The main issue I find with this is that those “standout” charities should be treated as possible future top charities, and not publishing an equivalent list might make it harder for them to become so.
My understanding is that most of these standout charities are not likely to become future top charities within the next few years.
GiveWell instead gives incubation grants to organizations/projects that would support the development of future top charities, and the organizations they grant to are usually not their standout charities (except for their 2020 grant to DMI and a 2017 grant to Zusha!). Some organizations they have given incubation grants to are Fortify Health, Pure Earth, and Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention.
I’m not sure if it’s necessary for GiveWell to make a list of these potential future top charities. Maybe just looking at which organizations they give incubation grants to might serve the same purpose?
The main issue I find with this is that those “standout” charities should be treated as possible future top charities, and not publishing an equivalent list might make it harder for them to become so.
My understanding is that most of these standout charities are not likely to become future top charities within the next few years.
GiveWell instead gives incubation grants to organizations/projects that would support the development of future top charities, and the organizations they grant to are usually not their standout charities (except for their 2020 grant to DMI and a 2017 grant to Zusha!). Some organizations they have given incubation grants to are Fortify Health, Pure Earth, and Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention.
I’m not sure if it’s necessary for GiveWell to make a list of these potential future top charities. Maybe just looking at which organizations they give incubation grants to might serve the same purpose?