Re Top Charities vs All Grants, you can read it in the linked evaluation on GiveWell: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rn1d69KR3zfVzZaRZvSZNp1vcDap1hudzxngNqeFHuc/edit. As I read it, it’s both—and an evaluation of GiveWell as an advisor overall.
GWWC picked Deworming as a probe into the difference between All Grants and Top Charities, and came away with the expected conclusion. Paraphrased: “AGF recommendations are highly impactful in expectation but with a wider outcome space (higher uncertainty either way)”.
Jonas Lindeløv
Karma: 80
All EU citizens can now sign up as members! We’re currently at 210 / 300 members, so please consider helping us reach tax deductibility by signing up as a member here: https://giveffektivt.dk/become-a-member/
I updated the post to reflect this.
Thank you, Esben! We have a great team, so it looks like we can put a lot of continued effort into maximizing the effect of charitable giving in Denmark.
Thank you for helping to kickstart this, Jørgen! Drawing on your 5+ years of experience almost feels like having cheat codes.
At Giv Effektivt (Denmark), we’re looking towards expanding from Global Health to multiple cause areas by next summer (2024), probably starting with a limited set of options. Your work here will play an important role in those decisions. Thanks!
A fun meta-reflection: where will this chain of evaluations stop? Will there be an evaluation of evaluator-evaluators? Evaluations all the way down? I guess whatever goes down in the comments here will be exactly that.