Frequently asked questions

Our methods draw on two decades of cost-effectiveness work in evidence-led philanthropy globally. We believe it offers the strongest tools available for deciding where money can do the most good. Using them requires no particular philosophy. Most funders who come to us share a simple goal: they want their giving to go further.

Much of the global work was built for other contexts. In India, the evidence base, the role of government, the cost of delivering programs and the organizations doing the work all look different. We adapt proven methods to these realities, so Indian funders get recommendations that hold up on the ground.

We were seeded by philanthropists Vikrant Bhargava and Luke Ding, both trustees of Founders Pledge. We take no payment from the organizations we assess.

Individuals, families, foundations and CSR teams planning to give roughly USD 1 million or more in India over three to five years, and advisors who support them.

Nothing. Our advisory is at no cost to funders.

Each engagement moves through five stages, from defining the brief to measuring our impact, and typically runs over six months. We meet weekly to share research progress and work through open questions together.

Funders set the direction: the cause, the people they want to reach, the geography, the scale and the level of impact they're aiming for. We take on the evidence questions that follow and share our reasoning in full.

Once you commit, we ask what you would have funded without our advice. This is how we measure our own contribution. We remain available as your giving evolves and new decisions come up.

No. Impact assessment looks back at a programme already funded and asks whether it worked. We look forward, before the money moves, and ask which of the available options is likely to work best.

A way of expressing how much value a rupee creates relative to simply giving that rupee to the beneficiary. In livelihood work, a multiple of 20x means our model estimates that each rupee generates around twenty rupees of additional income over time. Multiples are useful for orders of magnitude, not fine distinctions: 20x and 18x are effectively the same answer, but 20x and 2x are not.

Every estimate rests on assumptions about how long an effect lasts, how well a study transfers and how much change is attributable to the programme. We test the assumptions that matter most and publish ranges, not single numbers.

Generally not. That requires a judgement about how much one outcome is worth relative to another, which is a question of values rather than evidence. Where a funder asks for a cross-sector view, we use published welfare frameworks and show every assumption, so they can substitute their own judgement.

Organizations are welcome to write to us directly. We map organizations systematically in each cause area we research, and we recognize that these maps are always a work in progress. It helps to share the outcome an organization consistently improves, the data behind it, its cost per beneficiary and how that changes at scale, and how much additional funding it could put to good use.

No. Our approach is designed for a sector where many of the most effective organizations have never been formally evaluated, often because research budgets are limited. What matters most is credible data on the outcomes an organization aims to improve.

No. We research and advise; funders make their own grants.