Got a question via email asking whether people in the sector have been receptive to the "somewhat radical idea" of GiveWell. My impression is that they have been - it could just be because the sector is so much more polite than the one I'm coming from, but I generally feel like we've gotten a much warmer reception than others who set themselves up as "evaluators" (always a controversial thing to be doing), and I think it has to do with a fundamental difference between the way we see our role and the way most grantmakers and evaluators see theirs.

The thing is, we DON'T think we know more about the problems charities address than the charities do. We think they know more, and that philosophy permeates our business plan. We have no plans to design projects, design evaluations, or advise charities. We ask two broad questions: what do you do, and what's the evidence that it works? We're looking for proven, effective, scalable ways of helping people. The charities that show this best get unrestricted funding from us - and hopefully from other donors as well.

When a donor has so many options, there's no choice but to evaluate charities. We want to do it as well as we can - but by understanding them, not by commanding them (and certainly not by drawing conclusions without dialogue, as "watchdogs" do). We are demanding in terms of seeking information, but in the end we respect the people at charities and expect them to do their jobs better than we could. From what I've heard, that respect and trust is more than many grantmakers offer. And I think charities appreciate that.