Unfortunately, many of the details are sensitive, so we don’t publicly release most of our case studies.
We also intend for our ratings to roughly line up with how many “donor dollars” each plan change is worth. Our latest estimates were that a rated-1 plan change is worth $7000 donor dollars on average; whereas a rated-100 is over $1m i.e. it’s equal in value to an additional $1m donated to where our donors would have given otherwise.
With the IASPC target, I listed it as a mistake rather than merely a reprioritisation because:
We could have anticipated some of these problems earlier if we had spent more time thinking about our plans and metrics, which would have made us more effective for several months.
Hey Michael,
A typical rated-1 is someone saying they took the GWWC pledge due to us, and are at the median in terms of how much we expect them to donate.
Rated-10 means we’d trade that plan change for 10 rated-1s.
You can see more explanation of typical rated 10 and higher plan changes from 2017 here: https://80000hours.org/2017/12/annual-review/#what-did-the-plan-changes-consist-of
Some case studies of top plan changes here: https://80000hours.org/2017/12/annual-review/#value-of-top-plan-changes
Unfortunately, many of the details are sensitive, so we don’t publicly release most of our case studies.
We also intend for our ratings to roughly line up with how many “donor dollars” each plan change is worth. Our latest estimates were that a rated-1 plan change is worth $7000 donor dollars on average; whereas a rated-100 is over $1m i.e. it’s equal in value to an additional $1m donated to where our donors would have given otherwise.
With the IASPC target, I listed it as a mistake rather than merely a reprioritisation because: