More in Common US
Combines research on division with partner initiatives intended to strengthen belonging and cooperation across differences in the United States.
90% of weighted axes reviewed. A mechanism hypothesis, not proven effectiveness or a donation recommendation.
Who this work enables
Tools & support for charities: Public-interest research and partner guidance for organizations working on social cohesion and polarization.
Humanity’s Checklist source match
Story · Coordination — editorial, partial alignment.
Work on divisive narratives and cross-group cooperation partly matches the story and coordination sources. This does not mean every disagreement is a misconception or that the checklist’s specific projects are followed.
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
Shared polarization research and partner capacity for social cohesion
Six dimensions, with rationale
Structural depth
3 / 4Shared research and institution-facing work target recurring narratives and practices that can reinforce polarization.
Institutional reach
3 / 4US institutional partners provide a national pathway; the assessment does not attribute every international affiliate’s work to this entity.
Durability
2 / 4Organizational learning and relationships may persist, but attitudes and intergroup trust can regress under changing incentives.
Scalability
3 / 4Research insights and partner practices can be adapted, while representative research, trust-building and evaluation require skilled work.
Funding additionality
UnreviewedUnknown: current marginal funding, delivery capacity, displacement and a credible counterfactual have not been audited.
Community agency
UnreviewedUnknown: stated values, participation, consultation or contributor governance do not establish audited consequential decision rights for affected communities.
Evidence and selection
Organization reported; current primary mechanism sources inspected
Illustrative inclusion to examine this mechanism. Inclusion is not an external recommendation or a verified comparative ranking.
A testable next question
Do partner initiatives create durable, equitable cooperation on consequential problems beyond comparison approaches, including for marginalized groups and genuine policy disagreements?
Review confidence: Moderate for documented design; low for systemic attribution. More in Common’s US 501(c)(3) entity and its research/partner model, not separate UK, French, German or other legal entities.
What remains uncertain
Survey segmentation and self-reported trust are not demonstrated reductions in conflict or improved rights. Consensus framing can obscure real power differences or legitimate grievances. The organization describes itself as nonpartisan but not neutral; no ideological neutrality or outcome guarantee is inferred.
Sources to inspect
- More in Common US — nonprofit identity, mission and partner approach ↗
official · checked 2026-10-27 - More in Common — US entity and institutional work ↗
official · checked 2026-10-27
Propose a sourced correction →
Axis review: 2026-10-27 · weighting method v0.2 (2026-10-26) · Method, conflicts and coverage