Vasco Grilo🔸 comments on GWWC’s 2023–2024 impact evaluation (executive summary)

[Vasco Grilo🔸]

I would be happy to run the regression above if you shared the recorded donations by pledger and year, and the years in which each pledge started.

Here is an analysis along the lines I described.

Summary

• I tried to improve on Giving What We Can’s (GWWC’s) estimates for the future recorded donations of 10 % pledgers by stipulating the logarithm of the donations per pledger-year for pledges started in the same year evolves linearly (exponential growth; model 1), or quadratically (model 2) with the year of the pledge.

• My models lead to a value of a 10 % Pledge and cost-effectiveness of GWWC in 2023 and 2024 very similar to those from their Lifetime Giving Method. I got:

  • A value of a 10 % Pledge of 24.0 k and 21.4 k$ of additional donations to highly effective charities, 1.56 and 1.39 times GWWC’s estimate from the Lifetime Giving Method.

  • A giving multiplier of 9.22 and 8.34, 1.47 and 1.33 times GWWC’s estimate from the Lifetime Giving Method.

• I still recommend funding the Centre for Exploratory Altruism Research’s (CEARCH’s) High Impact Philanthropy Fund (HIPF) due its effects on soil animals, which I think are practically proportional to the increase in agricultural-land-years per $. I estimate it increases agricultural land 9.42 times as cost-effectively as GiveWell’s top charities, and 2.67 times as cost-effectively as GWWC in 2023 and 2024.