Initially GWWC did their own charity evaluation, and had some public disagreements with GiveWell (ex: GWWC’s 2014 Why we (still) don’t recommend GiveDirectly). Sometime around 2016 (compare team archive snapshots in mid-2016 with mid-2017) GWWC disbanded their research department, and then stopped having full time staff. In 2020 Luke took over GWWC leadership and my interpretation is the “evaluating the evaluators” direction was started under Luke.
EDIT: I had tried to find a GWWC blog post about getting out of research, but it turns out it was a CEA post:
Our research wasn’t able to add enough value beyond GiveWell and the Open Philanthropy Project. Our model involved conducting research into areas that GiveWell/Open Philanthropy Project had not fully explored and were unlikely to explore anytime soon. Our team’s areas of expertise overlapped considerably with those of GiveWell/Open Philanthropy Project, however. Without venturing well beyond our areas of expertise, there were fewer opportunities to provide value here than we expected. Although this might not always be the case, we believe that research that is within the focus areas of GiveWell/Open Philanthropy Project is most efficiently conducted within those organizations. James Snowden, formerly of our philanthropic advising team, will be joining GiveWell, where we believe his research will have greater impact.
GWWC’s mission is to “make giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm” and the pledge plays a big part in that, as does advocating for and educating about effective giving.
Supporting donors/members in giving effectively has always been a part of GWWC but what that’s looked like has changed over the years (from very detailed charity evaluation through to just linking off to GiveWell/ACE/EA Funds when there was no one working full time on GWWC).
I took the pledge in 2016 which coincided with when the research department disbanded per Jeff’s comment. I think that explains why I perceived GWWC to not be in the business of doing evaluations. Glad to see “evaluate the evaluators” is working its way back in.
I think the current thinking is: “Evaluating the evaluators”: GWWC’s research direction
Initially GWWC did their own charity evaluation, and had some public disagreements with GiveWell (ex: GWWC’s 2014 Why we (still) don’t recommend GiveDirectly). Sometime around 2016 (compare team archive snapshots in mid-2016 with mid-2017) GWWC disbanded their research department, and then stopped having full time staff. In 2020 Luke took over GWWC leadership and my interpretation is the “evaluating the evaluators” direction was started under Luke.
EDIT: I had tried to find a GWWC blog post about getting out of research, but it turns out it was a CEA post:
https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/blog/cea-strategic-update
Yep—Jeff’s pretty much captured it all here.
GWWC’s mission is to “make giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm” and the pledge plays a big part in that, as does advocating for and educating about effective giving.
Supporting donors/members in giving effectively has always been a part of GWWC but what that’s looked like has changed over the years (from very detailed charity evaluation through to just linking off to GiveWell/ACE/EA Funds when there was no one working full time on GWWC).
Thanks for the clarification!
I took the pledge in 2016 which coincided with when the research department disbanded per Jeff’s comment. I think that explains why I perceived GWWC to not be in the business of doing evaluations. Glad to see “evaluate the evaluators” is working its way back in.