This post is the third in a multi-part series, covering how GiveWell works and what we fund. Through these posts, we hope to give a better understanding of our research and decision-making.
How we work, #1: Cost-effectiveness is generally the most important factor in our recommendations
How we work, #2: We look at specific opportunities, not just general interventions
Our goal is to recommend funding to the programs we believe have the greatest impact per dollar donated. There’s no simple algorithm for this question. Answering it necessarily involves making judgment calls. Our first post in this series discussed the importance of cost-effectiveness analyses and the many factors we consider; in this post, we’ll share:
How we make subjective choices in the face of imperfect information
Some examples of judgment calls that illustrate our approach:
Combining data and intuition: Estimating the effect of water chlorination on mortality
Valuing disparate outcomes: Comparing clubfoot treatment to life-saving programs
Anticipating the likely decisions of other actors: Predicting the impact of technical assistance for syphilis screening and treatment
Making decisions with imperfect evidence
Our work relies heavily on evidence, but the available evidence never answers a question with certainty.
Academic literature and its limitations
We don’t take the results of any given study at face value.[1] Instead, we often make adjustments along the way to come to a final estimate. As part of that process, we might consider:
The methodological limitations of the available studies
The likelihood of publication bias or spurious results
Whether the study results are likely to represent the impact of the specific program we’re considering funding, which requires looking at potential differences in contexts and in the programs being implemented
How plausible the results seem when considering other relevant information, including whether there’s a known mechanism by which a program might have a certain effect
The opinions of expert advisors
Other factors not listed here
Some questions can’t easily be addressed by studies but are still important for assessing the impact of a program. Those include topics like:
Will another funder support this program if we don’t?
Will this program be successfully transitioned to the government?
How likely is it that new research will provide information that changes our minds two or three years from now?
How bad is the experience of having disease A compared to the experience of having disease B?
Considering multiple perspectives
Some donors and other experts might reasonably disagree with our