Iâm a big effective giving fan, but my instinct had previously been that one should expect the multiplier on marginal funding to EG orgs to be about 1. My thinking was that CG gives both direct grants to global health charities and meta grants to EG orgs, and a reasonable model of how they might approach grantmaking is to equalize the cost-effectiveness of the marginal dollar given to each. This post made me think more about that assumption, and looking at CGâs writing on effective giving, they say
We believe that effective giving organizations generally find it easier to fundraise from sources other than meta organizations. These sources might include a tipping function, and individual donors. Because of this, we generally cap our support of EG orgs at 50% for more established groups.
Grants from philanthropic foundations. As of early 2025, ~50% of our funding comes from Coefficient Giving. We are not currently funded by any other philanthropic foundations.
So we canât assume that CG is filling EG organizationsâ budgets until their multiplier is about 1. Moreover, if EG orgsâ multipliers are >1, then giving to them has the double impact of both directly raising their budgets and unlocking more funding from CG.
The one thing Iâm still having trouble with is why, if EG orgsâ marginal multiplier >1, non-CG large donors havenât filled the gap. There are a number of donors to GiveWell giving $5m+/âyr, and presumably GiveWellâs donor relations team has engaged closely with all of them. If GiveWell was confident they could raise more money total for their top charities if donors gave to EG orgs instead, why havenât they advised some of their top donors to shift to meta giving? Disagreements about time discounting might play a key role here. GWWC uses a 3.5% annual discount rate for their best-guess impact evaluation that found a 6x multiplier, and a 5% discount rate for their conservative impact evaluation that found a 0.9x multiplier (note that the conservative impact evaluation had more differences than just the change in discount rate). At an even higher discount rate (to e.g. account for concerns about AI), it might be very hard to achieve a >1x multiplier via EG orgs. Other possibilities could be that GiveWell is risk averse, that these kinds of candid conversations arenât really possible to have in practice, or that itâs just hard to find donors who are willing to give to meta orgs even when asked to.
An alternate way to square this is that maybe EG orgsâ marginal cost-effectiveness just isnât >1, even accepting a relatively low discount rate. GWWCâs impact evaluation only assessed the average giving multiplier, and the marginal giving multiplier could be at or below 1x due to diminishing returns, even while the average was 6x.
Itâs a solidly great question why the gap hasnât been filled by other larger GiveWell donors. I think some of it is to do with reputational considerationsâitâs seen as a little bit off to pay someone to fundraise for you, if youâre rich.
But I am on a bit of a mission to let the âeveryday EAâ know that multipliers above x1 are absolutely available as places to put their GiveWell Top Charities money these days.
Yep, Giving What We Can is a great place to donate money, and you can do it really easily from GWWCâs website!
I have written this post to reach someone who wants to know, with great certainty, that if they put $1k somewhere that at least $1k extra goes to GiveWellâs Top Charities (very specifically those). The point is to let people who are of the persuasion to donate their money to GiveWellâs Top Charities (lots of those people around) know that such organisations exist and have plenty of funding and scaling gaps.
I havenât attempted a comparative analysis of multipliers, other than convincing myself that thereâs a lot of things currently not funded that are definitely above 3x, even if you apply various downward adjustments. Iâd be interested in seeing a comparative analysis, though I imagine it might be tricky to equalise the methodologies.
So we canât assume that CG is filling EG organizationsâ budgets until their multiplier is about 1.
What if funding caps are part of CGâs strategy to maximise impact? They may result in greater diversification of funding sources, and therefore greater resilience against shortfalls in CGâs funding, and potentially more funding longterm. The benefits will not be observed nearterm. So the expected marginal multiplier may be closer to 1 than the observed nearterm marginal multiplier.
The ideal funding cap would vary by grantee neglecting CGâs assessment costs. However, having a single or a few funding limits could save time, and therefore be closer to optimal.
Iâm a big effective giving fan, but my instinct had previously been that one should expect the multiplier on marginal funding to EG orgs to be about 1. My thinking was that CG gives both direct grants to global health charities and meta grants to EG orgs, and a reasonable model of how they might approach grantmaking is to equalize the cost-effectiveness of the marginal dollar given to each. This post made me think more about that assumption, and looking at CGâs writing on effective giving, they say
GWWCâs transparency page fits with that
So we canât assume that CG is filling EG organizationsâ budgets until their multiplier is about 1. Moreover, if EG orgsâ multipliers are >1, then giving to them has the double impact of both directly raising their budgets and unlocking more funding from CG.
The one thing Iâm still having trouble with is why, if EG orgsâ marginal multiplier >1, non-CG large donors havenât filled the gap. There are a number of donors to GiveWell giving $5m+/âyr, and presumably GiveWellâs donor relations team has engaged closely with all of them. If GiveWell was confident they could raise more money total for their top charities if donors gave to EG orgs instead, why havenât they advised some of their top donors to shift to meta giving? Disagreements about time discounting might play a key role here. GWWC uses a 3.5% annual discount rate for their best-guess impact evaluation that found a 6x multiplier, and a 5% discount rate for their conservative impact evaluation that found a 0.9x multiplier (note that the conservative impact evaluation had more differences than just the change in discount rate). At an even higher discount rate (to e.g. account for concerns about AI), it might be very hard to achieve a >1x multiplier via EG orgs. Other possibilities could be that GiveWell is risk averse, that these kinds of candid conversations arenât really possible to have in practice, or that itâs just hard to find donors who are willing to give to meta orgs even when asked to.
An alternate way to square this is that maybe EG orgsâ marginal cost-effectiveness just isnât >1, even accepting a relatively low discount rate. GWWCâs impact evaluation only assessed the average giving multiplier, and the marginal giving multiplier could be at or below 1x due to diminishing returns, even while the average was 6x.
To confirm, CG doesnât fund EG orgs down to a 1x multiplier. Roughly, CG has a fixed budget of âEG org fundingâ, and then uses that to fund the ones with the highest multipliers. (see also https://ââcoefficientgiving.org/ââresearch/ââreflecting-on-our-recent-effective-giving-rfp/ââ for more details).
Itâs a solidly great question why the gap hasnât been filled by other larger GiveWell donors. I think some of it is to do with reputational considerationsâitâs seen as a little bit off to pay someone to fundraise for you, if youâre rich.
But I am on a bit of a mission to let the âeveryday EAâ know that multipliers above x1 are absolutely available as places to put their GiveWell Top Charities money these days.
In case it helps, the best estimate of GWWCâs forward-looking marginal giving multiplier is 10x by CEARCH (exec summary, full report, calcs & sources).
Yep, Giving What We Can is a great place to donate money, and you can do it really easily from GWWCâs website!
I have written this post to reach someone who wants to know, with great certainty, that if they put $1k somewhere that at least $1k extra goes to GiveWellâs Top Charities (very specifically those). The point is to let people who are of the persuasion to donate their money to GiveWellâs Top Charities (lots of those people around) know that such organisations exist and have plenty of funding and scaling gaps.
I havenât attempted a comparative analysis of multipliers, other than convincing myself that thereâs a lot of things currently not funded that are definitely above 3x, even if you apply various downward adjustments. Iâd be interested in seeing a comparative analysis, though I imagine it might be tricky to equalise the methodologies.
Iâm not sure what you mean by equalizing the methodologies. FWIW during my RTP we evaluated a few EG orgs using Founders Pledgeâs approach to diligencing them as a starting point, which seems to bear upon your question: https://ââwww.founderspledge.com/ââresearch/ââgiving-multipliers Vascoâs 2023 writeup seems to be a start to answering your question too https://ââforum.effectivealtruism.org/ââposts/ââdBdNoSAbkG4k98GT9/ââevidence-of-effectiveness-and-transparency-of-a-few
Thanks for the good points, Matt.
What if funding caps are part of CGâs strategy to maximise impact? They may result in greater diversification of funding sources, and therefore greater resilience against shortfalls in CGâs funding, and potentially more funding longterm. The benefits will not be observed nearterm. So the expected marginal multiplier may be closer to 1 than the observed nearterm marginal multiplier.
The ideal funding cap would vary by grantee neglecting CGâs assessment costs. However, having a single or a few funding limits could save time, and therefore be closer to optimal.
@Melanie Basnakđ¸, do you have any thoughts?