However, because we expect the approach of grantmakers/āevaluators to change more slowly than the work/āprograms of an individual charity, we are not comfortable relying on the information we used last year without undertaking a reinvestigation,[1] which we donāt expect to do (see below)
I think the rate of change is overwhelmingly a function of size, not of whether it respects grantmakers/āevaluators or work/āprograms. I would expect THLās work/āprogram to change more slowly than the Animal Welfare Fund. In any case, I agree with your decision of not recommending THL. As you say, it is more consistent with the scope of your project:
We generally base our charity and fund recommendations on our evaluating evaluators project, for reasons explained here. This year, the evaluators and grantmakers weāll rely on ā based on our evaluations ā will be EA Fundsā Animal Welfare Fund and ACEās Movement Grants, and neither of these currently recommends THL as a charity (as neither makes charity recommendations).
Hi Vasco, thanks for the comment! I should clarify that we are saying that we expect marginal cost-effectiveness of impact-focused evaluators to change more slowly than marginal cost-effectiveness for charities. All else equal, we think size is plausibly a useful heuristic. However, because we are looking at the margin, both the program itself and its funding situation can change, and as THL hasnāt been evaluated for how it allocates funding on the margin or starts new programs, but just on the quality of its marginal programs at the time of evaluation, there is a less robust signal there than there is for EA AWF, which we did evaluate on the basis of how it allocates funding on the margin. I hope that makes sense!
I think the rate of change is overwhelmingly a function of size, not of whether it respects grantmakers/āevaluators or work/āprograms. I would expect THLās work/āprogram to change more slowly than the Animal Welfare Fund. In any case, I agree with your decision of not recommending THL. As you say, it is more consistent with the scope of your project:
Hi Vasco, thanks for the comment! I should clarify that we are saying that we expect marginal cost-effectiveness of impact-focused evaluators to change more slowly than marginal cost-effectiveness for charities. All else equal, we think size is plausibly a useful heuristic. However, because we are looking at the margin, both the program itself and its funding situation can change, and as THL hasnāt been evaluated for how it allocates funding on the margin or starts new programs, but just on the quality of its marginal programs at the time of evaluation, there is a less robust signal there than there is for EA AWF, which we did evaluate on the basis of how it allocates funding on the margin. I hope that makes sense!