This is Miranda Kaplan, communications associate at GiveWell. I’ll answer both questions here, since they’re closely related.
This adjustment updated GiveWell’s overall impression of deworming by around 10%. But the bottom-line takeaway on deworming—which is that it’s one of the most cost-effective programs we know of in some locations, but we have a higher degree of uncertainty about it than we do our top charities—hasn’t changed much, and we think that should probably continue to be the takeaway for followers of our work.
You can see the effect of our adjustment across all locations and all deworming programs we’ve supported in our cost-effectiveness analysis change tracker. Before this adjustment, there was already wide variation in our cost-effectiveness estimates for these programs—as high as 38.3x cash for Deworm the World’s program in Kenya, and as low as −1x cash for SCI Foundation’s program on Unguja, Zanzibar.
We can’t say yet what the impact of the decay adjustment will be on GiveWell’s overall grantmaking in the deworming space, either using All Grants Fund donations or using other sources. Our approach to grantmaking hasn’t changed—we will continue to assess funding gaps for deworming on a case-by-case basis, and consider filling those gaps that clear our cost-effectiveness bar. In a few cases, locations that previously looked cost-effective enough to meet our bar for funding (currently 10x cash) now don’t meet that standard. For example, as a result of this adjustment, the estimated cost-effectiveness of Deworm the World’s program in Lagos state, Nigeria, dropped to 8.9x cash from 9.9x cash. But for most locations, this change didn’t cause a decisive shift in cost-effectiveness that would affect a funding decision.
I don’t necessarily agree with the method of allocation, but from a broad perspective I’m happy to see that a small change in estimates translates to a small, but still meaningful, adjustment in allocation.
And furthermore, will it change how funds from the ‘all grants’ fund are spent?
Hi, Kaleem and Guy!
This is Miranda Kaplan, communications associate at GiveWell. I’ll answer both questions here, since they’re closely related.
This adjustment updated GiveWell’s overall impression of deworming by around 10%. But the bottom-line takeaway on deworming—which is that it’s one of the most cost-effective programs we know of in some locations, but we have a higher degree of uncertainty about it than we do our top charities—hasn’t changed much, and we think that should probably continue to be the takeaway for followers of our work.
You can see the effect of our adjustment across all locations and all deworming programs we’ve supported in our cost-effectiveness analysis change tracker. Before this adjustment, there was already wide variation in our cost-effectiveness estimates for these programs—as high as 38.3x cash for Deworm the World’s program in Kenya, and as low as −1x cash for SCI Foundation’s program on Unguja, Zanzibar.
We can’t say yet what the impact of the decay adjustment will be on GiveWell’s overall grantmaking in the deworming space, either using All Grants Fund donations or using other sources. Our approach to grantmaking hasn’t changed—we will continue to assess funding gaps for deworming on a case-by-case basis, and consider filling those gaps that clear our cost-effectiveness bar. In a few cases, locations that previously looked cost-effective enough to meet our bar for funding (currently 10x cash) now don’t meet that standard. For example, as a result of this adjustment, the estimated cost-effectiveness of Deworm the World’s program in Lagos state, Nigeria, dropped to 8.9x cash from 9.9x cash. But for most locations, this change didn’t cause a decisive shift in cost-effectiveness that would affect a funding decision.
I hope that’s helpful!
Best,
Miranda
Hi Miranda, thanks for the very clear answer!
I don’t necessarily agree with the method of allocation, but from a broad perspective I’m happy to see that a small change in estimates translates to a small, but still meaningful, adjustment in allocation.