Thanks again for this suggestion Jeff! However, for reasons mostly outlined in my comment here (under (4)) GWWCâs position remains that we should not restrict charity recommendations only to those who have a recent public evaluation available. Iâd be interested in any more arguments coming out of this discussion that would update our view though, and these could feed into a revision of our inclusion criteria later this year.
Thereâs one thing Iâd like to addâbased on the emphasis of your new post: as you mention, there are multiple reasons why people choose to donate to charities over funds, even while we generally think that donating to funds will be the higher-impact option. I think I have lower credence than you seem to have in ânot trusting fundsâ being the most prominent one, but even if it is, I donât think the current situation is problematic for donors for whom this is the main reason: those donors can easily see whether a particular top-rated charity has a recent public evaluation available (e.g. this will be highlighted on its charity page on the GWWC website), and adjust their decisions accordingly. By keeping the current policy, the âtop-ratedâ label remains representative of where we expect money will actually do the most good, rather than it being adjusted for a subgroup of donors who have a lower trust in funds.
(As an aside, I donât see why the other reasons you mention for giving to charities (e.g. tax deductibility) would be more characteristic of âsophisticated and committedâ donors than having a view on whether or not to trust particular evaluators/âfunds)
Thanks again for this suggestion Jeff! However, for reasons mostly outlined in my comment here (under (4)) GWWCâs position remains that we should not restrict charity recommendations only to those who have a recent public evaluation available. Iâd be interested in any more arguments coming out of this discussion that would update our view though, and these could feed into a revision of our inclusion criteria later this year.
Thereâs one thing Iâd like to addâbased on the emphasis of your new post: as you mention, there are multiple reasons why people choose to donate to charities over funds, even while we generally think that donating to funds will be the higher-impact option. I think I have lower credence than you seem to have in ânot trusting fundsâ being the most prominent one, but even if it is, I donât think the current situation is problematic for donors for whom this is the main reason: those donors can easily see whether a particular top-rated charity has a recent public evaluation available (e.g. this will be highlighted on its charity page on the GWWC website), and adjust their decisions accordingly. By keeping the current policy, the âtop-ratedâ label remains representative of where we expect money will actually do the most good, rather than it being adjusted for a subgroup of donors who have a lower trust in funds.
(As an aside, I donât see why the other reasons you mention for giving to charities (e.g. tax deductibility) would be more characteristic of âsophisticated and committedâ donors than having a view on whether or not to trust particular evaluators/âfunds)