| A | B | |
|---|---|---|
1 | Notes on how to engage with our cost-effectiveness analysis | |
2 | This workbook contains our cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost-effectiveness is one factor we use to assess which opportunities are the highest-priority to support. We also consider other factors such as urgency, quality of implementation, and more. If you're a donor interested in supporting the top charity we believe will do the most good at the time your donation is granted, please consider supporting the Maximum Impact Fund. See the "Cost-effectiveness by funding gap" sheet for a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the programs our top charities would use additional funding for, as well as additional notes on how we prioritize them. On the "Moral weights and discount rate" sheet, we've included GiveWell and conventional estimates for a few parameters. If you'd like to see how our results would change based on different inputs for these parameters, you can enter your own values in the "Anyone" column. Expanding the formula bar at the top of the page (by clicking and dragging the bottom boundary) may make it easier to read the contents of explanatory cells. | |
3 | ||
4 | ||
5 | ||
6 | Notes on text color coding | |
7 | Blue text: direct input | |
8 | Green text: pulling from another cell in this workbook | |
9 | Black text: calculation | |
10 | ||
11 | Index | |
12 | Cost-effectiveness by funding gap | Estimates of the size and cost-effectiveness of top charities' current funding gaps |
13 | Moral weights and discount rate | Allows staff members or anyone else to supply discount rates and numbers used to trade off different good outcomes |
14 | AMF | Cost-effectiveness analysis for long-lasting insecticide-treated net distributions by the Against Malaria Foundation. |
15 | GiveDirectly | Cost-effectiveness analysis for uncondtional cash transfers by GiveDirectly. |
16 | Deworm the World | Cost-effectiveness analysis for deworming by Deworm the World |
17 | END Fund | Cost-effectiveness analysis for deworming by The END Fund |
18 | SCI Foundation | Cost-effectiveness analysis for deworming by SCI Foundation |
19 | Sightsavers | Cost-effectiveness analysis for deworming by Sightsavers |
20 | Malaria Consortium | Cost-effectiveness analysis for seasonal malaria chemoprevention by Malaria Consortium |
21 | Helen Keller International | Cost-effectiveness analysis for vitamin A supplementation by Helen Keller International |
22 | New Incentives | Cost-effectiveness analysis for conditional cash transfers for immunization by New Incentives |
23 | Counterfactual non-philanthropic | Used in the leverage and funging adjustment to our cost-effectiveness analyses |
24 | Inclusion/Exclusion | Used in the adjustment for excluded effects of our cost-effectivenes analyses |
25 | RFMF_AMF | Room for more funding projections for the Against Malaria Foundation |
26 | RFMF_GD | Room for more funding projections for GiveDirectly |
27 | RFMF_DtW | Room for more funding projections for Deworm the World |
28 | RFMF_END | Room for more funding projections for The END Fund |
29 | RFMF_SCI | Room for more funding projections for SCI Foundation |
30 | RFMF_Sightsavers | Room for more funding projections for Sightsavers |
31 | RFMF_MC | Room for more funding projections for Malaria Consortium |
32 | RFMF_HKI | Room for more funding projections for Helen Keller International |
33 | ||
34 | Helpful GiveWell references | |
35 | Guide to GiveWell cost-effectiveness analyses | |
36 | Full reviews of our top charities | |
37 | Past versions of our cost-effectiveness analyses | |
38 | Discussion of cost-effectiveness as a criterion | |
39 | Blog posts discussing cost-effectiveness | |