What you describe is roughly how we decide each Recommended Charity Fund distribution, but unfortunately recommendation decisions have more complexity. Some examples of this complexity include ACE influencing significantly more funding than we distribute directly, this influence varying by charity, and it being especially difficult to estimate for charities we haven’t recommended before.
So far, we’ve estimated cost-effectiveness for specific programs, not a charity’s overall cost-effectiveness, so comparisons are relative to those programs. For THL’s plans to expand the Open Wing Alliance, for instance, we assessed the cost-effectiveness (and theory of change) of the OWA itself, not THL’s overall cost-effectiveness.
Overall, I largely agree, and we already do what you’re suggesting in some cases, though not this one. For these reasons and others, I’m not sure investigating the marginal cost-effectiveness of OWA Europe and Africa specifically would have been the best use of limited evaluation time, but we do that kind of analysis when we think it’s decision-relevant.
ACE influencing significantly more funding than we distribute directly, this influence varying by charity
You have estimates for the additional funding charities get as a result of your recommendation (accounting for additional grants from ACE, and donations from individual donors)? If so, you could analyse the cost-effectiveness of that additional funding.
it being especially difficult to estimate for charities we haven’t recommended before
Have you considered assessing the marginal cost-effectiveness of charities you have recommended in the past, and the overall cost-effectiveness of charities you have never recommended?
[...] For THL’s plans to expand the Open Wing Alliance, for instance, we assessed the cost-effectiveness (and theory of change) of the OWA itself, not THL’s overall cost-effectiveness.
[...] For these reasons and others, I’m not sure investigating the marginal cost-effectiveness of OWA Europe and Africa specifically would have been the best use of limited evaluation time, but we do that kind of analysis when we think it’s decision-relevant.
The programs from THL you assessed had a cost of 7.96 M$ (= (7.65 + 0.311)*10^6), 19.9 (= 7.96*10^6/​(399*10^3)) times the amount you granted to THL in 2025. I understand you made more funding go to THL than what you granted, but still significantly less than 19.9 times as much? If so, I think the cost-effectiveness analysis could have focussed on more marginal spending. I believe the marginal cost-effectiveness of large programs could be significantly lower than their overall cost-effectiveness. THL’s programs are quite large. So I would have thought that assessing their marginal cost-effectiveness is especially important.
What you describe is roughly how we decide each Recommended Charity Fund distribution, but unfortunately recommendation decisions have more complexity. Some examples of this complexity include ACE influencing significantly more funding than we distribute directly, this influence varying by charity, and it being especially difficult to estimate for charities we haven’t recommended before.
So far, we’ve estimated cost-effectiveness for specific programs, not a charity’s overall cost-effectiveness, so comparisons are relative to those programs. For THL’s plans to expand the Open Wing Alliance, for instance, we assessed the cost-effectiveness (and theory of change) of the OWA itself, not THL’s overall cost-effectiveness.
Overall, I largely agree, and we already do what you’re suggesting in some cases, though not this one. For these reasons and others, I’m not sure investigating the marginal cost-effectiveness of OWA Europe and Africa specifically would have been the best use of limited evaluation time, but we do that kind of analysis when we think it’s decision-relevant.
You have estimates for the additional funding charities get as a result of your recommendation (accounting for additional grants from ACE, and donations from individual donors)? If so, you could analyse the cost-effectiveness of that additional funding.
Have you considered assessing the marginal cost-effectiveness of charities you have recommended in the past, and the overall cost-effectiveness of charities you have never recommended?
The programs from THL you assessed had a cost of 7.96 M$ (= (7.65 + 0.311)*10^6), 19.9 (= 7.96*10^6/​(399*10^3)) times the amount you granted to THL in 2025. I understand you made more funding go to THL than what you granted, but still significantly less than 19.9 times as much? If so, I think the cost-effectiveness analysis could have focussed on more marginal spending. I believe the marginal cost-effectiveness of large programs could be significantly lower than their overall cost-effectiveness. THL’s programs are quite large. So I would have thought that assessing their marginal cost-effectiveness is especially important.