Not necessarily. They were unable to convince givewell they could make comparably effective use of additional money. They make have come out and explicitly said “we’re fine for the next year”, but I don’t see givewell saying they did.
Note that last year’s top-rated charity, VillageReach, does not have projected short-term funding needs (it expects to be able to meet these needs with funds not driven by GiveWell), as discussed previously.
It expects, not GiveWell expects. But hey, why argue about it? I’ve just asked.
And implies honesty as well—hard to imagine a charity saying, ‘no, we’re actually pretty good for funding right now’.
Which means that if they do request funding in the future, there’s more of a reason to give it to them.
Not necessarily. They were unable to convince givewell they could make comparably effective use of additional money. They make have come out and explicitly said “we’re fine for the next year”, but I don’t see givewell saying they did.
It sounds like they did:
It expects, not GiveWell expects. But hey, why argue about it? I’ve just asked.