A glance at AMF’s financial data, cross-checked against a recent GiveWell Form 990, suggests ~ half of AMF’s revenue flows through GiveWell. Given GiveWell’s own compensation practices, and its well-known practices for evaluating charities, the idea that GiveWell (and allied donors who route donations through GiveWell) cares more about overhead than effectiveness seems questionable. Although the source of the other ~ half of AMF’s funding is unclear to me, the assertion about AMF donor preferences needs support in light of GiveWell’s prominence and given the alternative explanations posted elsewhere on the thread. Furthermore, AMF’s administrative costs of ~ 1% are covered by a small set of private donors, reducing the probability that AMF thinks its mainline donors care as much about them on the margin.
In addition, AMF has always been funding constrained. CEA is now tightening the purse strings a bit, but my understanding is that it has felt non-financial constraints more than financial ones in the past, which would partially explain a looser hand on spending. Moreover, it is difficult to change an existing salary structure over the short run. Donor-focused explanations seem significantly less likely here than organization-focused or labor pool-focused ones to me.
A glance at AMF’s financial data, cross-checked against a recent GiveWell Form 990, suggests ~ half of AMF’s revenue flows through GiveWell. Given GiveWell’s own compensation practices, and its well-known practices for evaluating charities, the idea that GiveWell (and allied donors who route donations through GiveWell) cares more about overhead than effectiveness seems questionable. Although the source of the other ~ half of AMF’s funding is unclear to me, the assertion about AMF donor preferences needs support in light of GiveWell’s prominence and given the alternative explanations posted elsewhere on the thread. Furthermore, AMF’s administrative costs of ~ 1% are covered by a small set of private donors, reducing the probability that AMF thinks its mainline donors care as much about them on the margin.
In addition, AMF has always been funding constrained. CEA is now tightening the purse strings a bit, but my understanding is that it has felt non-financial constraints more than financial ones in the past, which would partially explain a looser hand on spending. Moreover, it is difficult to change an existing salary structure over the short run. Donor-focused explanations seem significantly less likely here than organization-focused or labor pool-focused ones to me.