This is a much-needed reality check. Sitting on ready-made near-miss data in Airtables and never running a regression discontinuity design shows how much low-hanging fruit is being ignored.
Most of these programs are just measuring their selection filter. When 30% say they’d do it unpaid, you aren't building a pipeline—you’re just stamping people who would have broken into the field anyway.
Hopefully funders like Coefficient Giving push for real evaluation standards. Dropping $50M on shallow retrospectives while skipping basic counterfactuals is wild for a movement built on rigor.
Great analysis! The long-term cognitive and economic drag of stunting is almost always understated in standard DALY metrics because DALYs traditionally struggle to capture lifelong productivity losses. Re-evaluating stunting at ~2.3 DALYs makes a compelling case for shifting more philanthropic capital into early childhood biofortification and nutrition programs.
This is a much-needed reality check. Sitting on ready-made near-miss data in Airtables and never running a regression discontinuity design shows how much low-hanging fruit is being ignored.
Most of these programs are just measuring their selection filter. When 30% say they’d do it unpaid, you aren't building a pipeline—you’re just stamping people who would have broken into the field anyway.
Hopefully funders like Coefficient Giving push for real evaluation standards. Dropping $50M on shallow retrospectives while skipping basic counterfactuals is wild for a movement built on rigor.
Great analysis! The long-term cognitive and economic drag of stunting is almost always understated in standard DALY metrics because DALYs traditionally struggle to capture lifelong productivity losses. Re-evaluating stunting at ~2.3 DALYs makes a compelling case for shifting more philanthropic capital into early childhood biofortification and nutrition programs.