Prompted largely by the fall in EA credibility in recent years. And also being unsatisfied with GiveWell’s lack of independent verification of the charities they recommend.
Here is a lightly edited AI generated slop version:
Reputation Hardening: Should GiveWell Verify Charity Data Independently?
“Reputation hardening” involves creating more resilient reputations.
Recent events have shown how reputation damage to one EA entity can affect the entire movement’s credibility and therefore funding and influence. While GiveWell’s evaluation process is thorough, it largely relies on charity-provided data. I propose they consider implementing independent verification methods.
Reputation Hardening
Prompted largely by the fall in EA credibility in recent years. And also being unsatisfied with GiveWell’s lack of independent verification of the charities they recommend.
Here is a lightly edited AI generated slop version:
Reputation Hardening: Should GiveWell Verify Charity Data Independently?
“Reputation hardening” involves creating more resilient reputations.
Recent events have shown how reputation damage to one EA entity can affect the entire movement’s credibility and therefore funding and influence. While GiveWell’s evaluation process is thorough, it largely relies on charity-provided data. I propose they consider implementing independent verification methods.
Applying to GiveWell/GHD
Mystery evaluators conducting unannounced site visits
Independent surveyors (potentially hiring former charity employees) collecting impact data
Creating funding opportunities for third-party monitoring organizations GiveWell have already been involved in market shaping
These measures could help detect potential issues early and strengthen confidence in effectiveness estimates.
This is a preliminary idea to start discussion. What other verification methods or implementation challenges should we consider?