Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Karthik Tadepalli5
1
0
2

I read it as "providing enough funding for independent auditors of charities to exist and be financially sustainable"

Reply
See in context
by stevenhuyn🔸
2 min read 12

64

Effective givingGlobal health & developmentGiveWellTransparencyCharity evaluationDraft Amnesty Week (2025)
Frontpage

Edit: GiveWell's Response at the Bottom

A past event has 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.

Reliance on coverage surveys

GiveWell performs no independent verification of their charity's claims to draw their conclusions. However they do do a downward adjustment.

This feels lacking.

Getting numbers that are closer to reality not only increases the cost effectiveness calculation accuracy but also reduces the risk of adding a new entry to their mistake list.

Suggestions to shore it up

GiveWell is an important cornerstone of the movement and thus preserving its reputation should be further explored to see if more could be done.

GiveWell's Response

GiveWell would also like to improve in this area. Some work has already been done. However, this year our cross-cutting research subteam, which focuses on high-priority questions affecting all intervention areas, plans to improve our coverage survey estimates. Examples of work we’ve done to address our concerns with coverage survey estimates include:

  • Our research team is working on a project to identify, connect with, and potentially test different external evaluator organizations to make it easier for grantmakers to identify well-suited evaluation partners for the questions they’re trying to answer.
  • We recently approved a grant to Busara Center to conduct a qualitative survey of actors in Helen Keller Intl’s vitamin A supplementation delivery, including caregivers of children who receive vitamin A supplementation.
  • We made a grant to IDinsight to review and provide feedback on Against Malaria Foundation’s monitoring process for their 2025 campaign in Democratic Republic of the Congo.
  • For New Incentives, we mainly rely on the randomized controlled trial of their work to estimate coverage, which was run by an independent evaluator, IDinsight. Only recently have we begun to give weight to their coverage surveys.
  • We funded a Tufts University study to compare findings to Evidence Action’s internal monitoring and evaluation for their Dispensers for Safe Water program, which caused us to update our coverage data and consider funding an external coverage survey.
  • Our grant to CHAI to strengthen and support a community-based tuberculosis household contact management program includes IDinsight to evaluate the program through a large-scale cluster randomized control trial (cRCT) and process evaluation.

64

2
0
2

Reactions

2
0
2
Comments12


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Larks12
3
1

Independent verification seems good, but mainly for object-level epistemic reasons rather than reputational. 

Reply
stevenhuyn🔸3
0
1

Transparency is only a means for reputation. The world is built on trust and faith in the systems and EA is no different.

I believe more people would be alarmed by the lack of independent vetting than the nominal cost effective numbers being inaccurate themself. It feels like there are perverse incentives at play.

Reply
titotal8
3
0

Epistemologically speaking, it's just not a good idea to have opinions relying on the conclusions of a single organization, no matter how trustworthy it is. 

EA in general does not have very strong mechanisms for incentivising fact-checking: the use of independent evaluators seems like a good idea. 

Reply
Toby Tremlett🔹5
1
0
1

Just wanted to note that this take relies on "GiveWell performs no independent verification of their charity's claims to draw their conclusions" being true, and it struck me as surprising (and hence doubtful). Does anyone have a good citation for this / opinions on it? 

Reply
stevenhuyn🔸3
0
0
1

GiveWell's Carley Moor from their philantrophic outreach team contacted me and we had a conversation a few weeks ago which prompted this post.

Among other things I asked about independent verification there. The short answer seems to be no independent verification with the caveat that they adjust. The spreadsheets I linked were sourced from her.

They do fund at least one meta charity that help improve monitoring & evaluation at these charities.

I asked her to either post her response email here or let me post it verbatim and am awaiting to hear from her next week. Being cautious lest I misrepresent them.

Reply
Toby Tremlett🔹2
0
0

Thanks for the details! Keen to see their response if Carley OKs it. 

Reply
stevenhuyn🔸1
0
0

I hope so! Apparently the concept was received well with the team.

Reply
NickLaing5
0
0

I love these suggestions and have wondered about this for some time. Independent surveyors is a really good idea - not only for impact data but also for progamattic data. Although findng truly independednt surveyors is harde than you might think in relatively small NGO econsystems.

I don't really understand what you mean by "Creating funding opportunities for third-party monitoring organisations" can you explain what you mean?

I also would have liked to see a couple more paragraphs explaining the background and reasoning, although good on you for putting up the draft rather than leaving it just in the word doc :D.

Reply
Karthik Tadepalli5
1
0
2

I read it as "providing enough funding for independent auditors of charities to exist and be financially sustainable"

Reply
stevenhuyn🔸1
0
0
1

This is what I meant.

Reply
stevenhuyn🔸1
0
0

Appreciate the feedback, although can you elaborate on what you mean by impact data and progamattic data?

I agree I could have made a better case on the reputation part.

Reply
Non-zero-sum James4
1
0

It is news to me that this isn't already the case, seems like an obvious positive, both for the potentially higher ratings (not being down-adjusted) and as instructive for the organisations themselves.

Reply
More from stevenhuyn🔸
37
Napkin Math Analysis - Potassium fortification to reduce Blood Pressure
stevenhuyn🔸
· · 4m read
12
12
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
141
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
19
GiveWell is hiring a Talent Acquisition Specialist
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
View more