I still do not think any (immediate) action on our part is required.
FWIW Iâm not asking for immediate action, but a reconsideration of the criteria for endorsing a recommendation from a trusted evaluator.
There are only very few charities for which full public and up-to-date evaluations are available, and coverage for some worldviews/âpromising cause areas is structurally missing. In particular, there are currently hardly any full public and up-to-date evaluations in the mental health/âsubjective well-being, longtermist and âmetaâ spaces. And note thatâby this standardâwe wouldnât be able to recommend any funds except for those just regranting to already-established recommendations.
Iâm not proposing changing your approach to recommending funds, but for recommending charities. In cases where a field has only non-public or stale evaluations then fund managers are still in a position to consider non-public information and the general state of the field, check in with evaluators about what kind of stale the current evaluations are at, etc. And in these cases I think the best you can do is say that this is a field where GWWC currently doesnât have any recommendations for specific charities, and only recommends giving via funds.
FWIW Iâm not asking for immediate action, but a reconsideration of the criteria for endorsing a recommendation from a trusted evaluator.
I wasnât suggesting you were, but Simon certainly was. Sorry if that wasnât clear.
In cases where a field has only non-public or stale evaluations then fund managers are still in a position to consider non-public information and the general state of the field, check in with evaluators about what kind of stale the current evaluations are at, etc. And in these cases I think the best you can do is say that this is a field where GWWC currently doesnât have any recommendations for specific charities, and only recommends giving via funds.
As GWWC gets its recommendations and information directly from evaluators (and aims to update its recommendations regularly), I donât see a meaningful difference here between funds vs charities in fields where there are public up-to-date evaluations and where there arenât: in both cases, GWWC would recommend giving to funds over charities, and in both cases we can also highlight the charities that seem to be the most cost-effective donation opportunities based on the latest views of evaluators. GWWC provides a value-add to donors here, given some of these recommendations wouldnât be available to them otherwise (and many donors probably still prefer to donate to charities over donating to funds /â might not donate otherwise).
I wasnât suggesting you were, but Simon certainly was. Sorry if that wasnât clear.
Sorry, yes, I forgot your comment was primarily a response to Simon!
I donât see a meaningful difference here between funds vs charities in fields where there are public up-to-date evaluations and where there arenât
Iâm generally comfortable donating via funds, but this requires a large degree of trust in the fund managers. Iâm saying that I trust them to make decisions in line with the fund objectives, often without making their reasoning public. The biggest advantage I see to GWWC continuing to recommend specific charities is that it supports people who donât have that level of trust in directing their money well. This doesnât work without recommendations being backed by public current evaluations: if it just turns into âGWWC has internal reasons to trust FP which has internal reasons to recommend SMâ then this advantage for these donors is lost.
Note that this doesnât require that most donors read the public evaluations: these lower-trust donors still (rightly!) understand that their chances of being seriously misled are much lower if an evaluator has written up a public case like this.
So in fields where there are public up-to-date evaluations I think itâs good for GWWC to recommend funds, with individual charities as a fallback. But in fields where there arenât, I think GWWC should recommend funds only.
GWWC provides a value-add to donors here, given some of these recommendations wouldnât be available to them otherwise
What to do about people who canât donate to funds is a tricky case. I think what Iâd like to see is funds saying something like, if you want to support our work the best thing is to give to the fund, but the second best is to support orgs X, Y, Z. This recommendation wouldnât be based on a public evaluation, but just on your trust in them as a funder.
I especially think itâs important to separate when someone would be happy giving to a fund if not for the tax etc consequences vs when someone wants the trust/âpublic/âepistemic/âetc benefits of donating to a specific charity based on a public case.
I think trust is one of the reasons why a donor may or may not decide to give to a fund over a charity, but there are others as well, e.g. a preference for supporting more specific causes or projects. I expect donors with these other reasons (who trust evaluators/âfund managers but would still prefer to give to individual charities (as well)) will value charity recommendations in areas for which there are no public and up-to-date evaluations available.
I think what Iâd like to see is funds saying something like, if you want to support our work the best thing is to give to the fund, but the second best is to support orgs X, Y, Z. This recommendation wouldnât be based on a public evaluation, but just on your trust in them as a funder.
Note that this is basically equivalent to the current situation: we recommend funds over charities but highlight supporting charities as the second-best thing, based on recommendations of evaluators (who are often also fund managers in their area).
Thinking more, other situations in which a donor might want to donate to specific charities despite trusting the grantmakerâs judgement include:
Preference adjustments. Perhaps you agree with a fund in general, but you think they value averting deaths too highly relative to improving already existing lives. By donating to one of the charities they typically fund that focuses on the latter you might shift the distribution of funds in that direction. Or maybe not; your donation also has the effect of decreasing how much additional funding the charity needs, and the fund might allocate more elsewhere.
Ops skepticism. When you donate through a fund, in addition to trusting the grantmakers to make good decisions youâre also trusting the fundâs operations staff to handle the money properly and that your money wonât be caught up in unrelated legal trouble. Donating directly to a charity avoids these risks.
Yeah agreed. And another one could be as a way of getting involved more closely with a particularly charity when one wants to provide other types of support (advice, connections) in addition to funding. E.g. even though I donât think this should help a lot, Iâve anecdotally found it helpful to fund individual charities that I advise, because putting my personal donation money on the line motivates me to think even more critically about how the charity could best use its limited resources.
Thanks again for engaging in this discussion so thoughtfully Jeff! These types of comments and suggestions are generally very helpful for us (even if I donât agree with these particular ones).
Thanks for the response!
FWIW Iâm not asking for immediate action, but a reconsideration of the criteria for endorsing a recommendation from a trusted evaluator.
Iâm not proposing changing your approach to recommending funds, but for recommending charities. In cases where a field has only non-public or stale evaluations then fund managers are still in a position to consider non-public information and the general state of the field, check in with evaluators about what kind of stale the current evaluations are at, etc. And in these cases I think the best you can do is say that this is a field where GWWC currently doesnât have any recommendations for specific charities, and only recommends giving via funds.
I wasnât suggesting you were, but Simon certainly was. Sorry if that wasnât clear.
As GWWC gets its recommendations and information directly from evaluators (and aims to update its recommendations regularly), I donât see a meaningful difference here between funds vs charities in fields where there are public up-to-date evaluations and where there arenât: in both cases, GWWC would recommend giving to funds over charities, and in both cases we can also highlight the charities that seem to be the most cost-effective donation opportunities based on the latest views of evaluators. GWWC provides a value-add to donors here, given some of these recommendations wouldnât be available to them otherwise (and many donors probably still prefer to donate to charities over donating to funds /â might not donate otherwise).
Sorry, yes, I forgot your comment was primarily a response to Simon!
Iâm generally comfortable donating via funds, but this requires a large degree of trust in the fund managers. Iâm saying that I trust them to make decisions in line with the fund objectives, often without making their reasoning public. The biggest advantage I see to GWWC continuing to recommend specific charities is that it supports people who donât have that level of trust in directing their money well. This doesnât work without recommendations being backed by public current evaluations: if it just turns into âGWWC has internal reasons to trust FP which has internal reasons to recommend SMâ then this advantage for these donors is lost.
Note that this doesnât require that most donors read the public evaluations: these lower-trust donors still (rightly!) understand that their chances of being seriously misled are much lower if an evaluator has written up a public case like this.
So in fields where there are public up-to-date evaluations I think itâs good for GWWC to recommend funds, with individual charities as a fallback. But in fields where there arenât, I think GWWC should recommend funds only.
What to do about people who canât donate to funds is a tricky case. I think what Iâd like to see is funds saying something like, if you want to support our work the best thing is to give to the fund, but the second best is to support orgs X, Y, Z. This recommendation wouldnât be based on a public evaluation, but just on your trust in them as a funder.
I especially think itâs important to separate when someone would be happy giving to a fund if not for the tax etc consequences vs when someone wants the trust/âpublic/âepistemic/âetc benefits of donating to a specific charity based on a public case.
I think trust is one of the reasons why a donor may or may not decide to give to a fund over a charity, but there are others as well, e.g. a preference for supporting more specific causes or projects. I expect donors with these other reasons (who trust evaluators/âfund managers but would still prefer to give to individual charities (as well)) will value charity recommendations in areas for which there are no public and up-to-date evaluations available.
Note that this is basically equivalent to the current situation: we recommend funds over charities but highlight supporting charities as the second-best thing, based on recommendations of evaluators (who are often also fund managers in their area).
Thinking more, other situations in which a donor might want to donate to specific charities despite trusting the grantmakerâs judgement include:
Preference adjustments. Perhaps you agree with a fund in general, but you think they value averting deaths too highly relative to improving already existing lives. By donating to one of the charities they typically fund that focuses on the latter you might shift the distribution of funds in that direction. Or maybe not; your donation also has the effect of decreasing how much additional funding the charity needs, and the fund might allocate more elsewhere.
Ops skepticism. When you donate through a fund, in addition to trusting the grantmakers to make good decisions youâre also trusting the fundâs operations staff to handle the money properly and that your money wonât be caught up in unrelated legal trouble. Donating directly to a charity avoids these risks.
Yeah agreed. And another one could be as a way of getting involved more closely with a particularly charity when one wants to provide other types of support (advice, connections) in addition to funding. E.g. even though I donât think this should help a lot, Iâve anecdotally found it helpful to fund individual charities that I advise, because putting my personal donation money on the line motivates me to think even more critically about how the charity could best use its limited resources.
Thanks again for engaging in this discussion so thoughtfully Jeff! These types of comments and suggestions are generally very helpful for us (even if I donât agree with these particular ones).