It makes sense that your grants have a cost-effectiveness higher that your bar of 10 times that of cash. However, I wonder whether the cost-effectiveness of the last dollar of each of your grants is around 10 times that of cash. For example, you recommended 8.2 M$ to AMF in January 2022, and estimated the cost-effectiveness to be 12 times that of cash. However, if I donate 1 k$ to All Grants Fund, the cost-effectiveness of my donation will be 10 times that of cash, right? Due to diminishing returns, the cost-effectiveness of my donation would be lower than that of your grants, but I am not sure whether you select the size of your grants such that their last dollar has a cost-effectiveness of 10 times that of cash.
We donāt select/āstructure our grants such that we necessarily think the ālast dollarā or marginal dollar to that grant is 10x cash. For example: if there was a discrete $5M funding opportunity to support a program in a specific area, we might model the cost-effectiveness of that opportunity as say, 15x overall, but there wouldnāt be any particular reason to think the ālast dollarā was more like 10x. Generally, when it comes to funding discrete opportunities (e.g. vaccination promotion in a certain state in Nigeria), we donāt tend to think about the value of the first versus last dollar for that discrete opportunity, because weāre often making a binary decision about whether to support the program in that area at all. Hope this clarifies!
Thanks for the helpful clarification! I would be curious to know whether you have explicitly modelled diminishing returns in the context of assessing non-discrete opportunities.
Weāve havenāt explicitly modeled diminishing returns in this way. Most of the opportunities we consider are for specific pre-defined gaps, so theyāre more discrete than something you can really scale in that continuous type of way.
If right after AMF received the grant you recommended, I donated 1 k$ to AMF, would the cost-effectiveness of my donation be 10 times that of cash?
Iād guess so, given how large AMFās room for more funding is (GW as of July ā22, AMF CEO on 300 M$ shortfall 2024-26), but Iām also curious to know what GW has to say.
That said, one consideration pushing the cost-effectiveness bar up and one down:
up: cf. 2nd bullet in section 4.2, GWās AMF model reports effectiveness per philanthropic dollar, but I donāt care about that; I care about my own philanthropic dollar. This overcounts the cost denominator by 47-133% depending on region
down: if you donated directly to AMF, itās likely they may fund net distribution according to their internally-prioritized considerations, while if you donate via GW theyāll (quoting GWās response to you above) āfund net distribution campaigns in specific geographic regions that meet [their] 10x barā which isnāt an option available to you specifically. This is part of my own reasoning for not donating directly to charities; Iām also mostly persuaded by GWWCās funds-over-charities argument. Perhaps this isnāt really what you meant though, in which case I apologize for misconstruing
Iād guess so, given how large AMFās room for more funding is (GW as of July ā22, AMF CEO on 300 M$ shortfall 2024-26), but Iām also curious to know what GW has to say.
Makes sense. Large room for more funding means the cost-effectiveness of additional funds would match that of the last dollar of the big grant. However, GiveWellās cost-effectiveness estimates of AMF do not depend on the size of the donation:
So I do not think GiveWellās cost-effectiveness sheet is modelling diminishing returns, but this seems important to infer the cost-effectiveness of the last dollar of their grants.
This is part of my own reasoning for not donating directly to charities; Iām also mostly persuaded by GWWCās funds-over-charities argument. Perhaps this isnāt really what you meant though, in which case I apologize for misconstruing
Good catch! I had in mind donating 1 k$ to the same programs the big grant was supporting, but as you said this would not be possible by donating to AMF, so I will update my comment above. Now it is about donating to All Grants Fund at any time instead of donating to AMF after a big grant from GiveWell.
Thanks for clarifying!
It makes sense that your grants have a cost-effectiveness higher that your bar of 10 times that of cash. However, I wonder whether the cost-effectiveness of the last dollar of each of your grants is around 10 times that of cash. For example, you recommended 8.2 M$ to AMF in January 2022, and estimated the cost-effectiveness to be 12 times that of cash. However, if I donate 1 k$ to All Grants Fund, the cost-effectiveness of my donation will be 10 times that of cash, right? Due to diminishing returns, the cost-effectiveness of my donation would be lower than that of your grants, but I am not sure whether you select the size of your grants such that their last dollar has a cost-effectiveness of 10 times that of cash.
We donāt select/āstructure our grants such that we necessarily think the ālast dollarā or marginal dollar to that grant is 10x cash. For example: if there was a discrete $5M funding opportunity to support a program in a specific area, we might model the cost-effectiveness of that opportunity as say, 15x overall, but there wouldnāt be any particular reason to think the ālast dollarā was more like 10x. Generally, when it comes to funding discrete opportunities (e.g. vaccination promotion in a certain state in Nigeria), we donāt tend to think about the value of the first versus last dollar for that discrete opportunity, because weāre often making a binary decision about whether to support the program in that area at all. Hope this clarifies!
Thanks for the helpful clarification! I would be curious to know whether you have explicitly modelled diminishing returns in the context of assessing non-discrete opportunities.
Weāve havenāt explicitly modeled diminishing returns in this way. Most of the opportunities we consider are for specific pre-defined gaps, so theyāre more discrete than something you can really scale in that continuous type of way.
Iād guess so, given how large AMFās room for more funding is (GW as of July ā22, AMF CEO on 300 M$ shortfall 2024-26), but Iām also curious to know what GW has to say.
That said, one consideration pushing the cost-effectiveness bar up and one down:
up: cf. 2nd bullet in section 4.2, GWās AMF model reports effectiveness per philanthropic dollar, but I donāt care about that; I care about my own philanthropic dollar. This overcounts the cost denominator by 47-133% depending on region
down: if you donated directly to AMF, itās likely they may fund net distribution according to their internally-prioritized considerations, while if you donate via GW theyāll (quoting GWās response to you above) āfund net distribution campaigns in specific geographic regions that meet [their] 10x barā which isnāt an option available to you specifically. This is part of my own reasoning for not donating directly to charities; Iām also mostly persuaded by GWWCās funds-over-charities argument. Perhaps this isnāt really what you meant though, in which case I apologize for misconstruing
Nice points, Mo!
Makes sense. Large room for more funding means the cost-effectiveness of additional funds would match that of the last dollar of the big grant. However, GiveWellās cost-effectiveness estimates of AMF do not depend on the size of the donation:
So I do not think GiveWellās cost-effectiveness sheet is modelling diminishing returns, but this seems important to infer the cost-effectiveness of the last dollar of their grants.
Good catch! I had in mind donating 1 k$ to the same programs the big grant was supporting, but as you said this would not be possible by donating to AMF, so I will update my comment above. Now it is about donating to All Grants Fund at any time instead of donating to AMF after a big grant from GiveWell.