I’ve got a question for you all about the best way to invest limited benefit-cost evaluation resources. I wonder if folks have any thoughts about the relative value of evaluating small group of highly effective—and typically small—charities, versus spending additional resources to evaluate large charities which may not be as cost-effective..
Ideally, everyone would give to the most effective charities, but the fact is that larger charities—from United Way on down—receive the bulk of giving dollars and have a disproportionate impact on how giving happens and how it’s evaluated.
EA tends to focus most of its evaluation resources on a few, targeted charities. While this is obviously important, it also seems to me that we are missing some “low-hanging fruit” by not spending more evaluation resources on a wider range of charities. Directing resources to more fully evaluate and improve the cost-effectiveness of large charities could have a larger “meta” benefit-cost ratio, in the sense of the value of an evaluation dollar in increasing the benefit-cost ratio of other dollars spent.
For example, the Salvation Army received $2 billion in donations last year. Assuming that the money donated to it is roughly fixed, and not (unfortunately) very sensitive to rigorous measures of impact, then increasing its cost-effectiveness by only a small amount could have a greater net effect than further in-depth evaluations of smaller charities.
I’ve longed dreamed of a mega-database that would include detailed cost-effectiveness measures for lots of charities, as I think this would import the ideas of EA into a much greater pool of giving money and help it gain political strength. Such a project would need some pretty intensive resources, however.
Evaluating Small, Effective Charities Vs. Large, Less Effective Charities
Hi EA’ers,
I’ve got a question for you all about the best way to invest limited benefit-cost evaluation resources. I wonder if folks have any thoughts about the relative value of evaluating small group of highly effective—and typically small—charities, versus spending additional resources to evaluate large charities which may not be as cost-effective..
Ideally, everyone would give to the most effective charities, but the fact is that larger charities—from United Way on down—receive the bulk of giving dollars and have a disproportionate impact on how giving happens and how it’s evaluated.
EA tends to focus most of its evaluation resources on a few, targeted charities. While this is obviously important, it also seems to me that we are missing some “low-hanging fruit” by not spending more evaluation resources on a wider range of charities. Directing resources to more fully evaluate and improve the cost-effectiveness of large charities could have a larger “meta” benefit-cost ratio, in the sense of the value of an evaluation dollar in increasing the benefit-cost ratio of other dollars spent.
For example, the Salvation Army received $2 billion in donations last year. Assuming that the money donated to it is roughly fixed, and not (unfortunately) very sensitive to rigorous measures of impact, then increasing its cost-effectiveness by only a small amount could have a greater net effect than further in-depth evaluations of smaller charities.
I’ve longed dreamed of a mega-database that would include detailed cost-effectiveness measures for lots of charities, as I think this would import the ideas of EA into a much greater pool of giving money and help it gain political strength. Such a project would need some pretty intensive resources, however.
I’m interested in your thoughts!