Thanks Jeroen! This is a great – and timely – question.
What are your thoughts on national organisations like Effektiv Spenden in Germany or Doneer Effectief in the Netherlands, which operate much like GWWC?
We ❤️ them! We’re truly delighted to see these organisations. Witnessing effective giving (EG) grow globally is a joy for us. Anyone who is helping with our mission (to create world where giving effectively and significantly is a norm) is an ally. Even more than that, these specific effective giving national fundraising organisations are close partners. We exchanging knowledge and support on a regular basis. By pooling our resources and talents, we believe we can do a much better job. In fact, we’ve just hired Lucas Moore to spearhead our Effective Giving Global Coordination and Incubation initiative to help with this and our team recently helped initiate and organise an Effective Giving Summit that brought together representatives from these organisations.
Each of these partnerships is unique. For example:
We have an official brand partnership with Ayuda Efectiva who independently operate their platform (with their own team, board and grantmaking decisions) while also representing and managing our community in Spain.
We helped to found and fund Don Efficace, who will be using our donation/pledge platform, have a brand partnership and act as our local representative (with their own team, board and grantmaking decisions).
We share team members with EA Australia, and together we are launching GWWC Australia.
With Effektiv Spenden, we exchange best practices and collaborate on projects.
Brand partnerships also make it easier to share things like marketing materials, introduce pledgers to them, and have shared public advocates.
For many of them, we’re also involved in the grantmaking/regranting processes (e.g. receiving funds that they’re raise and regranting them to fund programs delivered by our charity partner).
Should these organisations pursue a different approach to charity research, or should they function as national versions of GWWC, attracting more members without undertaking their own investigations?
On the brand front:
The context is crucial here. How the GWWC brand presents itself through national partners varies, largely depending on the country. For instance, the idea of having significant impact as an median income earner in your country resonates and makes sense in Germany, but less so in India.
We’re actively working with our partners to strike a balance between local and international community building within the effective giving sphere. This approach helps us foster a global community that operates smoothly and raises the profile of effective giving everywhere.
On the research front:
This largely depends on available resources, local context, and areas of specialisation.
Research capacity is often limited, not just for these organisations but for GWWC as well (funding for this is pretty limited). That’s why we hope our Evaluating the Evaluators initiative will be valuable for translating the work of evaluators (like GiveWell, ACE, Founders Pledge etc) to donors and fundraising organisations. Several national regranting partners (and other fundraising organisations like High Impact Athletes) have shown interest in using this information in their charity partner selection process.
Local research on poverty alleviation could make sense in places like India and the Philippines, while policy research related to climate and existential risks might be more suited to countries like Germany (a key player in the EU) and Australia (a major source of coal/uranium and potentially renewables). If these organisations (or other organisations in new places/causes/worldviews) begin to conduct more specialised evaluations, we’d be thrilled to review their findings and share our reviews with the wider community.
Do you think that there could be very effective charities operating outside the UK/US that GWWC is currently missing? Does GWWC research charities in continental Europe?
Indeed! I’ve always believed that we’re only just beginning to uncover the most effective interventions and organisations. However, we’re constrained by our research capacity. Since 2016 we no longer conduct direct evaluations of charities/programs/grants ourselves but rely on specialised evaluators and grantmakers. We don’t plan to undertake direct evaluations in the near-to-medium term, but we’re eager to see more evaluation work that we can review and decide how best to incorporate into our recommendations.
Despite these constraints, we’re quite confident that our current recommendations are amongst the best options available for donors. We believe that most regular donors could make a far greater impact by following these recommendations rather than donating based on a specific cause or region they’re familiar with or live in. We think the field has a long way to go and are excited to see it grow.
Thanks Jeroen! This is a great – and timely – question.
We ❤️ them! We’re truly delighted to see these organisations. Witnessing effective giving (EG) grow globally is a joy for us. Anyone who is helping with our mission (to create world where giving effectively and significantly is a norm) is an ally. Even more than that, these specific effective giving national fundraising organisations are close partners. We exchanging knowledge and support on a regular basis. By pooling our resources and talents, we believe we can do a much better job. In fact, we’ve just hired Lucas Moore to spearhead our Effective Giving Global Coordination and Incubation initiative to help with this and our team recently helped initiate and organise an Effective Giving Summit that brought together representatives from these organisations.
Each of these partnerships is unique. For example:
We have an official brand partnership with Ayuda Efectiva who independently operate their platform (with their own team, board and grantmaking decisions) while also representing and managing our community in Spain.
We helped to found and fund Don Efficace, who will be using our donation/pledge platform, have a brand partnership and act as our local representative (with their own team, board and grantmaking decisions).
We share team members with EA Australia, and together we are launching GWWC Australia.
With Effektiv Spenden, we exchange best practices and collaborate on projects.
Brand partnerships also make it easier to share things like marketing materials, introduce pledgers to them, and have shared public advocates.
For many of them, we’re also involved in the grantmaking/regranting processes (e.g. receiving funds that they’re raise and regranting them to fund programs delivered by our charity partner).
On the brand front:
The context is crucial here. How the GWWC brand presents itself through national partners varies, largely depending on the country. For instance, the idea of having significant impact as an median income earner in your country resonates and makes sense in Germany, but less so in India.
We’re actively working with our partners to strike a balance between local and international community building within the effective giving sphere. This approach helps us foster a global community that operates smoothly and raises the profile of effective giving everywhere.
On the research front:
This largely depends on available resources, local context, and areas of specialisation.
Research capacity is often limited, not just for these organisations but for GWWC as well (funding for this is pretty limited). That’s why we hope our Evaluating the Evaluators initiative will be valuable for translating the work of evaluators (like GiveWell, ACE, Founders Pledge etc) to donors and fundraising organisations. Several national regranting partners (and other fundraising organisations like High Impact Athletes) have shown interest in using this information in their charity partner selection process.
Local research on poverty alleviation could make sense in places like India and the Philippines, while policy research related to climate and existential risks might be more suited to countries like Germany (a key player in the EU) and Australia (a major source of coal/uranium and potentially renewables). If these organisations (or other organisations in new places/causes/worldviews) begin to conduct more specialised evaluations, we’d be thrilled to review their findings and share our reviews with the wider community.
Indeed! I’ve always believed that we’re only just beginning to uncover the most effective interventions and organisations. However, we’re constrained by our research capacity. Since 2016 we no longer conduct direct evaluations of charities/programs/grants ourselves but rely on specialised evaluators and grantmakers. We don’t plan to undertake direct evaluations in the near-to-medium term, but we’re eager to see more evaluation work that we can review and decide how best to incorporate into our recommendations.
Despite these constraints, we’re quite confident that our current recommendations are amongst the best options available for donors. We believe that most regular donors could make a far greater impact by following these recommendations rather than donating based on a specific cause or region they’re familiar with or live in. We think the field has a long way to go and are excited to see it grow.