Charity Navigator acquired ImpactMatters and is starting to mention “cost-effectiveness” as important

Ac­cord­ing to the an­nounce­ment on their blog (heard through Cather­ine Low).

They seem to be ac­knowl­edg­ing the im­por­tance of cost-effec­tive­ness now:

Why Cost-effec­tive­ness?
Take a sim­ple thought ex­er­cise: A pro­gram has a limited bud­get of $100,000 to im­prove liter­acy in a com­mu­nity. It can choose be­tween two ap­proaches to do so: one that can boost liter­acy by a grade level for 100 stu­dents and a sec­ond that can also boost liter­acy by a grade level but for 200 stu­dents. All else equal, a sen­si­ble pro­gram ad­minis­tra­tor would choose the sec­ond, as of course it reaches twice as many stu­dents. This is a cost-effec­tive­ness de­ci­sion. We have limited re­sources and un­limited needs. Cost-effec­tive­ness is a de­ci­sion tool that makes those re­sources go fur­ther—helping more peo­ple in more ways.

How­ever, their crite­ria still in­cludes:

“Direct” crite­rion: At least two-thirds of the non­profit’s ac­tivi­ties (as mea­sured by per­cent of to­tal pro­gram ser­vice ex­penses) are di­rectly de­liv­ered to benefi­cia­ries and rea­son­able to ex­pect im­pact mea­sure­ment for. Many non­prof­its work one or more steps re­moved from benefi­cia­ries, such as by con­duct­ing re­search, ad­vo­cat­ing for policy change or mak­ing grants to other or­ga­ni­za­tions. We do not yet have a method for con­sis­tently es­ti­mat­ing the im­pact of these non­prof­its, and so have ex­cluded them from the Im­pact & Re­sults bea­con at this time.

Will be in­ter­est­ing to see what the out­comes of this are. It first guess, I imag­ine it’ll be mixed.