Initially GWWC did their own charity evaluation, and had some public disagreements with GiveWell (ex: GWWCâs 2014 Why we (still) donât 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 âevaluating the evaluatorsâ 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 wasnât able to add enough value beyond GiveWell and the Open Philanthropy Project. Our model involved conducting research into areas that GiveWell/âOpen Philanthropy Project had not fully explored and were unlikely to explore anytime soon. Our teamâs areas of expertise overlapped considerably with those of GiveWell/âOpen 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/âOpen 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.
GWWCâs mission is to âmake giving effectively and significantly a cultural normâ and the pledge plays a big part in that, as does advocating for and educating about effective giving.
Supporting donors/âmembers in giving effectively has always been a part of GWWC but what thatâs looked like has changed over the years (from very detailed charity evaluation through to just linking off to GiveWell/âACE/âEA 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 Jeffâs comment. I think that explains why I perceived GWWC to not be in the business of doing evaluations. Glad to see âevaluate the evaluatorsâ is working its way back in.
I think the current thinking is: âEvaluating the evaluatorsâ: GWWCâs research direction
Initially GWWC did their own charity evaluation, and had some public disagreements with GiveWell (ex: GWWCâs 2014 Why we (still) donât 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 âevaluating the evaluatorsâ 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://ââwww.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ââblog/ââcea-strategic-update
YepâJeffâs pretty much captured it all here.
GWWCâs mission is to âmake giving effectively and significantly a cultural normâ and the pledge plays a big part in that, as does advocating for and educating about effective giving.
Supporting donors/âmembers in giving effectively has always been a part of GWWC but what thatâs looked like has changed over the years (from very detailed charity evaluation through to just linking off to GiveWell/âACE/âEA 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 Jeffâs comment. I think that explains why I perceived GWWC to not be in the business of doing evaluations. Glad to see âevaluate the evaluatorsâ is working its way back in.