I’d guess the funging or reduced funding this way would be small in expectation, like less than 5%? If you split your donations across multiple of these charities, you can reduce the total risk.
But again, I think these orgs systematically have extra RFMF (and you could check ACE’s reports to see how much), and they tend not to lose status because of reduced RFMF. Like THL and GFI have been Top Charities continuously (except GFI missing one year for culture issues). I think other orgs dropped in status usually because of culture/harassment issues or revisions to expectations of their cost-effectiveness or promisingness of their work.
Also, I suppose donating could even increase their RFMF in the longer run instead of dropping the recommendation status, by addressing bottlenecks for growth.
they tend not to lose status because of reduced RFMF
Great point! That makes them different from GiveWell charities, where, e.g., AMF was dropped at least once due to RFMF concerns.
I suppose donating could even increase their RFMF in the longer run
Yeah, it’s not obvious to me that it’s right to think about RFMF decreasing as a charity gets more money. It may well be the opposite: more money means faster growth, which means more ability to use money.
OTOH, if other donors believe that RFMF is limited, then there’s a possibility of them funging away any extra donations you might make. For example, if you donate $25K in an effort to help the charity grow faster and increase its long-term RFMF, if someone else sees that and immediately shrinks their grant size by $25K, then you don’t succeed in helping the charity grow any faster, its long-term RFMF remains unchanged, and you still get funged.
I’d guess the funging or reduced funding this way would be small in expectation, like less than 5%? If you split your donations across multiple of these charities, you can reduce the total risk.
But again, I think these orgs systematically have extra RFMF (and you could check ACE’s reports to see how much), and they tend not to lose status because of reduced RFMF. Like THL and GFI have been Top Charities continuously (except GFI missing one year for culture issues). I think other orgs dropped in status usually because of culture/harassment issues or revisions to expectations of their cost-effectiveness or promisingness of their work.
Also, I suppose donating could even increase their RFMF in the longer run instead of dropping the recommendation status, by addressing bottlenecks for growth.
Great point! That makes them different from GiveWell charities, where, e.g., AMF was dropped at least once due to RFMF concerns.
Yeah, it’s not obvious to me that it’s right to think about RFMF decreasing as a charity gets more money. It may well be the opposite: more money means faster growth, which means more ability to use money.
OTOH, if other donors believe that RFMF is limited, then there’s a possibility of them funging away any extra donations you might make. For example, if you donate $25K in an effort to help the charity grow faster and increase its long-term RFMF, if someone else sees that and immediately shrinks their grant size by $25K, then you don’t succeed in helping the charity grow any faster, its long-term RFMF remains unchanged, and you still get funged.