Let its donors know that donating to GHDF in its current form has a similar effect to donating to AGF (if that is in fact the case).
Consider appointing additional fund managers independent from GiveWell.
Consider accepting applications.
In any case, the goal of this post is mostly about starting a discussion about the future of GHDF rather than providing super informed takes about it. So feel free to share your thoughts or vision below!
Case for donating to GiveWell’s All Grants Fund or unrestricted funds
Donating to AGF or GWUF instead of GHDF seems better if one highly trusts GiveWell’s prioritisation:
Donating to GHDF in its current form appears to have the same effect as donating to AGF or GWUF:
Like AGF and GWUF, GHDF “aims to improve the health or economic empowerment of people around the world as effectively as possible”.
My understanding is that GHDF makes more uncertain or riskier grants than GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund[1] (TCF), but AGF, launched in August 2022, now makes such grants too. AGF funds:
GHDF “is managed by Elie Hassenfeld, GiveWell’s co-founder [and CEO]”.
GHDF does not accept applications, and neither does AGF.
People in the United Kingdom can support GiveWell’s funds and top charities through tax deductible donations via GiveWell UK, which was launched in August 2022 as AGF.
Having EA Funds as an additional intermediary seems unnecessary unless it is doing some extra evaluation, which does not appear to be the case.
As a side note, I would also say there is a pretty small difference between which one of GiveWell’s funds, TCF, AGF or GWUF, one donates to:
Due to funging, more donations to TCF will result in AGF granting less money to GiveWell’s top charities.
GiveWell arguably has tiny room for more funding given Open Philanthropy’s support, so donating to GWUF is similar to donating to AGF[2].
However, if you highly trust GiveWell’s prioritisation, donating to GWUF is the best option given its greatest flexibility, followed by the AGF and TCF. Yet, donors may prefer donating to TCF to facilitate explanations of their effective giving (e.g. skipping the need to go into expected value or funging).
Case for donating to Giving What We Can’s Global Health and Wellbeing Fund
Donating to GHWF instead of GHDF seems better if one:
Welcomes further evaluation of the process behind the recommendations of GiveWell and other evaluators in the global health and wellbeing space (e.g. Happier Lives Institute), trusts GWWC’s research team to identify evaluators to rely on, and wants the evaluations to be published, as in GWWC’s evaluations of evaluators. These would be my main reasons for donating to GHWF instead of GHDF, which has not produced public evaluations of GiveWell’s recommendations.
Is open to donating to funds or organisations not supported by GiveWell in the future, based on the results of further evaluations of evaluators.
Wants to set up a recurring donation that will always be allocated based on the latest recommendations of evaluators in global health and wellbeing endorsed by GWWC’s research team (so far, only GiveWell).
You can check GHWF’s page for further details, namely the section “How does donating to this fund compare to similar giving opportunities?”.
What should EA Funds’ Global Health and Development Fund do?
I would say GHDF should:
Let its donors know that donating to GHDF in its current form has a similar effect to donating to AGF (if that is in fact the case), instead of just describing GHDF as a “higher-risk” “higher-reward” alternative (to TCF). “Donating to this fund [GHDF] is valuable because it helps demonstrate to GiveWell that there is donor demand for higher-risk, higher-reward global health and development giving opportunities”.
If donors have been reminded about GHDF’s scope, I wonder to which extent the above is top of mind.
Consider appointing additional fund managers independent from GiveWell.
I do not recall seeing a public call for fund managers, and I guess it would have attracted more people than a private one.
I also assume a short post on eventual attempts to find fund managers would have been useful.
Consider accepting applications. Jason suggested it could “start taking applications that would previously have been within EAIF’s scope, so that there is a relatively seamless transition for potential and established grantees” (see EA Infrastructure Fund’s Plan to Focus on Principles-First EA).
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Caleb Parikh, Elie Hassenfeld, and Sjir Hoeijmakers for feedback on the draft.
“More recently, GiveWell has been doing more exploratory research to identify promising giving opportunities outside its traditional criteria, such as organizations working to assist in the creation of effective policy, or early-stage organizations. Donations to this fund [GHDF] are intended to support opportunities identified through that work, which was previously funded by Open Philanthropy through GiveWell Incubation Grants.”
GiveWell’s excess assets policy “is intended to ensure that donors to GiveWell need not worry about our room for more funding: when we have more than we can productively use ourselves, the result is more grants to the best charities we’ve found”. “We seek to be in a financial position such that our cash flow projections show us having 12 months’ worth of unrestricted assets in each of the next 12 months”.
My quick thoughts on donating to EA Funds’ Global Health and Development Fund and what it should do
I think there is a strong case for donating to EA Funds’ Global Health and Development Fund (GHDF) if one wants to support interventions in global health and development without attending to their effects on animals. On the other hand, given this goal, I believe one had better donate to GiveWell’s All Grants Fund (AGF) or unrestricted funds (GWUF), or Giving What We Can’s (GWWC’s) Global Health and Wellbeing Fund (GHWF). In addition, I encourage GHDF to:
Let its donors know that donating to GHDF in its current form has a similar effect to donating to AGF (if that is in fact the case).
Consider appointing additional fund managers independent from GiveWell.
Consider accepting applications.
In any case, the goal of this post is mostly about starting a discussion about the future of GHDF rather than providing super informed takes about it. So feel free to share your thoughts or vision below!
Case for donating to GiveWell’s All Grants Fund or unrestricted funds
Donating to AGF or GWUF instead of GHDF seems better if one highly trusts GiveWell’s prioritisation:
Donating to GHDF in its current form appears to have the same effect as donating to AGF or GWUF:
Like AGF and GWUF, GHDF “aims to improve the health or economic empowerment of people around the world as effectively as possible”.
My understanding is that GHDF makes more uncertain or riskier grants than GiveWell’s Top Charities Fund[1] (TCF), but AGF, launched in August 2022, now makes such grants too. AGF funds:
GiveWell’s top charities.
Organisations implementing potentially cost-effective and scalable programs.
Established organisations implementing cost-effective programs that GiveWell does not expect to scale.
Organisations aiming to influence public health policy.
Organisations producing research to aid our grantmaking process.
Organizations that raise funds for our recommended charities.
GHDF “is managed by Elie Hassenfeld, GiveWell’s co-founder [and CEO]”.
GHDF does not accept applications, and neither does AGF.
People in the United Kingdom can support GiveWell’s funds and top charities through tax deductible donations via GiveWell UK, which was launched in August 2022 as AGF.
Having EA Funds as an additional intermediary seems unnecessary unless it is doing some extra evaluation, which does not appear to be the case.
As a side note, I would also say there is a pretty small difference between which one of GiveWell’s funds, TCF, AGF or GWUF, one donates to:
Due to funging, more donations to TCF will result in AGF granting less money to GiveWell’s top charities.
GiveWell arguably has tiny room for more funding given Open Philanthropy’s support, so donating to GWUF is similar to donating to AGF[2].
However, if you highly trust GiveWell’s prioritisation, donating to GWUF is the best option given its greatest flexibility, followed by the AGF and TCF. Yet, donors may prefer donating to TCF to facilitate explanations of their effective giving (e.g. skipping the need to go into expected value or funging).
Case for donating to Giving What We Can’s Global Health and Wellbeing Fund
Donating to GHWF instead of GHDF seems better if one:
Welcomes further evaluation of the process behind the recommendations of GiveWell and other evaluators in the global health and wellbeing space (e.g. Happier Lives Institute), trusts GWWC’s research team to identify evaluators to rely on, and wants the evaluations to be published, as in GWWC’s evaluations of evaluators. These would be my main reasons for donating to GHWF instead of GHDF, which has not produced public evaluations of GiveWell’s recommendations.
Is open to donating to funds or organisations not supported by GiveWell in the future, based on the results of further evaluations of evaluators.
Wants to set up a recurring donation that will always be allocated based on the latest recommendations of evaluators in global health and wellbeing endorsed by GWWC’s research team (so far, only GiveWell).
You can check GHWF’s page for further details, namely the section “How does donating to this fund compare to similar giving opportunities?”.
What should EA Funds’ Global Health and Development Fund do?
I would say GHDF should:
Let its donors know that donating to GHDF in its current form has a similar effect to donating to AGF (if that is in fact the case), instead of just describing GHDF as a “higher-risk” “higher-reward” alternative (to TCF). “Donating to this fund [GHDF] is valuable because it helps demonstrate to GiveWell that there is donor demand for higher-risk, higher-reward global health and development giving opportunities”.
If donors have been reminded about GHDF’s scope, I wonder to which extent the above is top of mind.
Consider appointing additional fund managers independent from GiveWell.
I do not recall seeing a public call for fund managers, and I guess it would have attracted more people than a private one.
I also assume a short post on eventual attempts to find fund managers would have been useful.
Consider accepting applications. Jason suggested it could “start taking applications that would previously have been within EAIF’s scope, so that there is a relatively seamless transition for potential and established grantees” (see EA Infrastructure Fund’s Plan to Focus on Principles-First EA).
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Caleb Parikh, Elie Hassenfeld, and Sjir Hoeijmakers for feedback on the draft.
“More recently, GiveWell has been doing more exploratory research to identify promising giving opportunities outside its traditional criteria, such as organizations working to assist in the creation of effective policy, or early-stage organizations. Donations to this fund [GHDF] are intended to support opportunities identified through that work, which was previously funded by Open Philanthropy through GiveWell Incubation Grants.”
GiveWell’s excess assets policy “is intended to ensure that donors to GiveWell need not worry about our room for more funding: when we have more than we can productively use ourselves, the result is more grants to the best charities we’ve found”. “We seek to be in a financial position such that our cash flow projections show us having 12 months’ worth of unrestricted assets in each of the next 12 months”.