💡
EA market testing (public)
  • Introduction/overview
    • Introduction & explanation
    • 👋Meet the team
    • 📕Content overview
    • Progress/goals (early 2023)
      • EAMT progress & results
      • Goals, trajectory, FAQs
  • 🤝Partners, contexts, trials
    • Introduction
    • Giving What We Can
      • Pledge page (options trial)
      • Giving guides - Facebook
      • Message Test (Feb 2022)
      • YouTube Remarketing
    • One For the World (OftW)
      • Pre-giving-tues. email A/B
        • Preregistration: OftW pre-GT
    • The Life You Can Save (TLYCS)
      • Advisor signup (Portland)
    • Fundraisers & impact info.
      • ICRC - quick overview
      • CRS/DV: overview
      • 📖Posts and writings
    • University/city groups
    • Workplaces/orgs
    • Other partners
    • Related/relevant projects/orgs
  • 🪧Marketing & testing: opportunities, tools, tips
    • Testing Contexts: Overview
    • Implementing ads, messages, designs
      • Doing and funding ads
      • Video ads/Best-practice guidelines
      • Facebook
      • Targeted ad on FB, with variations: setup
    • Collecting outcome data
      • Facebook ads interface
        • Pivot tables
      • Google analytics interface
      • Google A/B, optimize interface
      • Reconciling FB/GA reports
      • Survey/marketing platforms
    • Trial reporting template
  • 🎨Research Design, methodology
    • Methods: Overview, resources
    • "Qualitative" design issues
    • Real-world assignment & inference
      • Geographic segmentation/blocked randomization
      • Difference in difference/'Time-based methods'
      • Facebook split-testing issues
    • Simple quant design issues
    • Adaptive design/sampling, reinforcement learning
    • 'Observational' studies: issues
    • Analysis: Statistical approaches
  • 🧮Profiling and segmentation project
    • Introduction, scoping work
    • Existing work/data
      • Surveys/Predicting EA interest
      • Awareness: RP, etc.
      • Kagan and Fitz survey
      • Longtermism attitudes/profiling
      • Animal welfare attitudes: profiling/surveying
      • Other data
    • Fehr/SOEP analysis... followup
      • Followup with Thomas Ptashnik
    • Further approaches in progress
      • Profiling 'existing traffic'
  • 📋(In)effective Altruistic choices: Review of theory and evidence
    • Introduction...
    • The challenge: drivers of effective/ineffective giving
      • How little we know...
    • Models, theories, psych. norms
    • Tools and trials: overview
      • Tools/interventions: principles
      • Outcomes: Effective gift/consider impact)
        • (Effectiveness information and its presentation)
        • (Outcome: Pledge, give substantially (& effectively))
          • (Moral duty (of well-off))
        • Give if you win/ conditional pledge
      • Academic Paper Ideas
  • Appendix
    • How this 'gitbook' works
      • Other tech
    • Literature: animal advocacy messaging
    • Charity ratings, rankings, messages
    • "A large-scale online experiment" (participants-aware)
  • Innovationsinfundraising.org
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Givewell
  • SoGive
  • Charity Navigator 'impact rating' (Impact Matters)
  • (The Life You Can Save)
  • (Animal charity evaluators)
  • (Other)
  • Non-effectiveness ratings (for comparison)
  • Charity Navigator (mainly non-impact, see above)
  • Guidestar (AKA 'Candid')

Was this helpful?

Edit on GitHub
Export as PDF
  1. Appendix

Charity ratings, rankings, messages

Considering 'what information and ratings are out there about charity effectiveness and how is it/should it/could it be presented

PreviousLiterature: animal advocacy messagingNextInnovationsinfundraising.org

Last updated 2 years ago

Was this helpful?

What are the existing sources of information and ratings about charity effectiveness? How credible are these? How are these presented, and how could/should they be presented?

Givewell

SoGive

Charity Navigator 'impact rating' (Impact Matters)

Some weaknesses in their metrics -- See earlier post HERE

Updates: Went through recent impact ratings (briefly picking charities, found some limitations:

    • "$670 provides an additional year of healthy life to a blood transfusion patient." (Note this is based on US data)

    • This seems implausible as an actual 'impact' of a $670 donation; it is not clearly considering the counterfactual

Updates 4 Oct 2022: There may be some promising developments within Charity Navigator; watch this space

(The Life You Can Save)

(Animal charity evaluators)

(Other)

Non-effectiveness ratings (for comparison)

Charity Navigator (mainly non-impact, see above)

Guidestar (AKA 'Candid')

ratings have little or nothing to do with impact. - Guide Dogs for the Blind and Make-a-Wish are both top ('Platinum' rated) ... we know these are ineffective (classic examples)- Against Malaria Foundation is unrated and "New Incentives" gets the lower 'Gold' rating -- both are top-rated on GiveWell. Also, note the Guidestar criteria:

The Platinum Seal of Transparency indicates that the Foundation shares clear and important information with the public about our goals, strategies, capabilities, achievements and progress indicators that highlight the difference the Foundation makes in the world.\

It's about transparency, not impact.

: 100 out of 100 impact rating

American Red Cross
david_reinstein's Shortform - EA Forum
Logo