I would be curious to know whether ACE plans to move to a recommendation system closer to GiveWell’s where there is a cost-effectiveness bar to be met. In GiveWell’s case, 10 times the cost-effectiveness of direct cash transfers. In ACE’s case, the bar (e.g. in QALY/$ calculated using Rethink’s median welfare ranges) could be informed by the marginal cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare. I have the impression these are among the interventions with best track record and receiving more investment in the animal welfare space.
Thank you for your thoughtful question and interest in our evaluation approach. At ACE, we recognize the unique challenges present in our domain, where there is often less data and consensus on effective interventions compared to GiveWell’s focus on global health and poverty. We also evaluate charities using a diverse range of 26 types of interventions, some with complex, long-term Theories of Change that are challenging to quantify.
For these reasons, we currently don’t apply a specific cost-effectiveness bar across all charities, but we are consistently reevaluating this decision and exploring the potential of incorporating quantitative cost-effectiveness estimates. However, due to the diversity of interventions and the varying degrees of available data, applying a uniform cost-effectiveness bar to all charities, comparable to GiveWell’s method, might not be feasible for us.
Thanks for the update!
I would be curious to know whether ACE plans to move to a recommendation system closer to GiveWell’s where there is a cost-effectiveness bar to be met. In GiveWell’s case, 10 times the cost-effectiveness of direct cash transfers. In ACE’s case, the bar (e.g. in QALY/$ calculated using Rethink’s median welfare ranges) could be informed by the marginal cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare. I have the impression these are among the interventions with best track record and receiving more investment in the animal welfare space.
Thank you for your thoughtful question and interest in our evaluation approach. At ACE, we recognize the unique challenges present in our domain, where there is often less data and consensus on effective interventions compared to GiveWell’s focus on global health and poverty. We also evaluate charities using a diverse range of 26 types of interventions, some with complex, long-term Theories of Change that are challenging to quantify.
For these reasons, we currently don’t apply a specific cost-effectiveness bar across all charities, but we are consistently reevaluating this decision and exploring the potential of incorporating quantitative cost-effectiveness estimates. However, due to the diversity of interventions and the varying degrees of available data, applying a uniform cost-effectiveness bar to all charities, comparable to GiveWell’s method, might not be feasible for us.
- Alina