You are here

Footnotes for "Allocation of discretionary funds from Q4 2019"

[1]

  • "There is strong evidence from many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in the 1980s and 1990s that VAS can substantially reduce child mortality, but weaker evidence on how effective VAS is in the places HKI would work with additional funding in the next few years."
  • "We are uncertain whether VAS might have an impact on all mortalities caused by infectious diseases, or only a subset of specific infectious diseases. (It does not seem plausible to us that VAS could have an impact on other causes of child mortality, like accidents.)"

(GiveWell, Helen Keller International's Vitamin A Supplementation Program, November 2019)

[2] In our November 2019 cost-effectiveness model, the "SMC" sheet shows 43.5 "Malaria-attributable deaths averted with hypothetical donation ($100,000) in treated and untreated populations (after internal and external validity adjustments)" in cell C87. 43.5 * ($11,765,431.61/$100,000) = 5,118.

In the "VAS" sheet, cell F11 divided by cell F32 gives a cost per life saved estimate of $2,572 in Cote d'Ivoire. ($1,488,777.75/$2,572) = 579.

5,118 + 579 = 5,697, which we rounded down to the nearest hundred: 5,600.

Please note that we used the net amount of donations, after fees, for this calculation.

[3] We estimate that the unfunded work of our top charity the Against Malaria Foundation is in the same range of cost-effectiveness as Malaria Consortium's. In November 2019, we listed several open questions that would influence whether we'd make a large grant to the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), including whether AMF would sign net distribution agreements in the near future. AMF has since signed several distribution agreements. There have been no other major updates to our understanding since November and we are not prioritizing additional funding to AMF at this time.

[4] David Doledec, Regional Program Manager, Helen Keller International, email to GiveWell, January 21, 2020 (unpublished)

[5] See Recommendations to Open Philanthropy and allocation of Q3 2019 discretionary funding — November 2019 GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis (public), sheet "List of funding gaps," cell AB39. We have not updated our estimate of HKI's cost-effectiveness since November 2019.

[6] We did not prioritize filling HKI's gap for VAS in Kenya due to our lower estimate of its cost-effectiveness. See sheet linked in previous footnote for details.

[7] See GiveWell's room for more funding analysis for Malaria Consortium's SMC program (Q1 2020), sheet "RFMF projections," cell D5.

[8] Excluding AMF, as discussed in footnote 3. We estimate HKI's work in Côte d'Ivoire to be roughly 21 times as cost-effective as cash; see Recommendations to Open Philanthropy and allocation of Q3 2019 discretionary funding — November 2019 GiveWell cost-effectiveness analysis (public), sheet "List of funding gaps," cell AB39. We view Malaria Consortium's 2022 work as the next most cost-effective funding gap (roughly 17 times as cost-effective as cash; see the list of "Highest priority gaps" from our November 2019 Top Charities Room for More Funding update).

[9] "We estimate that SCI's available and expected funding exceeds the spending opportunities it has currently identified. The lack of room for additional funding is due largely to the fact that SCI is waiting for the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) to decide how it will allocate funding in many of the countries in which SCI has operated. We and SCI agreed to wait until 2020 to revisit its funding needs. We are not recommending an incentive grant at this time. We expect to gain additional information about SCI's room for more funding once DFID's relevant allocation decisions are made, at which point we and SCI will be able to discuss specific spending opportunities." ("SCI Foundation," Recommendation to Open Philanthropy for Grants to Top Charities, November 2019)

[10] "Principle 7: Ensure charities are incentivized to engage with our process. We recognize that our charity review process requires time-consuming engagement from senior members of charities’ staff. We want to ensure that charities are incentivized to continue engaging with our process. To this end, since 2016, we have recommended that Open Philanthropy provide a minimum 'incentive grant' to top charities ($2.5 million) and standout charities ($100,000)." ("Principles we followed," Recommendation to Open Philanthropy for Grants to Top Charities, November 2019)

[11] Malaria Consortium 2020-2022 budgets (unpublished)