ClaimsPeople

GiveWell

GiveWell is a US-based nonprofit charity evaluator that researches and recommends high-impact giving opportunities, mainly in global health and poverty reduction.

190 claims collected, 76 researched, 23 resolved. Report of 10 October 2026, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d.

Scores by kind of claim

Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.

  • Factual claims

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

    76 63 88

    Medium confidence, 15 factual claims resolved. From 7 documents, 2010 to 2026; 8 documents sampled from 34 candidates found.

    Not scored: 13 unresolvable, 25 checkable only against their own records.

  • Predictions

    Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?

    Insufficient record: 1 prediction resolved, 5 needed for a score.

    Not scored: 5 unresolvable, 2 checkable only against their own records. 2 more fall due later.

    Does not yet allow for how likely each prediction was when made.

  • Promises

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

    70 52 87

    Low confidence, 7 promises resolved. From 3 documents, 2010 to 2022; 8 documents sampled from 34 candidates found.

    Not scored: 4 unresolvable, 2 checkable only against their own records.

All types combined: 74 (likely 64 to 84, medium confidence), from 22 claims: 15 factual claims, 7 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.

GiveWell's claims

8 claims

8 claims, sorted by newest said. Choose a claim to read it in full.
VerdictKindSaidClaimTopic
Mostly true Factual 30 Sep 2026 GiveWell's Cross-Cutting research subteam investigates the impact of funded programs, works to resolve the largest uncertainties, and strengthens data collection and analysis. Factual · 30 Sep 2026 Their own work or organisation
Mostly true Factual 30 Sep 2026 More than four million children under five die each year in low- and middle-income countries, and most of those deaths are preventable. Factual · 30 Sep 2026 Biosecurity
Mostly true Factual 6 Apr 2022 GiveWell makes its cost-effectiveness analyses publicly available. Factual · 6 Apr 2022 Science and research methods
Mostly true Factual 28 May 2020 GiveWell shares its plans for the year each spring. Factual · 28 May 2020 Their own work or organisation
Mostly true Promise 28 May 2020 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. Promise · 28 May 2020 Their own work or organisation
Mostly true Promise 28 May 2020 In 2020 GiveWell will complete its review of the New Incentives RCT results and decide whether to direct additional funding to New Incentives. Promise · 28 May 2020 Their own work or organisation
Mostly true Factual 2015 In 2014, GiveWell tracked $27.8 million in money moved to its recommended charities. Factual · 2015 Their own work or organisation
Mostly true Factual 7 Jan 2010 GiveWell last laid out a business plan in November 2008. Factual · 7 Jan 2010 Their own work or organisation
Back to the list

GiveWell

Open its page

Factual Their own work or organisation

“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 strengthens our data collection and analysis.”

GiveWell, unsigned newsletter 30 September 2026 September 2026 Updates (The GiveWell Blog)

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

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

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

What would count as true or false

Judged as of 2026-09-30. True: GiveWell's own team descriptions, together with the subteam's published outputs (research pages, reports or blog posts), show a Cross-Cutting research subteam doing all three things: investigating the impact of funded programs, working on the largest uncertainties, and strengthening data collection and analysis. Mostly true: the subteam exists and does most of these. Mixed: it does about half. Mostly false: the subteam exists but its focus is largely different. False: no such subteam existed.

Evidence

  1. Pressure-Testing Our Research as GiveWell Grows - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell · 3 September 2026 Own record
    “GiveWell’s Cross-Cutting research subteam is an important part of that effort—it investigates the impact of the programs we fund, works to resolve our largest uncertainties, and aims to improve our research. As GiveWell’s grantmaking grows, the Cross-Cutting subteam is strengthening our data collection and analysis to support that growth.”
  2. Looking Back to Give Better: A Webinar Recap - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell · 25 June 2026 Own record
    “When programs near the end of their funding, we investigate whether a grant achieved the impact we initially projected. In 2025, our growing research capacity enabled us to expand this final step for select grants and publish comprehensive evaluations that we call “lookbacks.””
  3. Research Strategy: Cross-Cutting - The GiveWell Blog GiveWell · 18 December 2024 Own record
    “We do this in a few ways:”

Reasoning

GiveWell's September 2026 blog post (E1) describes the Cross-Cutting subteam as investigating the impact of funded programs, working to resolve the largest uncertainties, and strengthening data collection and analysis. E3, a 2024 post on cross-cutting research strategy, describes work on uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates. E2 shows published 'lookback' evaluations of whether grants achieved their projected impact, though it does not attribute them to the subteam. All sources come from GiveWell itself, and the data-collection activity is supported only by E1's description rather than a specific published output, so the evidence supports most but not all elements at the level the criteria require.

Cite this claim

GiveWell, “GiveWell's Cross-Cutting research subteam investigates the impact of funded programs, works to resolve the largest uncertainties, and strengthens data collection and analysis.” (said 30 September 2026). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_ce4ef39121c6, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ce4ef39121c6

Claims without a verdict

Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for GiveWell? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.