Of course, the other thing that could be going on here, is that average cost-effectiveness is not the same as cost-effectiveness on the margin, which is presumably what ACE should care about.
I’m not certain if by cost-effectiveness on the margin, you meant cost-effectiveness in the future if additional funding is obtained. If that’s the case, the following information could be helpful.
ACE does 2 separate analyses for past cost-effectiveness, and room for future funding. For example, those two sections in ACE’s review of LIC are:
Cost Effectiveness: How much has Legal Impact for Chickens achieved through their programs?
Room For More Funding: How much additional money can Legal Impact for Chickens effectively use in the next two years?
Our review focuses on ACE’s Cost-Effectiveness analysis. Additionally, ACE states (under Criterion 2) that a charity’s Cost-Effectiveness Score “indicates, on a 1-7 scale, how cost effective we think the charity has been [...] with higher scores indicating higher cost effectiveness.”
Hi Toby,
Thank you for your reply!
I’m not certain if by cost-effectiveness on the margin, you meant cost-effectiveness in the future if additional funding is obtained. If that’s the case, the following information could be helpful.
ACE does 2 separate analyses for past cost-effectiveness, and room for future funding. For example, those two sections in ACE’s review of LIC are:
Cost Effectiveness: How much has Legal Impact for Chickens achieved through their programs?
Room For More Funding: How much additional money can Legal Impact for Chickens effectively use in the next two years?
Our review focuses on ACE’s Cost-Effectiveness analysis. Additionally, ACE states (under Criterion 2) that a charity’s Cost-Effectiveness Score “indicates, on a 1-7 scale, how cost effective we think the charity has been [...] with higher scores indicating higher cost effectiveness.”
This is very helpful, thanks!