This post is the third in a multi-part series, covering how GiveWell works and what we fund. Through these posts, we hope to give a better understanding of our research and decision-making.
- How we work, #1: Cost-effectiveness is generally the most important factor in our recommendations
- How we work, #2: We look at specific opportunities, not just general interventions
Our goal is to recommend funding to the programs we believe have the greatest impact per dollar donated. There’s no simple algorithm for this question. Answering it necessarily involves making judgment calls. Our first post in this series discussed the importance of cost-effectiveness analyses and the many factors we consider; in this post, we’ll share:
- How we make subjective choices in the face of imperfect information
- Some examples of judgment calls that illustrate our approach:
- Combining data and intuition: Estimating the effect of water chlorination on mortality
- Valuing disparate outcomes: Comparing clubfoot treatment to life-saving programs
- Anticipating the likely decisions of other actors: Predicting the impact of technical assistance for syphilis screening and treatment