In general, I think it makes more sense for smaller organizations to be supported via funds, where grantmakers can engage directly with organization leadership.
On staleness, I would go the other way: a review of a small, agile, or quickly growing organization goes stale a lot faster than a larger and more stable one.
I like your first idea in theory, but I think you have to have enough varied funds in place first. Of the four recommended funds in Global Health & Development, all are GiveWell at their core and even GiveWell All Grants is an estimated 75 percent to GiveWell top charities per https://www.givewell.org/research/all-grants. So everyone who doesn’t score well on GiveWell’s system is going to get shut entirely out under that approach. This is absolutely not a criticism of GiveWell, which does what it is intended to do very well.
On your second point, I also agree in theory—I think SM’s growth in room for funding is one reason I qualitatively find the public report a bit stale. But how quickly to age these out loops, in part, back to whether the funds are diverse enough and willing enough to fund a range of small/midsized organizations.
In general, I think it makes more sense for smaller organizations to be supported via funds, where grantmakers can engage directly with organization leadership.
On staleness, I would go the other way: a review of a small, agile, or quickly growing organization goes stale a lot faster than a larger and more stable one.
I like your first idea in theory, but I think you have to have enough varied funds in place first. Of the four recommended funds in Global Health & Development, all are GiveWell at their core and even GiveWell All Grants is an estimated 75 percent to GiveWell top charities per https://www.givewell.org/research/all-grants. So everyone who doesn’t score well on GiveWell’s system is going to get shut entirely out under that approach. This is absolutely not a criticism of GiveWell, which does what it is intended to do very well.
On your second point, I also agree in theory—I think SM’s growth in room for funding is one reason I qualitatively find the public report a bit stale. But how quickly to age these out loops, in part, back to whether the funds are diverse enough and willing enough to fund a range of small/midsized organizations.