Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Apr 11, 2025, 9:53 AM

  8 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Mo Putera’s comment on: GWWC is re­tiring 10 ini­ti­a­tives

  Yep indeed, we’re scaling up rather than down, but to achieve our ambitious goals we’ll still need to focus :).

  Sorry but I can’t provide you with a precise time/​cost estimate for all these projects currently (it also varies a lot over time, and could have varied a lot in the future); my best guess would be in the order of a few percentage points across the board, so a significant amount of resources and potential “distraction” from our strategy but not an overwhelming amount.

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Apr 11, 2025, 9:45 AM

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Imma🔸’s comment on: GWWC is re­tiring 10 ini­ti­a­tives

  Thanks for these questions! I understand this may be a bit confusing.

  On (1): as Karla suggests, this is a “back-end” change (i.e. about whether we do grantmaking for funds ourselves or transfer to the fund host organisations to do this), and it doesn’t impact which supported programs we continue offering on our donation platform, including EA Funds and other funds, which will all become “charitable projects” by this definition.

  On (2): Yes, we’ll continue to maintain ANBI status in the Netherlands.

GWWC’s 2024 eval­u­a­tions of evaluators

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Oct 2, 2024, 2:19 PM

  9 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: harfe’s comment on: Four strate­gies for scal­ing effec­tive giv­ing (MCF 2024 memo)

  Thanks Harfe, I think it’s technically captured by the framework (e.g. one can promote earning to give either through pledges or broad fundraising), but it doesn’t fit neatly into it /​ come out of it naturally, so thanks for pointing it out! See also this other memo I wrote for my broader thoughts on this topic :).

Thoughts on earn­ing to give (MCF 2024 memo)

Four strate­gies for scal­ing effec­tive giv­ing (MCF 2024 memo)

The role of effec­tive giv­ing in effec­tive al­tru­ism (MCF 2024 memo)

Up­dates on the effec­tive giv­ing ecosys­tem (MCF 2024 memo)

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Sep 20, 2024, 10:04 AM

  5 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: Five Years of An­i­mal Ad­vo­cacy Ca­reers: Our Jour­ney to im­pact, Les­sons Learned, and What’s Next

  Thank you for sharing this clear write-up with many lessons and best practices/​tips that seem valuable for other organisations as well.

  I’ve personally been consistently impressed with AAC’s work and the way you are evaluating and constantly improving on your programmes over the past years, and very excited to see where you’ll be going next!

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Sep 4, 2024, 11:36 AM

  11 points

  4 ∶ 0

  on: GWWC’s Giv­ing Multiplier

  Thanks a lot for doing this evaluation, Joel! You’ve been great to work with throughout the process, e.g. respectful of our time but also asking some good, challenging questions. I hope we’ll see more external evaluations from CEARCH (and others) of effective giving organisations in the near future, as I think it will benefit the whole space in multiple ways (increased transparency and accountability, shared learnings, information for potential donors, etc.).

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸May 16, 2024, 11:45 AM

  22 points

  4 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Elizabeth’s comment on: 5 things you’ve got wrong about the Giv­ing What We Can Pledge

  Thanks Elizabeth, Owen, Brad and Kirsten for the constructive feedback! I agree that the post in its current form doesn’t live up to the epistemic standards we aspire to at GWWC, for many of the reasons you mention. My apologies for this.

  The research team usually reviews any public impact claims we make, but this post slipped through the cracks of our review process in part because the main topic (i.e. “misconceptions about the pledge”) didn’t immediately seem research-related. We’ll tighten up the process to prevent this from happening in the future. I’ve now also reviewed and we’ll edit the post on the points you mentioned + a few others. We’ll post here once that’s done.

  Thanks again for holding us accountable!

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Dec 28, 2023, 7:17 PM

  15 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: Zach Robin­son will be CEA’s next CEO

  Congratulations both to Zach for taking on this important role and to CEA for finding such a capable candidate! Based on my personal interactions with Zach, I’m excited to see where he’ll lead CEA and optimistic about him contributing to a strong, principles-based EA community. He seems to me a person both of high integrity and professionalism, who deeply cares about making the world a better place, and who is able to set and execute on a vision. From a GWWC perspective, also looking forward to collaborating with him in his new capacity on making effective giving and effective altruism principles more broadly more of a global norm!

Where are the GWWC team donat­ing in 2023?

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Dec 6, 2023, 4:22 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Joey🔸’s comment on: EA In­fras­truc­ture Fund’s Plan to Fo­cus on Prin­ci­ples-First EA

  Agreed (though personally I might be willing to make a bet if e.g. fund manager selection is done well)

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Dec 6, 2023, 11:23 AM

  14 points

  2 ∶ 0

  on: EA In­fras­truc­ture Fund’s Plan to Fo­cus on Prin­ci­ples-First EA

  Very excited about this, both about the clarification of scope and the scope itself.

  I strongly agree there is currently a gap in terms of principles-first EA funders, and also largely agree with the way you’ve outlined “principles-first EA” here. I think this new scope will make me seriously consider becoming a donor to the EAIF in the new year.

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Nov 28, 2023, 6:29 PM

  10 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jonas Lindeløv’s comment on: GWWC’s eval­u­a­tions of evaluators

  That’s great to hear Jonas, please let us know if we can do anything else to help! As mentioned in our reports and back when we announced the project, part of the motivation for doing this work is to support other effective giving organisations like Giv Effektivt to be able to make more informed decisions on their recommendations.

  And yes, agree that these comments provide a bit of the next layer… let’s see where it stops!

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Nov 28, 2023, 5:48 PM

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Andrew Gimber’s comment on: GWWC’s new recom­men­da­tions and cause area funds

  Thanks Andrew. I hope I answered most of your question by my response to MHR above, but on the EV part: (caveating that I am not speaking on behalf of EV here nor have legal expertise on the governance question, but giving my personal understanding of the situation here)

  GWWC and EA Funds are separate projects within EV; are managed separately; and communicate separately. I would be surprised if we were to discontinue supporting the EA Funds on our donation platform, given they clearly meet our inclusion criteria, but there is no need/​pressure for us to recommend EA Funds (e.g. we currently don’t recommend the EA GHD Fund nor the EA Infrastructure Fund, as we haven’t looked into them yet). We acknowledge the conflict of interest, but I hope our reports on the EA AWF and EA LTFF show we are not holding back on pointing out where we think EA Funds can improve.

  As I understand it, there are legal restrictions EV (including GWWC and EA Funds) has to obey, and if EA Funds would ever allocate funding in ways that aren’t in accordance with EV’s stated purpose that would obviously have consequences, but I’d expect those types of situations won’t have much to do with GWWC in particular.

  That’s about as much as I know to say on this; hope it answers your question!

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Nov 28, 2023, 5:27 PM

  9 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: MHR🔸’s comment on: GWWC’s new recom­men­da­tions and cause area funds

  Thank you! Great question. I can’t speak on behalf of EA Funds and their plans going forward, but I can say our new GWWC cause area funds are meaningfully different from their funds (at least as they’ve been operating so far).

  The biggest differences IMO are

  • The EA Funds generally (with the exception of the GHD Fund) only make grants to organisations that apply for funding with them.

  • The EA Funds are managed by a limited set of expert grantmakers.

  Our GWWC cause area funds, on the other hand, ultimately aim to cover recommendations and grantmaking by nearly all impact-focused evaluators and grantmakers, based on our evaluations of these evaluators, but we don’t accept any grant applications ourselves.

  For instance, EA Funds currently doesn’t consider any of Founders Pledge’s or Longview’s evaluations or active search for high-impact opportunities to inform their grantmaking, whereas our GWWC Funds do (or will do in the case of Founders Pledge) and additionally consider EA Funds as a grantmaker/​evaluator.

  For the EA GHD Fund and the GWWC GH&W Fund in particular, the difference is currently less pronounced. This is because we ended up working with GiveWell based on our initial evaluations, and EA Funds has historically asked them to advise their fund as well. However, this could easily change in the short- to medium-term, e.g. we hope to evaluate both Happier Lives Institute and Founders Pledge next year as candidates for evaluators informing our GH&W Fund grantmaking in addition to GiveWell.

  Hope that clarifies a bit! Happy to elaborate further on the differences if helpful.

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Nov 28, 2023, 4:39 PM

  12 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Animal Charity Evaluators’s comment on: GWWC’s eval­u­a­tions of evaluators

  Thank you! As we mention in the report, we’re grateful for how you’ve engaged with our evaluations process, and I think this comment is a good illustration of the open, constructive and collaborative attitude you’ve had throughout it. We look forward to re-evaluating ACE’s work next year, and in the meantime remain excited to host many of ACE’s funds and recommendations on our donation platform as promising opportunities for donors to consider.

• Sjir Hoeijmakers🔸Nov 28, 2023, 4:25 PM

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Moritz Stumpe 🔸’s comment on: GWWC’s eval­u­a­tions of evaluators

  Hi Moritz, yes if you ask me personally, I would currently lean towards recommending MG over a randomly picked ACE recommended charity, though I’m far from confident in this /​ it’s not a claim I would be able to justify to the extent we usually want to justify our recommendations as GWWC. It’s mainly based on my view that the difference between the AWF and MG is fairly small (both are broadly trying to make cost-effective grants and are getting promising applications on the margin), whereas our criticism of ACE’s charity evaluations process a bit more fundamentally challenges it coming up with highly cost-effective donation opportunities on the margin (though I also don’t want to overstate our conclusion there). I would furthermore guess that MG is/​will be more funding-constrained relative to its aims/​applications than most of ACE’s individual charity recommendations. (but really, this is a guess: note that I haven’t looked into the charity recommendations individually!)