How we think about effectiveness.

Every intervention we consider funding has to answer one question: what does it cost to produce one unit of meaningful outcome — a case of dementia delayed, a child’s mental health condition prevented, a workday of cognitive function preserved — compared to the alternative uses of that money?

THE THREE-LAYER FRAMEWORK

A common basis for comparing prevention.

Our method forces each candidate program into the same basic evaluation structure: burden, intervention, and comparison to identify the opportunity with the biggest return on investment.

Burden

What does the problem cost Australia today, and on its current trajectory, without intervention?

Intervention

For a specific program, what does the existing evidence say about its effect, and at what cost per participant?

Comparison

Expressed as cost per outcome unit, allowing different interventions — even across life-stage buckets — to be assessed on a common basis.

Grantmaking first, outcomes-based finance later.

SHORT TERM

We operate as a research-led grantmaker: developing clear, transparent criteria across the three buckets, and directing donor capital toward the Australian organisations that meet them.

MID TO LONG TERM

Once specific programs have a proven track record and measurable near-term outcomes, we aim to help structure outcomes-based financing — instruments like development impact bonds — to scale what’s already working.

This sequencing is deliberate. Outcomes-based finance requires rigorous baseline data and a proven intervention — tools we intend to earn the right to use once our research shows what actually works, not before.

What we’re honest about

•

Effect sizes for many preventative interventions are currently drawn from international studies, and may not transfer cleanly to the Australian context.

•

Comparing across buckets — say, a childhood program against a dementia program — is methodologically harder than comparing within one, and we’ll flag that confidence level clearly.

•

We do not yet have a finished, validated cost-effectiveness model. We have a clear methodology, a defined data strategy, and a foundation model in progress — and we’re seeking the research partnerships that let us build it properly.

Our sources

We draw on the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), NATSEM/University of Canberra modelling, the Productivity Commission’s 2020 Mental Health Inquiry, and published international intervention evidence — adapted cautiously, and always with Australian validation flagged as necessary before we rely on it.

Read our founding thesis in full →