A bottom line benchmark for cost-effectiveness? A large scale impact assessment exercise undertaken by a large British NGO appears to have come up with some ambivalent findings about the impact that has been achieved by their savings and credit activities. While there are undoubtedly many questions that could possibly be asked about the sample and the methods of inquiry one question that does not appear to be asked very often in such situations is what would be the minimal acceptable impact that would justify the continuation of such activities. A bottom line benchmark could be defined in terms of relative cost-effectiveness. The two alternatives that would need to be compared, in terms of benefit to intended beneficiaries are: (a) continuing the S&C activities as they are, (b) handing capital directly to the intended beneficiaries that is equivalent to the cost per head of the existing S&C activities. In the latter case the assumption being that beneficiaries might use the capital more effectively thatn the administrators of the S&C fund. One simple step in this direction might be to inform beneficiaries of the total cost per beneficiary of the S&C service and ask who they would like to control that money: the S&C fund administrators, or themselves? I have asked similar questions in the past, and found that people don't allways "grab the money", they can recognise some situations where it better for others to manage it. (posted 09/11/00) Email the Editor: To tell him if a link is not working