I think the marginal cost-effectiveness of AWF’s spending on grants and salaries should ideally be equal. Under these conditions, if the 2nd best candidate is 50 % as productive as the best one, and the salary for full-time work is 120 k$/​year, I believe the 2nd best candidate plus 60.0 k$/​year (= (1 − 0.5)*120*10^3) would be as good as the best candidate.
I think the marginal cost-effectiveness of AWF’s spending on grants and salaries should ideally be equal. Under these conditions, if the 2nd best candidate is 50 % as productive as the best one, and the salary for full-time work is 120 k$/​year, I believe the 2nd best candidate plus 60.0 k$/​year (= (1 − 0.5)*120*10^3) would be as good as the best candidate.