The Nonlinear Library EA - HLI's Giving Season 2023 Research Overview by Happier Lives Institute
Nov 28, 2023
49:17
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: HLI's Giving Season 2023 Research Overview, published by Happier Lives Institute on November 28, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Summary
At the Happier Lives Institute, we look for the most cost-effective interventions and organisations that improve subjective wellbeing, how people feel during and about their lives[1]. We quantify the impact in 'Wellbeing Adjusted Life-Years', or WELLBYs[2]. To learn more about our approach, see our
key ideas page and our
research methodology page.
Last year, we published our first charity recommendations. We recommended StrongMinds, an NGO aiming to scale depression treatment in sub-saharan Africa, as our top funding opportunity, but noted the Against Malaria Foundation could be better under some assumptions. This year, we maintain our recommendation for StrongMinds, and we've added the Against Malaria Foundation as a second
top charity. We have
substantially updated our analysis of psychotherapy, undertaking a systematic review and a revised meta-analysis, after which our estimate for StrongMinds has declined from 8x to 3.7x as cost-effective as cash transfers, in WELLBYs, resulting in a larger overlap in the cost-effectiveness of StrongMinds and AMF[3]. The decline in cost-effectiveness is primarily due to lower estimated household spillovers, our new correction for publication bias, and the prediction that StrongMinds might have smaller than average effects.
We've also started evaluating another mental health charity, Friendship Bench, an NGO that delivers problem-solving therapy in Zimbabwe. Our initial estimates suggest that the Friendship Bench may be 7x more cost-effective, in WELLBYs, than cash transfers. We think Friendship Bench is a promising cost-effective charity, but we have not yet investigated it as thoroughly, so our analysis is more preliminary, uncertain, and likely to change. As before, we don't recommend cash transfers or deworming: the former because it's likely psychotherapy is several times more cost-effective, the latter because it remains uncertain if deworming has a long-term effect on wellbeing.
This year, we've also conducted shallow investigations into new cause areas. Based on our preliminary research, we think there are promising opportunities to improve wellbeing by preventing lead exposure, improving childhood nutrition, improving parenting (e.g., encouraging stimulating play, avoiding maltreatment), preventing violence against women and children, and providing pain relief in palliative care.
In general, the evidence we've found on these topics is weaker, and our reports are shallower, but we highlight promising charities and research opportunities in these areas. We've also found a number of less promising causes, which we discuss briefly to inform others.
In this report, we provide an overview of all our evaluations to date. We group them into two categories, In-depth and Speculative, based on our level of investigation. We discuss these in turn.
In-depth evaluations: relatively late stage investigations that we consider moderate-to-high depth.
Top charities: These are well-evidenced interventions that are cost-effective[4] and have been evaluated in medium-to-high depth. We think of these as the comparatively 'safer bets'.
Promising charities: These are well-evidenced opportunities that are potentially more cost-effective than the top charities, but we have more uncertainty about. We want to investigate them more before recommending them as a top charity.
Non-recommended charities: These are charities we've rigorously evaluated but the current evidence suggests are less cost-effective than our top charities.
Speculative evaluations: early stage investigations that are shallow in depth.
Promising bets: These are high-priority opportunities to research because we think they're potentially mor...
Summary
At the Happier Lives Institute, we look for the most cost-effective interventions and organisations that improve subjective wellbeing, how people feel during and about their lives[1]. We quantify the impact in 'Wellbeing Adjusted Life-Years', or WELLBYs[2]. To learn more about our approach, see our
key ideas page and our
research methodology page.
Last year, we published our first charity recommendations. We recommended StrongMinds, an NGO aiming to scale depression treatment in sub-saharan Africa, as our top funding opportunity, but noted the Against Malaria Foundation could be better under some assumptions. This year, we maintain our recommendation for StrongMinds, and we've added the Against Malaria Foundation as a second
top charity. We have
substantially updated our analysis of psychotherapy, undertaking a systematic review and a revised meta-analysis, after which our estimate for StrongMinds has declined from 8x to 3.7x as cost-effective as cash transfers, in WELLBYs, resulting in a larger overlap in the cost-effectiveness of StrongMinds and AMF[3]. The decline in cost-effectiveness is primarily due to lower estimated household spillovers, our new correction for publication bias, and the prediction that StrongMinds might have smaller than average effects.
We've also started evaluating another mental health charity, Friendship Bench, an NGO that delivers problem-solving therapy in Zimbabwe. Our initial estimates suggest that the Friendship Bench may be 7x more cost-effective, in WELLBYs, than cash transfers. We think Friendship Bench is a promising cost-effective charity, but we have not yet investigated it as thoroughly, so our analysis is more preliminary, uncertain, and likely to change. As before, we don't recommend cash transfers or deworming: the former because it's likely psychotherapy is several times more cost-effective, the latter because it remains uncertain if deworming has a long-term effect on wellbeing.
This year, we've also conducted shallow investigations into new cause areas. Based on our preliminary research, we think there are promising opportunities to improve wellbeing by preventing lead exposure, improving childhood nutrition, improving parenting (e.g., encouraging stimulating play, avoiding maltreatment), preventing violence against women and children, and providing pain relief in palliative care.
In general, the evidence we've found on these topics is weaker, and our reports are shallower, but we highlight promising charities and research opportunities in these areas. We've also found a number of less promising causes, which we discuss briefly to inform others.
In this report, we provide an overview of all our evaluations to date. We group them into two categories, In-depth and Speculative, based on our level of investigation. We discuss these in turn.
In-depth evaluations: relatively late stage investigations that we consider moderate-to-high depth.
Top charities: These are well-evidenced interventions that are cost-effective[4] and have been evaluated in medium-to-high depth. We think of these as the comparatively 'safer bets'.
Promising charities: These are well-evidenced opportunities that are potentially more cost-effective than the top charities, but we have more uncertainty about. We want to investigate them more before recommending them as a top charity.
Non-recommended charities: These are charities we've rigorously evaluated but the current evidence suggests are less cost-effective than our top charities.
Speculative evaluations: early stage investigations that are shallow in depth.
Promising bets: These are high-priority opportunities to research because we think they're potentially mor...