|
Rating
|
Firm
|
Tentative
|
|
Gold
|
- High confidence that the charity’s work is effective (i.e. achieves positive as opposed to minimal or negative impacts) and have good evidence to support this claim.
- We believe cost effectiveness outperforms the Gold Standard
|
- We believe that the charity’s work is likely effective. By effective we mean achieves positive as opposed to minimal or negative impacts. Our belief may be based on analytical judgement.
- We believe cost effectiveness outperforms the Gold Standard
|
|
Silver & Bronze
|
- High confidence that the charity’s work is effective (i.e. achieves positive as opposed to minimal or negative impacts) and have good evidence to support this claim.
- We judge that cost-effectiveness is good, but likely falls behind the Gold Standard. We will apply analytical judgement in determining whether the charity is rated as Silver or Bronze
|
- We believe that the charity’s work is likely effective. By effective we mean achieves positive as opposed to minimal or negative impacts. Our belief may be based on analytical judgement.
- We judge that cost-effectiveness is good, but likely falls behind the Gold Standard. We will apply analytical judgement in determining whether the charity is rated as Silver or Bronze
|
|
More info needed (promising)
|
- We do not have (or, occasionally, have not been able to verify) good evidence that the charity’s work is effective
- We do have some indication of cost-effectiveness, and it naively seems like it may be competitive with the Gold Standard
|
- We do not have (or, occasionally, have not been able to verify) good evidence that the charity’s work is effective
- For a tentative rating, we may have no explicit charity-specific indicator of cost-effectiveness, or may have partial cost-effectiveness indicators
- We may employ analytical judgement to determine what seems promising
|
|
More info needed
|
- We do not have (or, occasionally, have not been able to verify) good evidence that the charity’s work is effective
- We have no indication of cost-effectiveness, or we do not judge those indications to be promising
|
N/A
|
|
Not recommended
|
- We do not have (or, occasionally, have not been able to verify) good evidence that the charity’s work is effective
- We do have some indication of cost-effectiveness, and have very high confidence that cost-effectiveness underperforms the Gold Standard, likely by a substantial margin
|
- We do not have (or, occasionally, have not been able to verify) good evidence that the charity’s work is effective
- We do have some indication of cost-effectiveness, and believe that cost-effectiveness underperforms the Gold Standard, likely by a substantial margin
|
|
Too rich
|
- We believe that the charity already has lots of money, so a donation will likely have minimal impact for some time
- A charity which we deem too rich will likely have enough money that even if all other funding sources dried up, they could fund their full activities for another 18 months, and there no mitigating factors, such as planned activities, their own reserves policy, and our judgement about the risks they are exposed to
|
- We believe that the charity likely already has lots of money, so a donation will be unlikely to have impact for some time
- A charity deemed tentatively too rich will likely be a borderline candidate for a “too rich” assessment, e.g. because the amount of reserves is slightly below the 18 months threshold, and/or there are some uncertainties about plans, policies and risks.
|
|
Not recommended, too rich
|
- Satisfies the criteria for a firm “Not recommended” rating and a firm “Too rich” rating
|
- Satisfies the criteria for a “Not recommended” rating and a “Too rich” rating, where at least one of those assessments is tentative
|
