The GiveWell Blog

All Evaluation of GiveWell Posts

Results from GiveWell’s First Grantee Survey

| by Matt Wang

Recently, the GiveWell research team has focused on collecting more feedback about our work and processes, such as through our Change Our Mind contest, our Research Council, and by asking donors for feedback. While we typically ask for candid, live feedback from the organizations we work with, we had not previously invited anonymous assessment of our grantmaking process. We know our processes are different from those of many other funders, and we want to make sure our work reflects our values of maximizing global well-being, transparency, truth-seeking, and considerateness.

So, in July 2024, we sent out our first anonymous survey to people we’ve worked with during grant investigations. The survey was sent to 55 individuals representing 40 organizations that participated in a GiveWell grant investigation from January 1, 2022, to March 31, 2024. It focused on their experiences with our process and post-grant follow-up, and also included a few general questions asking for their feedback about GiveWell. We received 32 responses to the survey, a response rate of 58%. Two of the 32 responses were from organizations that did not receive a grant.

What we learned

Overall, the people who responded to our survey rated their satisfaction with GiveWell’s investigation process as 4.2 out of 5. The highest-rated areas were responsiveness and respectful communication, well-reasoned information requests, and satisfaction with the post-investigation process.

Read More

Making Predictions about Our Grants

(updated on: ) | by Hannah Bell

From sports announcers to political pundits to friends gossipping about romantic interests, lots of people make probabilistic predictions about the future. But only some actually follow up to see how well their predictions performed. For instance, you may have heard that weather forecasters predicted that the 2024 hurricane season had an 85% chance of being more active than normal and there would be 17 to 25 named storms. But in September, they were surprised that so far, it had been unexpectedly quiet, with climate change likely affecting weather patterns in ways scientists don’t fully understand.

GiveWell researchers often make forecasts about activities, milestones, and outcomes of the programs and research studies we recommend funding for, as well as decisions that GiveWell will make in the future. For example, we might forecast whether we’ll fund more hospital programs to implement Kangaroo Mother Care programs by 2027, or whether data collected about how many people are using chlorinated water will align with our expectations.

As a way to solicit external feedback on some of our predictions, we just launched a page on Metaculus, an online forecasting platform. Periodically, we will post forecasts there about GiveWell’s research and grants for the public to make their own predictions. Metaculus and other contributors will award $2,250 in prizes to people who leave insightful comments on a select group of forecasting questions. The deadline for comments is December 1, 2024.

Read More

GiveWell’s 2022 metrics report

| by Isabel Arjmand

In 2022, the most recent year for which data is available and analyzed, GiveWell raised the largest amount of money in our history, over $600 million. We thank our donors for continuing to trust us to find and recommend highly cost-effective giving opportunities. The following table summarizes our funds raised and our funds directed to programs in metrics year 2021 and 2022.

Read More

The winners of the Change Our Mind Contest—and some reflections

| by Isabel Arjmand

In September, we announced the Change Our Mind Contest for critiques of our cost-effectiveness analyses. Today, we’re excited to announce the winners!

We’re very grateful that so many people engaged deeply with our work. This contest was GiveWell’s most successful effort so far to solicit external criticism from the public, and it wouldn’t have been possible without the participation of people who share our goal of allocating funding to cost-effective programs.

Overall, we received 49 entries engaging with our prompts. We were very happy with the quality of entries we received—their authors brought a great deal of thought and expertise to engaging with our cost-effectiveness analyses.

Because we were impressed by the quality of entries, we’ve decided to award two first-place prizes and eight honorable mentions. (We stated in September that we would give a minimum of one first-place, one runner-up, and one honorable mention prize.) We also awarded $20,000 to the piece of criticism that inspired this contest.

Winners are listed below, followed by our reflections on this contest and responses to the winners.

Read More

Announcing the Change Our Mind Contest for critiques of our cost-effectiveness analyses

| by Isabel Arjmand

We’re extremely excited to be announcing the Change Our Mind Contest to encourage critiques of our cost-effectiveness analyses that could lead to substantial improvements of our overall allocation of funds. For all the details, see this page.

Cost-effectiveness is the single most important input in our decisions about what programs to recommend, and we believe it’s possible that we’re missing important considerations or making mistakes that lead us to allocate funding suboptimally. We’ve been excited to see people engaging with our cost-effectiveness analyses, and we’d like to inspire more of that engagement.

With that in mind, we’re inviting you to identify potentially important mistakes or weaknesses in our existing cost-effectiveness analyses and tell us about them!

Read More

Next Page »