Multiyear commitments have a particularly high value to charities, especially when they can be used for operational support. They allow charities to take more risks, act more directly in line with their mission, and spend less time on report writing. They are much rarer in the sector.
I think the donors do indeed intend to commit for 5 years, for the reason tomwein invokes. But of course if new evidence suggests an intervention really isn’t having the impact that we expected, or something else that seems much more promising comes along, presumably they could still revisit their commitment on an annual basis.
Regarding TaRL, the intervention has been studied extensively. The main uncertainty is whether and to what extent gains in test scores translate to long-term outcomes like higher income. But since the donors also care about improvements in learning outcomes per se, there is a bit of a hedge here. It just isn’t captured in the cost-effectiveness analyses, which only incorporate effects on income.
Multiyear commitments have a particularly high value to charities, especially when they can be used for operational support. They allow charities to take more risks, act more directly in line with their mission, and spend less time on report writing. They are much rarer in the sector.
I think the donors do indeed intend to commit for 5 years, for the reason tomwein invokes. But of course if new evidence suggests an intervention really isn’t having the impact that we expected, or something else that seems much more promising comes along, presumably they could still revisit their commitment on an annual basis.
Regarding TaRL, the intervention has been studied extensively. The main uncertainty is whether and to what extent gains in test scores translate to long-term outcomes like higher income. But since the donors also care about improvements in learning outcomes per se, there is a bit of a hedge here. It just isn’t captured in the cost-effectiveness analyses, which only incorporate effects on income.