Systemic Altruism
← Back to the cohort
Justice & public goodsPreliminary editorial review

DemocracyNext

Works on citizen assemblies, shared decision-making and institutionalisation, and publishes practical guidance for assembly organizers.

Visit the organization ↗

Systemic Altruism practice potential: 76–86/100
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.

Who this work enables

Tools & support for charities: A public, reusable guide for institutions and civic organizations designing citizens’ assemblies.

Humanity’s Checklist source match

Coordination · Gatekeepers — editorial, partial alignment.

Deliberation and wider citizen decision-making address collective choice and concentrated authority; this is a partial mechanism match, not a verified checklist affiliation.

Explicit checklist adoption: not verified. A mechanism match is not an affiliation, endorsement, evidence of effectiveness or a scoring bonus. Read the practice.

Focus classification: 2026-10-27. Based on the organization’s dated official sources below; earlier axis-review dates are unchanged.

Compare alternatives for a funder →

The proposed pathway

Deliberative institutions and reusable citizen-assembly guidance

Six dimensions, with rationale

Structural depth

4 / 4

Targets who exercises public decision-making power and how deliberation becomes part of institutional rules.

Institutional reach

3 / 4

The approach is intended for cities, regions and other institutions across countries, without a verified global rule change.

Durability

3 / 4

Legally embedded processes could persist, but one assembly or recommendation does not establish durable authority or implementation.

Scalability

3 / 4

A public guide and repeatable design can be adapted, while facilitation, representative selection and political adoption remain costly.

Funding additionality

Unreviewed

Unknown: a current marginal funding gap, counterfactual and delivery capacity have not been audited.

Community agency

Unreviewed

Unknown: participation, open access or stated values do not establish audited consequential decision rights for affected communities.

Evidence and selection

Organization reported; documented official mechanism

Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.

A testable next question

Do supported assemblies achieve representative participation, meaningful decision rights and implemented improvements that persist beyond the initial project?

Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. Documented institutional and assembly-guidance mechanism; not attribution for all deliberative democracy or proof of community governance in the Foundation.

What remains uncertain

Assembly participation is not proof of binding power or implemented recommendations. Recruitment, agenda control, accessibility and institutional follow-through need independent examination. Dutch nonprofit status does not establish US deductibility.

Sources to inspect

Propose a sourced correction →

Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage