Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
JustinGraham6
0
0
4

Always happy to answer questions! Thanks for your support + belief in what we do! Means a lot (which sounds very "charity language" but really is true for us and for the other people running charities hanging out around here). 

Reply
See in context
by wibnlypando47
1 min read 5

41

Cause prioritizationEffective givingGlobal health & developmentCharity evaluationCost-effectiveness analysis
Frontpage

Do you think this charity is legitimate? It seems like they are but I'd like your opinion before I donate a few thousand more dollars to them. https://taimaka.org/

They say they can save a human life for about 1600$ using the same formula as givewell. What do you think? Other effective altruist charities can't save a life for less than 3500$ and usually more like 5000 $

 

I've read some research on them https://www.happierlivesinstitute.org/taimaka-summary/ but it was more focused on how they improve lives I'm curious about whether or not they will save a life of someone who would have otherwise died for 1600 ish dollars. 

41

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
JustinGraham54
0
0
14

Hi! I'm Justin - I run Taimaka. We're an EA org, but pretty quiet on the forum - keep meaning to get around to writing up something about our work, but hasn't happened yet, so this is a good excuse to say hello!

This is a good question, and our cost-per-life-saved figure is also obviously a bold claim, so I'll share a bit about our thinking here. One disclaimer I'll make for clarity is that while our work is supported by GiveWell, our cost-effectiveness model is our own and the thoughts I'm sharing here are my own - I don't speak for GiveWell's team and their views. Our CEA is built off of their past work on acute malnutrition, but the end results + claims are ours. 

Generally, the way I think about our model and our $1.6k per life saved estimate is that this is the most accurate + true estimate we have for our program, but that you should probably read this estimate as having higher error bars surrounding it than estimates for current GiveWell top charities. I think there are two primary reasons for this:

  1. Taimaka is a younger charity with a shorter track record. We're extrapolating from a smaller data set than an organization like, say, New Incentives. Our costs could change (up or down) as we grow over the next few years, or things like the baseline conditions in Gombe State (like prevalence or coverage of acute malnutrition and treatment) where we work could change in ways we are not expecting. We try to build some of this into the model, like how we expect costs to change, but we are extrapolating. Our model is accurate to our current program, but things may change over time and the model may need to be revised.
  2. The evidence base for acute malnutrition treatment is more limited than we'd like it to be/for current top charities. There is no direct causal evidence (in the form of RCTs) for the mortality reduction benefits from acute malnutrition treatment, because treatment was developed before RCTs/clinical trials became popular in the 2000s, and now it's considered unethical to withhold treatment that works from kids to study treatment effect on mortality. Instead, GiveWell (and Taimaka by extension) model mortality reduction through a meta-analysis of historical data that provides information on mortality rate by anthropometric status, combined with data on change in anthropometric status from before/after treatment. This is just a worse evidence base than the RCTs we have for bed nets for instance, and so brings in higher error bars.
    1. We're working on some studies now to supplement this evidence base, but it's going to be a while before those bear fruit.

Hopefully this is helpful! In summary: we take this figure seriously, and stand by our modeling. We haven't put our thumb on the scales anywhere to make this number lower, it's the true result of a good faith effort to adapt GiveWell's model of other acute malnutrition treatment programs to our own. That said, expect higher error bars in this than you would in models for current top charities, both because of vagaries in Taimaka being younger + because of limitations in what we currently know about acute malnutrition treatment. If you're willing to accept that higher level of risk, I think Taimaka is a great donation option to do a lot of good, potentially even more cost-effectively than other places. Happy to have a call to chat this through in more detail if you'd like, feel free to shoot me an email! (My first name at taimaka.org). 

Reply
wibnlypando478
2
0
3

Thank you very much Justin. I really appreciate everything you're doing and your response. This does make me feel more comfortable about donating and I think I'll make another donation soon so I can save a second life. 

Reply
JustinGraham6
0
0
4

Always happy to answer questions! Thanks for your support + belief in what we do! Means a lot (which sounds very "charity language" but really is true for us and for the other people running charities hanging out around here). 

Reply
[comment deleted]*1
0
0
Deleted by wibnlypando47,
[comment deleted]*1
0
0
Deleted by wibnlypando47,
NickLaing13
1
0
1

My 2 cents, from decent quality second hand information, yes! Tamaika is a  legitimate charity that is doing fantastic work treating malnutrition cost-effectively.

I'll also piggyback off this great question and @JustinGraham's fantastic response below and point out there are many smaller orgs that have performed their own cost-effectiveness analysis (Introducing Lafiya Nigeria, Tamaika etc.) and judge ourselves to be cost-effective compared to top  GiveWell orgs - without having the direct RCTs on the exact work we do to be able to qualify for GiveWell's top charity list, nor necessarily having external bodies assess us. (Rethink did an analysis for Lafiya). I would think almost all CE charities will have an analysis along these lines performed in the first few years of operation, and some that weren't judged to be cost-effective might be shut down.

Unfortunately like @JustinGraham says, doing direct RCTs on the life-saving evfect of our work might be close-to-impossible now either for ethical reasons, or because the size of study needed these days to detect mortalty differences is very large, so studies powered for mortality have become rare. This is largely because far less kids die than in the past  - which is great. This doesn't mean though that we can't do high quality research on proxy measures though (for us at OneDay Health quality of care and healthcare access) which we are currently doing in collaboration with top universities.

I'm co-founder of OneDay Health and we've done a cost-effectiveness analysis which might put us between $800 and $1800 per life saved. Early stage analysis (and self performed) analysiss though often grossly overestimates cost-effectiveness, so this cost-effectiveness would likely be hugely reduced if others or GiveWell did their own analysis.
 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
144
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
19
GiveWell is hiring a Talent Acquisition Specialist
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
113
USAID Aid Freeze - Bridge Fund established - Donate now for immediate relief
James&Joe
· · 1m read
15
15
View more