at all)—can be a strong indicator that you’re suited for entrepreneurship. It often means pursuing projects that others might see as a waste of time or a long shot, yet doing so anyway because it’s something you believe in.”

Joel Tan didn’t set out to start a nonprofit, but his winding career path eventually led him to found the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research (CEARCH), where he helps uncover high-impact philanthropic opportunities. He started his journey studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Oxford before joining Singapore’s civil service. While he initially hoped to make a difference through evidence-based policymaking, he found himself limited by the pace and bureaucratic challenges of government work. After exploring consulting, Joel ended up joining the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program which led him to found CEARCH. Now, he’s focused on transforming ideas into impact by guiding funding and talent to the causes that need them most.

After graduating, where did you start your career and how did it change from there?

I started out studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) at Oxford. The kind of people who study PPE typically have an interest in government service or politics, which I definitely had my sights on. That’s why I joined the Singapore civil service after university. Most of my friends are still in government, and our favorite joke is that we signed up to do evidence-based policymaking, but what we really end up doing is policy-based evidence-making—where the politician decides on the policy, and we create the justification for it afterward. I soon became a bit disillusioned with the impact we could actually have. The bureaucracy made it difficult to get things done, and a lot of the work was reactive, like firefighting one crisis after another, rather than being able to step back and plan out the best course of action. There wasn’t much space to assess evidence properly or make thoughtful policy decisions. 

Ultimately, I didn’t feel it was the most impactful job I could do. I was in the civil service for less than two years before moving into consulting. The firm I joined was government-affairs-oriented, so most of our clients were governments rather than corporations. That interested me because it still felt policy-adjacent. Interestingly, when governments come to consulting firms, they’re generally open to change, so there’s less bureaucracy to deal with than when you’re working inside the system. And, for better or worse, consultants often seem to have more influence over high-level officials than civil servants do.

There’s this old joke about how governments pay McKinsey top dollar so that a fresh graduate can make a PowerPoint telling them what to do—and there’s definitely some truth to that. As a consultant, your input is often taken more seriously simply because you’re external and they’re paying you. I liked the opportunity to shape policy in that way, but in the end, I wasn’t comfortable with some of the clients and projects we worked on. I wanted to focus on work that aligned more closely with my values. 

Over the years, I’ve applied for research roles within Effective Altruism (EA), like at GiveWell, but those are extremely competitive, with hundreds of people applying for every role. I feel lucky that I eventually applied to the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program and got in.

What was it like applying for and going through the Charity Entrepreneurship (CE) program?

So the CE Incubation Program is designed to help people found their own high-impact charities. The application process had a few steps, but overall it was pretty fast. There was a short written application, a small test task, a recorded interview, another test task, and then a final interview. Altogether, I’d say it took around six hours spread out over time.

Once I got in, the program itself was fairly intense. It lasted about two months and was particularly challenging for me because I’m based in Singapore, while most participants were in the EU or the US. That meant a lot of late-night calls for me, often around midnight. The program involved a mix of tasks designed to simulate the work of running a charity. For example, you’d be paired with a potential co-founder from the program and work on things like creating a budget, planning your monitoring and evaluation, or conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis. It also tested how well you worked with your co-founder and prepared you for the realities of running a charity.

The training was really useful, but most of the learning happens when you’re actually running the charity. It’s a lot of trial and error—trying out different approaches, seeing what works, and adapting as you go.

What about your previous experience made you a good candidate for the CE Incubation Program?

In short, I’d been part of the Effective Altruism community for a long time and had a combination of experience in policy and consulting. During the 2022 incubation batch, Charity Entrepreneurship was looking to launch health-policy-focused charities—focusing on issues like tobacco taxation or road traffic safety. My policy background was a good fit for that batch, which helped me stand out.

I think my background in policy, both from working inside the government and consulting from the outside, has been really helpful in what I do now. To give a bit of context, a lot of the research we focus on at my organization, CEARCH, is in global health and development, particularly in health policy aimed at preventing non-communicable diseases. As countries get wealthier, things like sanitation, nutrition, and access to healthcare improve. That means traditional diseases of poverty—like malaria, malnutrition, diarrhea, and AIDS—are gradually becoming less of a problem because countries have more resources to fight them. But, conversely, you see non-communicable diseases like obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure start to rise. So, it’s really valuable for countries to get ahead of these issues before they become massive public health burdens.

The World Health Organization recommends several high-impact, low-cost policies to address these problems, like taxing sugary drinks or alcohol and reducing the amount of salt in processed foods. These are the kinds of cost-effective health policy ideas we focus on finding and funding.

My policy background also makes it easier for me to assess when advocacy projects like these are tractable. Working both inside and outside of governments has given me a good sense of how to navigate those systems. For example, when you’re talking to government officials, it’s not always straightforward. They might say they’re in favor of a policy, but with experience, you can often tell when they’re not actually on board. Reading between the lines like that is important for figuring out which projects have a real chance of success.

What qualities do you think make someone especially good at entrepreneurship?

I think, generally, you need to have a fairly high tolerance for uncertainty. In entrepreneurship, there’s no one around to tell you what to do. It’s not like in university where you can read a textbook or have a professor guide you. You’re often working in a space where there’s no clear right answer, so you need to be comfortable making decisions under uncertainty and figuring out the best options as you go.

Another big thing is being okay with imperfection. You have to be satisfied with doing things in an 80/20 way, focusing on the most important parts and letting go of trying to do everything perfectly. There’s just not enough time to make everything perfect, so being able to prioritize and allocate your time well is key. In short, being comfortable with uncertainty and imperfection is crucial.

Finally, I’d say that you need a lot of intrinsic motivation. As a kind of niche example, before applying to the CE program, I had written a novel and found a literary agent in the U.S. who liked it enough to pitch it to publishers on my behalf. Interestingly, CE appreciated this experience because it showed I was willing to pursue something off the beaten path. The traditional path of going to university, getting a job, and following a structured career trajectory isn’t necessarily what prepares you for entrepreneurship.

Doing something unconventional—where there’s no immediate reward and success might only come after a long time (if at all)—can be a strong indicator that you’re suited for entrepreneurship. It often means pursuing projects that others might see as a waste of time or a long shot, yet doing so anyway because it’s something you believe in. That kind of persistence and willingness to take risks are essential traits for entrepreneurial work.

How do you balance considerations of gaining career capital vs. making a direct impact?

While I’m a strong advocate for charity entrepreneurship, it’s important to acknowledge the risks involved. Starting a charity can fail in a few ways. Your organization might not achieve the impact you hoped for, or it might have an impact but fail to secure funding—funding is notoriously difficult to get. Even in general, organizations in Effective Altruism (EA) can be more fragile and prone to instability compared to traditional corporate roles.

This is partly due to the current funding landscape in EA, which is challenging. Even high-impact organizations doing great work might not secure funding in subsequent years, and that’s a risk people need to be aware of. That said, the potential rewards of working in a high-impact role often justify the risks. However, not everyone is in a position to take those risks, and there’s definitely value in the financial stability of a non-EA job while donating, say, 10% of your income to effective charities like GiveWell. Non-EA roles can also help build career capital, which is often overlooked. 

For example, working in government can provide valuable experience and connections that are directly relevant to future high-impact policy work. Consulting is another great example. It develops transferable skills that can apply to a wide range of high-impact roles. Many important areas, including policy, are rooted in government work, and understanding how it functions from the inside is crucial. A common mistake people make is thinking that if you present the evidence, change will just happen. But that’s not how it works, and it’s good to be prepared for that disillusionment.

Some of the most impactful people in EA started in non-EA jobs where they gained technical expertise or specialized experience. This kind of foundation can be invaluable when transitioning to high-impact work. One concern I have is that some EAs, especially early in their careers, focus on community-building roles or EA-specific positions that don’t always build strong career capital. Without this foundation, they might find it harder to secure high-impact roles later.

For recent graduates, it’s often more beneficial to prioritize gaining skills and experience that will make them more effective contributors in the future. Early-career roles in fields like policy, consulting, or other technical domains can set you up for significant impact down the line. Building a strong base of transferable skills and connections is a strategic move that pays off in the long term.

Since founding your organization, CEARCH, what has it been like growing it over the past two years? 

One thing that stands out is how the organization has gone through different phases. At the start, we were very focused on research—looking at various cause areas, analyzing their cost-effectiveness, and spending more time on promising areas. There was a lot of trial and error and iteration in the beginning. Even though I think I’m a reasonably good researcher, I made plenty of mistakes early on because the work was new to me.

What really helped was just doing the work, getting feedback (whether public or private) and acting on it. I’ve found it’s also really helpful to work in a team, brainstorm, and get second opinions. But the point of what we do isn’t just research; finding a new cause area doesn’t actually make an impact unless resources are moved into it.

For instance, we collaborate with organizations like Charity Entrepreneurship to incubate new charities based on our recommendations. They’re currently working on a new salt policy charity that we suggested, which I’m excited about. We also work with donors, reaching out to potential partners, grantmakers, and individuals like effective altruists who are earning to give. We advise them on high-impact charities to support. 

These days, I’ve shifted away from doing as much direct research and spend more time on charity evaluation and donor outreach. Our biggest bottleneck right now is moving resources/money towards charities. If I ever felt we weren’t moving enough money to justify our work, I’d probably shut down the organization. At the end of the day, that’s our key metric.

We’re not unlike other effective giving organizations in that our goal is to move money, but we tend to focus on cost-effectiveness over volume. It’s a trade-off: we might move less money overall, but the projects we support are often incredibly cost-effective.

What does your day-to-day look like as a founder?

One thing I’d say upfront is that while being a founder gives you flexibility, it also means you’re responsible for every hour. My typical day is a mix of research, outreach meetings, planning, and administrative work, each with its own demands and challenges.

On the research side, I spend a lot of time on quantitative modeling, reading research articles, consulting with experts, and designing and distributing surveys. There’s also quantitative analysis, like developing cost-effectiveness analyses, which might seem precise and mathematical but are often underpinned by subjective assumptions and high uncertainty. Alongside this, I design charity evaluation frameworks, identify potential grantees, invite and process grant applications, and conduct both desktop research and interviews with references, particularly for policy-focused charities.

Outreach is another key part of my role. This involves presenting our findings and recommendations to donors, meeting with other grantmakers, and networking with potential collaborators. Sometimes this extends to sharing job opportunities with organizations to help connect impactful roles with the right candidates.

Supporting work, such as planning and administrative tasks, takes up more time than I initially expected. Mondays, for instance, are often dominated by planning the week ahead. There’s also a fair amount of admin, finance, and HR work to manage—less exciting work but absolutely critical for keeping the organization operational.

For most of the past year, I had a fantastic researcher, Stan Pinsent, working alongside me, but he recently transitioned to a research role at Founders Pledge. As a small startup, it’s tough to offer competitive wages compared to more established organizations like GiveWell or Rethink Priorities, making it challenging to retain talent. Right now, it’s just me, and I’m weighing whether to hire someone next year. A new researcher wouldn’t immediately address our core challenge, which is moving more funding to high-impact opportunities, and hiring someone would also shorten our financial runway. 

At the same time, I wouldn’t want to bring someone on board only to let them go after a few months if things didn’t work out. Charity Entrepreneurship often advises being slow to hire and quick to fire, and I understand why—each hire fundamentally reshapes the organization, especially one of our size. Balancing these factors makes hiring one of the most significant decisions I face as a founder.

Do you have advice for those looking to follow a similar path?

When it comes to advice for people looking to follow a similar path, I think the key is understanding that the journey can often be slower and more uncertain than you might expect. 

One thing to remember is that entrepreneurship, particularly in the nonprofit sector, has a big bottleneck when it comes to founders. You might not even realize you’re suited for entrepreneurship, but it’s worth looking at job boards to find high-impact roles. However, if you can’t land one right away, don’t be discouraged. It’s perfectly fine to take a more conventional job and still make an impact through your giving. Even something like donating 10% of your income can have a significant effect. It’s important to keep the right perspective. If you can’t land a high-impact role, it’s not a reflection of your abilities or motivations. There’s just a lot of competition out there for those roles. My advice is to focus on building career capital in jobs that will help you later.