Give to a Goal - the case for “Big Goal” social change

Published on October 20, 2026 4:01 PM GMT (Cross post here) Three tools for giving 1) Philanthropists used to have just one major channel for giving: find and support great individual organizations. This remains a strong way to give. If an organization produces great outcomes, it’s worth betting big. 2) In 2007, GiveWell started and popularized a second giving channel: give to a professionally-managed “mutual fund” that impartially allocates resources to achieve high-confidence, high-impact outcomes using world-leading research. Together with the explosion of other collaborative funds, donors have recognized the value of a professionally-managed, diversified portfolio of grants. These two channels are both sensible ways to allocate philanthropy. Nearly every philanthropist should allocate some of their giving portfolio this way, if they seek to maximize impact. 3) There is a third channel growing quickly, which I like to call Big Goal projects. These projects identify a clear, singular global goal like “eliminate lead poisoning” - and make a big push to accomplish that goal in many countries. I think Big Goal projects are worth including in one’s giving portfolio. To declare interest, I am co-founder of Prevail, one of the organizations that creates Big Goal projects. We are one of many institutions doing this work including Renaissance Philanthropy, Coefficient Giving, Livelihood Impact Fund, and even innovative non-profits like CHAI and Evidence Action. The reason to pursue Big Goal projects is not just to have a bigger impact - there are specific features of these projects that in my opinion result in greater cost-effectiveness (e.g. increasing returns to scale) and lower risk per dollar. I use two contemporary examples: Coefficient Giving’s Lead Exposure Action Fund (LEAF) and Prevail’s own literacy and numeracy fund, to illustrate those factors. What is similar, and what is different about Big Goal projects (sometimes referred to as thesis-driven funds) - and why are they worth considering as part of a philanthropic portfolio? What is similar Big Goal projects build on the solid foundation of prior giving movements, particularly the effective giving movement. If we want each donor dollar to have the biggest human impact, we must: A) Be guided by rigorous research. B) Focus dollars on the most cost-effective impact. This leads us to mostly focus on well-validated projects in Africa and South Asia, helping the world’s poorest to survive and thrive. C) Embrace transparency about the good and the bad - and clearly report on carefully-measured end outcomes to all stakeholders. What is different Rather than cost-effectively deploy dollars on the margin, a Big Goal project steps back and makes big pushes around systemic solutions to a narrow global problem. As I mentioned in an earlier article, sticking your finger in the proverbial leaky dam is different than pouring a curtain of cement over the whole thing. One example of a Big Goal project is Coefficient Giving’s Lead Exposure Action Fund (LEAF), launched in 2024 with $104 million, and with now over $200 million in commitments. Roughly one in three children worldwide has elevated blood lead levels, most of them in low- and middle-income countries, and lead exposure imposes a substantial cognitive burden and contributes to an estimated 3.5 million premature deaths each year. A traditional funder might have chosen the best organizations fighting lead and given them more. Coefficient does that too, but has also taken a field-level approach: helping implementers scale, bringing new organizations into the field, and supporting work with governments and industry to address the sources of lead exposure through regulation, enforcement and safer production practices. There are major advantages to this approach. D) Lasting solutions. We can still allocate donor dollars cost-effectively. But we can do this in a way that is more likely to lead to lasting change - for example by supporting projects that leverage government and market forces. Coefficient’s grantee partners help African and Asian governments to set lead regulations - and also support, for example, paint companies to switch away from lead to safer ingredients. Once government and private producers have switched to cleaner ingredients, the new status quo will tend to last a long time. E) Cost-effectiveness levers. When we make a big push, real economies of scale come into play. For example, Prevail has launched an initiative that funds NGOs to support their country’s public school systems to improve foundational literacy and numeracy instruction in Africa and South Asia. We found dozens of NGOs with proven results, but most of them were operating in just a few school districts - in many cases, their government partners wanted them to scale faster. We are funding these NGOs not just to grow a little bit - but instead, supporting them to reach whole-country scale over several years. As they grow out of