ClaimsGiveWell

“We will make these grants if we believe they are more cost-effective than the opportunities to which we would otherwise direct funds.”

GiveWell, unsigned blog post 28 May 2020 GiveWell's plans for 2020 (The GiveWell Blog) archived copy

Promise Their own work or organisation

GiveWell will make additional COVID-19 response grants if it believes they are more cost-effective than the opportunities to which it would otherwise direct funds.

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

Promise: Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

This is a conditional commitment. True: any further COVID-19 grants GiveWell made after 28 May 2020 were justified in its grant writeups by a judgement that they were more cost-effective than its alternative uses of funds, and there is no record of grants being made despite GiveWell judging them less cost-effective. Making no further grants is consistent with the promise if GiveWell explains it judged the opportunities not cost-effective enough. Mixed or mostly false: grants were made with a stated rationale other than comparative cost-effectiveness. False: GiveWell's own records show it made COVID-19 grants it described as below its cost-effectiveness bar.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 Grantmaking in Response to COVID-19 GiveWell · March 2021 Own record

    “We looked for grants that we thought would be as or more cost-effective than where we would have otherwise directed marginal funding.”

  2. E2 Grantmaking in Response to COVID-19 GiveWell · March 2021 Own record

    “These grants were part of GiveWell's work to identify COVID-19-related giving opportunities that might be comparable to our top charities in cost-effectiveness.”

  3. E3 Innovations for Poverty Action — Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effect of Face Masks on COVID-19 GiveWell · February 2021 Own record

    “The grant resulted from GiveWell’s work to identify giving opportunities related to COVID-19 that could be more cost-effective than support for our top charities.”

  4. E4 Optimizing Your Pandemic Charity Michigan Public (Planet Money newsletter excerpt, NPR) · 5 May 2020

    “And, Snowden says, that $2,000-per-life figure is just "a really high bar to clear." So Snowden says they're still recommending people donate to the same top charities they did before the coronavirus.”

Reasoning

GiveWell's grant writeups for COVID-19 grants made after 28 May 2020, including the July 2020 IPA mask RCT grant (E3) and the IDinsight grants (E2), justify them in comparative cost-effectiveness terms against its top charities. Its 2021 summary says it sought grants as or more cost-effective than its marginal alternatives (E1). No evidence shows a grant described as below its bar, but all post-claim evidence comes from GiveWell itself, and E3 notes the cost-effectiveness estimate was less rigorous than usual. E4 is independent but predates the claim and only shows the bar was high.

Cite this claim

GiveWell, “GiveWell will make additional COVID-19 response grants if it believes they are more cost-effective than the opportunities to which it would otherwise direct funds.” (said 28 May 2020). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_317d5b778c3a, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_317d5b778c3a

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 promise claims by GiveWell

  1. Delivered on time Promise 6 April 2022
    “Winners will be announced by December 15, 2022.”

    GiveWell will announce contest winners by December 15, 2022.

  2. Mostly false Promise 28 May 2020
    “We hope to conduct in-depth reviews of one to two other charities (most likely Precision Agriculture for Development and/or Sanku, though possibly others) as well, but may have limited capacity to do…”

    GiveWell hopes to conduct in-depth reviews of one to two other charities in 2020, most likely Precision Agriculture for Development and/or Sanku, but may have limited capacity due to COVID-19 work.

  3. Mostly true Promise 28 May 2020
    “This year, we expect to complete our review of the RCT results and to make a decision about whether to direct additional funding to support New Incentives’ work.”

    In 2020 GiveWell will complete its review of the New Incentives RCT results and decide whether to direct additional funding to New Incentives.

  4. Resolved true Promise 7 January 2010
    “we’ll be trying to examine ourselves as dispassionately and critically as possible, and sharing our self-review in something close to real time via this blog.”

    GiveWell will examine itself critically over the coming weeks and share its self-review in near real time on its blog.

  5. Resolved true Promise 7 January 2010
    “For all of these questions, we intend to discuss”

    GiveWell intends to discuss, for each of its self-review questions, its progress since November 2008, where it stands today relative to success, and what it can do to improve.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.