While I liked seeing the reasons for your belief in your subsequent comment, I also really appreciate the meta-level point this comment evoked in me (though I donât know whether this is what you meant):
âIn general, most causes are unlikely to be competitive with the very best causes. Thus, a simple explanation for an organizationâs not getting funding is that potential funders didnât think it was among the very best opportunities after carefully thinking about it. This may be a much more important factor than arguments like âtoo riskyâ or ânot tax-deductibleâ.â
(Of course, risk may be factored into calculations about âthe best opportunityâ, but I can also imagine some funders just looking at the portfolio of projects, estimating a reasonable âhelpfulnessâ coefficient for how much value the Hotel adds, and deciding that the number didnât add up, even without consideration of risk.)
Similarly, if AMF had trouble fundraising one year, and someone asked why, the explanation Iâd think of immediately wouldnât be ârisk of mosquito-net fishingâ or âconcerns about their deal with Country Xâ. It would be âtheir programâs EV slipped below the EV of several other global-health charities, and many donors chose other charities on the margin instead of AMF, even if AMF is still a great charityâ.
While I liked seeing the reasons for your belief in your subsequent comment, I also really appreciate the meta-level point this comment evoked in me (though I donât know whether this is what you meant):
âIn general, most causes are unlikely to be competitive with the very best causes. Thus, a simple explanation for an organizationâs not getting funding is that potential funders didnât think it was among the very best opportunities after carefully thinking about it. This may be a much more important factor than arguments like âtoo riskyâ or ânot tax-deductibleâ.â
(Of course, risk may be factored into calculations about âthe best opportunityâ, but I can also imagine some funders just looking at the portfolio of projects, estimating a reasonable âhelpfulnessâ coefficient for how much value the Hotel adds, and deciding that the number didnât add up, even without consideration of risk.)
Similarly, if AMF had trouble fundraising one year, and someone asked why, the explanation Iâd think of immediately wouldnât be ârisk of mosquito-net fishingâ or âconcerns about their deal with Country Xâ. It would be âtheir programâs EV slipped below the EV of several other global-health charities, and many donors chose other charities on the margin instead of AMF, even if AMF is still a great charityâ.
--
I work for CEA, but these views are my own.
Yep, thatâs what I meant.