What ACE is doing reminds me a lot of what Open Phil is doing in terms of how hard it is for them to quantify the impact of the charities. This doesn’t seem to be so much in the nature of the cause areas – as with prioritizing research or existential risk – but rather the result of the neglect of the area, so that ACE has only little and poor-quality prior research to draw on.
This seems correct.
Evidence Action and SCI are top contenders, but I think the evidentiary basis for the effectiveness of deworming, while sizable, is more ambiguous than that for bednets, and more extreme estimates are also more likely to be wrong.
True.
GiveWell seems relatively less neglected than ACE.
I’m not sure this is correct, unless our metric is just size?
Some metacharities have estimated some leverage ratios, but they were always (as far as I’ve seen) the average ones of their past donations not of marginal donations, which may bias the estimate upward.
True.
(Except when the metacharity was just fundraising for operating expenses like Giving What We Can.)
This isn’t true—it hardly takes ~$350,000 a year to cover the most basic operating costs rather than marginal activities, especially when you already have ~$320,000 in the bank and your parent organisation has got almost a million in its coffers. One indication of this is that a very large share of Giving What We Can’s past donations come from the initial (volunteer-led, unfunded) creation of a website where the case for giving more and giving better was made and people could report their pledges. But few of their salaries go to basic maintenance of this, as opposed to charity evaluation and philosophy research, conferences, etc.
I don’t know whether it would be speciesist to value a human QALY one or two orders of magnitude higher than a nonhuman “QALY”
This isn’t true—it hardly takes ~$350,000 a year to cover the most basic operating costs rather than marginal activities, especially when you already have ~$320,000 in the bank and your parent organisation has got almost a million in its coffers.
Maybe someone from Giving What We Can knows more? The Fundraising Prospectus 2015 (page 16–17) talks about fundraising £150,000 for the rest of 2015 and 2016 with a stretch goal to add another six months. The Prospectus also only estimates the average cost-effectiveness of past donations (and I think they argue somewhere that it’s the result of their ongoing work to a substantial degree and not just very early seed funding or activities) and doesn’t say anything about the cost-effectiveness of donations that would allow them to scale up and expand beyond their current activities in the future. So either they really only fundraised for operating expenses or what they fundraised beyond that isn’t covered by their cost-effectiveness calculation.
Size, in terms of staff, would be one measure. Another is their budget: GiveWell’s revenue and expenses were in the area of $2–3 million in 2014; Animal Charity Evaluators’ is about one order of magnitude lower.
Those are both surely factors to take into account in evaluating how neglected something is, but other factors include how important and tractable the work (or the marginal work is). All of this lets you calculate out the value of marginal dollars.
The Fundraising Prospectus 2015 (page 16–17) talks about fundraising £150,000 for the rest of 2015 and 2016 with a stretch goal to add another six months.
Page 17 gives £223,765 as the budget for 2015, which is very roughly $350,000 (depending on how the UK Pound’s swung).
I think they argue somewhere that it’s the result of their ongoing work to a substantial degree and not just very early seed funding or activities
I didn’t find this convincing but I don’t want to press that point: the more basic point is that $350,000 isn’t necessary to cover the most basic operating costs, and some substantial portion of it does indeed go to fund additional marginal activities.
So either they really only fundraised for operating expenses or what they fundraised beyond that isn’t covered by their cost-effectiveness calculation.
You’re exactly right; I’m simply saying it’s the latter. It’s not clear that we disagree!
All of this lets you calculate out the value of marginal dollars.
Yes, I’m optimistic about that in both cases. GiveWell is farther along thanks to so much more prior research and thanks to eight years of operation and scaling up, but then they’re also tackling a superset of what ACE is tackling, so I don’t know if I can compare them on these grounds. Hence I only looked at neglectedness, not the actual marginal cost-effectiveness.
Page 17 gives £223,765 as the budget for 2015, which is very roughly $350,000 (depending on how the UK Pound’s swung).
Oh, thanks, I see now where the number came from!
I’m simply saying it’s the latter.
Hmm, okay. If that’s the case, then I’m less satisfied with the calculations in the Prospectus than I used to be.
This seems correct.
True.
I’m not sure this is correct, unless our metric is just size?
True.
This isn’t true—it hardly takes ~$350,000 a year to cover the most basic operating costs rather than marginal activities, especially when you already have ~$320,000 in the bank and your parent organisation has got almost a million in its coffers. One indication of this is that a very large share of Giving What We Can’s past donations come from the initial (volunteer-led, unfunded) creation of a website where the case for giving more and giving better was made and people could report their pledges. But few of their salaries go to basic maintenance of this, as opposed to charity evaluation and philosophy research, conferences, etc.
It seems that it would.
Thanks for the comments.
Size, in terms of staff, would be one measure. Another is their budget: GiveWell’s revenue and expenses were in the area of $2–3 million in 2014; Animal Charity Evaluators’ is about one order of magnitude lower.
Maybe someone from Giving What We Can knows more? The Fundraising Prospectus 2015 (page 16–17) talks about fundraising £150,000 for the rest of 2015 and 2016 with a stretch goal to add another six months. The Prospectus also only estimates the average cost-effectiveness of past donations (and I think they argue somewhere that it’s the result of their ongoing work to a substantial degree and not just very early seed funding or activities) and doesn’t say anything about the cost-effectiveness of donations that would allow them to scale up and expand beyond their current activities in the future. So either they really only fundraised for operating expenses or what they fundraised beyond that isn’t covered by their cost-effectiveness calculation.
Those are both surely factors to take into account in evaluating how neglected something is, but other factors include how important and tractable the work (or the marginal work is). All of this lets you calculate out the value of marginal dollars.
Page 17 gives £223,765 as the budget for 2015, which is very roughly $350,000 (depending on how the UK Pound’s swung).
I didn’t find this convincing but I don’t want to press that point: the more basic point is that $350,000 isn’t necessary to cover the most basic operating costs, and some substantial portion of it does indeed go to fund additional marginal activities.
You’re exactly right; I’m simply saying it’s the latter. It’s not clear that we disagree!
Yes, I’m optimistic about that in both cases. GiveWell is farther along thanks to so much more prior research and thanks to eight years of operation and scaling up, but then they’re also tackling a superset of what ACE is tackling, so I don’t know if I can compare them on these grounds. Hence I only looked at neglectedness, not the actual marginal cost-effectiveness.
Oh, thanks, I see now where the number came from!
Hmm, okay. If that’s the case, then I’m less satisfied with the calculations in the Prospectus than I used to be.