Hi Jeff, thanks for another helpful suggestion! (previous one) In this case, I agree there is room for improvement, and weâll aim to update our inclusion criteria
throughout 2023 and to provide more details where we can. The reasons this particular thing isnât in there yet are (1) we simply havenât prioritised writing this out yet, as it is quite detailed/âapplies to just one of the four âcause areasâ we cover and to just one evaluator (FP) and it would require quite a bit of extra context to explain to the broad audience we try to reach (e.g. laying out what we mean by these ratings, what is measured, limitations etc.) which was beyond the scope we were able to set for this giving season (during which we already had a lot of things to update with a small team) (2) this relies on FPâs internal ratings and Iâm not sure whether FP would want these to be public, e.g. given how rough they are/âhow much context they need/âto avoid over-updating, but Iâll leave it to them to respond on that point.
On SCI specifically, my recollection is that GiveWellâs November 2021 analysis is no longer current/âthat SCI has made significant changes to its programme since that evaluation was done, though Iâm not 100% sure. In any case, for the deworming charities more generally we decided to stick closely with our inclusion criteria, which meant not recommending them as top-rated (because they donât clear GWâs nor FPâs current bar at this moment/âthey werenât recommended to us by either) and listing until we receive FPâs updated estimates. This seemed the better option in particular because we know FP will have updated estimates relatively soon, and IIRC they donât expect all deworming charities to necessarily clear the 3x bar (though again referring to them here for a response, if they are willing to comment before finalizing the evaluation). Hope that clarifies!
Thanks for pointing at this! Weâll make sure to ask GW about this at our next point of contact -i.e. whether they think we should recommend SCI/âdeworming charities given our different bar and their cost-effectiveness analysisâand this may lead us to change the status of these charities.
If FP does not recommend SCI right now it would be nice if they noted that; right now they just have âPlease note this page was last updated in 2018. While our overall views remain unchanged, some details may be out of date.â But thatâs an issue for FP, not you!
Hi Jeff, thanks for another helpful suggestion! (previous one) In this case, I agree there is room for improvement, and weâll aim to update our inclusion criteria throughout 2023 and to provide more details where we can. The reasons this particular thing isnât in there yet are (1) we simply havenât prioritised writing this out yet, as it is quite detailed/âapplies to just one of the four âcause areasâ we cover and to just one evaluator (FP) and it would require quite a bit of extra context to explain to the broad audience we try to reach (e.g. laying out what we mean by these ratings, what is measured, limitations etc.) which was beyond the scope we were able to set for this giving season (during which we already had a lot of things to update with a small team) (2) this relies on FPâs internal ratings and Iâm not sure whether FP would want these to be public, e.g. given how rough they are/âhow much context they need/âto avoid over-updating, but Iâll leave it to them to respond on that point.
On SCI specifically, my recollection is that GiveWellâs November 2021 analysis is no longer current/âthat SCI has made significant changes to its programme since that evaluation was done, though Iâm not 100% sure. In any case, for the deworming charities more generally we decided to stick closely with our inclusion criteria, which meant not recommending them as top-rated (because they donât clear GWâs nor FPâs current bar at this moment/âthey werenât recommended to us by either) and listing until we receive FPâs updated estimates. This seemed the better option in particular because we know FP will have updated estimates relatively soon, and IIRC they donât expect all deworming charities to necessarily clear the 3x bar (though again referring to them here for a response, if they are willing to comment before finalizing the evaluation). Hope that clarifies!
Since you wrote this, GiveWellâs January 2023 update is out; they have SCI at ~13.5x cash.
Thanks for pointing at this! Weâll make sure to ask GW about this at our next point of contact -i.e. whether they think we should recommend SCI/âdeworming charities given our different bar and their cost-effectiveness analysisâand this may lead us to change the status of these charities.
Thanks for clarifying!
If FP does not recommend SCI right now it would be nice if they noted that; right now they just have âPlease note this page was last updated in 2018. While our overall views remain unchanged, some details may be out of date.â But thatâs an issue for FP, not you!