Mmm, so maybe the crux is at (3) or (4)? I think that GWWC may be assuming too much about how viewers are interpreting the messaging and presentation around the evaluations. I think there is probably a way to signal the differences in evaluation strength while still maintaining the BYO worldview approach?
Just speaking for myself, I’d guess those would be the cruxes, though I don’t personally see easy-fixes. I also worry that you could also err on being too cautious, by potential adding warning labels that give people an overly negative impression compared to the underlying reality. I’m curious if there are examples where you think GWWC could strike a better balance.
I think this might be symptomatic of a broader challenge for effective giving for GCR, which is that most of the canonical arguments for focusing on cost-effectiveness involve GHW-specific examples, that don’t clearly generalize to the GCR space. But I don’t think that indicates you shouldn’t give to GCR, or care about cost-effectiveness in the GCR space — from a very plausible worldview (or at least, the worldview I have!) the GCR-focused funding opportunities are the most impactful funding opportunities available. It’s just that the kind of reasoning underlying those recommendations/evaluations are quite different.
canonical arguments for focusing on cost-effectiveness involve GHW-specific examples, that don’t clearly generalize to the GCR space.
I am not sure I understand the claim being made here. Do you believe this to be the case, because of a tension between hits based and cost-effective giving?
If so, I may disagree with the point. Fundamentally if you’re an “hit” grant-maker, you still care about (1) The amount of impact as a result of a hit (2) the odds on getting a hit (3) Indicators which may lead up to getting a hit (4) The marginal impact of your grant.
1&2) Require solid theory of change, and BOTEC EV calculations 3) Good M&E
Fundamentally, I wouldn’t see much of a tension between hits based and cost-effective giving, other than a much higher tolerance for risk.
I suppose to tack onto Elliot’s answer, I’m curious about what you see the differences in reasoning to be. If it is merely that GCR giving opportunities are more hits-based / high variance, I could see, for example, a small label being applied on the GWWC website next to higher-risk opportunities with a link to something like the explanations you’ve written above (and the evaluation reports).
That kind of labelling feels like only a quantitative difference from the current binary evaluations (as in, currently GWWC signals inclusion/exclusion, but could extend that to signal for strength of evaluation or risk of opportunity).
Mmm, so maybe the crux is at (3) or (4)? I think that GWWC may be assuming too much about how viewers are interpreting the messaging and presentation around the evaluations. I think there is probably a way to signal the differences in evaluation strength while still maintaining the BYO worldview approach?
Just speaking for myself, I’d guess those would be the cruxes, though I don’t personally see easy-fixes. I also worry that you could also err on being too cautious, by potential adding warning labels that give people an overly negative impression compared to the underlying reality. I’m curious if there are examples where you think GWWC could strike a better balance.
I think this might be symptomatic of a broader challenge for effective giving for GCR, which is that most of the canonical arguments for focusing on cost-effectiveness involve GHW-specific examples, that don’t clearly generalize to the GCR space. But I don’t think that indicates you shouldn’t give to GCR, or care about cost-effectiveness in the GCR space — from a very plausible worldview (or at least, the worldview I have!) the GCR-focused funding opportunities are the most impactful funding opportunities available. It’s just that the kind of reasoning underlying those recommendations/evaluations are quite different.
I am not sure I understand the claim being made here. Do you believe this to be the case, because of a tension between hits based and cost-effective giving?
If so, I may disagree with the point. Fundamentally if you’re an “hit” grant-maker, you still care about (1) The amount of impact as a result of a hit (2) the odds on getting a hit (3) Indicators which may lead up to getting a hit (4) The marginal impact of your grant.
1&2) Require solid theory of change, and BOTEC EV calculations
3) Good M&E
Fundamentally, I wouldn’t see much of a tension between hits based and cost-effective giving, other than a much higher tolerance for risk.
I suppose to tack onto Elliot’s answer, I’m curious about what you see the differences in reasoning to be. If it is merely that GCR giving opportunities are more hits-based / high variance, I could see, for example, a small label being applied on the GWWC website next to higher-risk opportunities with a link to something like the explanations you’ve written above (and the evaluation reports).
That kind of labelling feels like only a quantitative difference from the current binary evaluations (as in, currently GWWC signals inclusion/exclusion, but could extend that to signal for strength of evaluation or risk of opportunity).