ClaimsGiveWell

“Among all donors who gave in the previous year, about 35% gave again in 2016, down from about 40% who gave again in 2015.”

GiveWell 2018 GiveWell Metrics Report – 2016 Annual Review (GiveWell) archived copy

Factual Their own work or organisation

Among donors who gave in 2015, about 35% gave again in 2016, down from about 40% who gave again in 2015.

Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

What would count as true or false

Judged against GiveWell's donor-retention data as published around 2018. True: the share of prior-year donors who gave again was about 35% in 2016 (within roughly ±3 points) and about 40% in 2015 (within roughly ±3 points), so retention fell. Mostly true: retention fell from 2015 to 2016, but one figure is off by a little more than that (up to about ±5 points). Mixed: only one of the two figures is roughly right, or both figures are roughly right but the decline is negligible or ambiguous. Mostly false: retention did not decline, or both figures are clearly off. False: the data show retention rose or stayed flat, with figures far from 35% and 40%.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (1)

  1. E1 GiveWell’s money moved and web traffic in 2015 - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell (GiveWell Blog) · 13 May 2016 Own record

    “Among all donors who gave in the previous year, about 40% gave again in 2015, up from about 33% who gave again in 2014.”

Reasoning

GiveWell's 2016 blog post [E2] reports that about 40% of prior-year donors gave again in 2015, which matches the claim's 2015 figure. No evidence covers the 2016 retention rate, so neither the roughly 35% figure nor the claimed decline can be checked against GiveWell's published data. With only half the claim supported, the evidence does not settle it under the criteria.

Cite this claim

GiveWell, “Among donors who gave in 2015, about 35% gave again in 2016, down from about 40% who gave again in 2015.” (said 2018). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_0fbe5e3ff778, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_0fbe5e3ff778

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For GiveWell, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by GiveWell

  1. Mostly true Factual 30 September 2026
    “GiveWell’s Cross-Cutting research subteam focuses on improving our grantmaking over time—it investigates the impact of the programs we fund, works to resolve our largest uncertainties, and…”

    GiveWell's Cross-Cutting research subteam investigates the impact of funded programs, works to resolve the largest uncertainties, and strengthens data collection and analysis.

  2. Resolved true Factual 30 September 2026
    “That was our largest fundraising year to date, and we’re now preparing for the potential of a future at a substantially larger scale.”

    GiveWell's 2025 fundraising of $616 million was its largest fundraising year to date.

  3. Resolved true Factual 31 August 2026
    “Around $124 million (29% of funds directed) went to our four Top Charities”

    Around $124 million (29% of funds directed) in 2025 went to GiveWell's four Top Charities.

  4. Resolved true Factual 31 August 2026
    “In 2025, we directed around $427 million to high-impact programs and organizations. This represents an increase of 8% in funds directed compared to 2024.”

    In 2025 GiveWell directed around $427 million to high-impact programs and organizations, an 8% increase in funds directed compared to 2024.

  5. Mostly true Factual 28 May 2020
    “Each spring, we share our plans for the year.”

    GiveWell shares its plans for the year each spring.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.