It is always a pleasure to share more about our work.
Regarding prioritization: You can find details on how we allocate funding across programmatic areas in our financial statements. Our funding distribution varies from year to year, and different sources of funding also influences how resources are allocated—not just cost-effectiveness.
ACE has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of our three largest programs in terms of expenditures, and they explain their methodology in their review.
The animal protection movement includes many funders with diverse theories of change, and not all are guided solely by cost-effectiveness. We respect and appreciate these differing perspectives, as we believe this diversity encourages reflection and strengthens our movement. Ending factory farming is a highly complex challenge, and we recognize the importance of testing various interventions to drive progress.
As I mentioned earlier, the only portion of our unrestricted funding that supports our diet change work comes from donors who, while choosing to give unrestrictedly, have expressed that this program is their primary motivation for supporting us.
Regarding prioritization: You can find details on how we allocate funding across programmatic areas in our financial statements.
I have checked your financial statements for 2023. It would be great if you added how much restricted and unrestricted funds you spend on each program.
Hi @Vasco Grilo🔸 We spent approximately USD 80,000 in unrestricted funds on this program. However, we received over USD 100,000 in unrestricted donations this year because of this program—these donors likely would not have contributed if we had focused solely on cage-free initiatives. We believe it is fair and aligns well with our mission and theory of change.
Thanks, Carolina! Just one note, you do not have to tag me, as I receive email notifications even if you do not.
If I understand correctly, of your spending of 248 k$ on Nourishing Tomorrow in 2023, 80 k$ was unrestricted, and 168 k$ (= (248 − 80)*10^3) was restricted to that program. I think you are saying the program as a whole caused 100 k$ of additional unrestricted donations that year. If so, the program caused 0.403 $ (= 100*10^3/(248*10^3)) of additional unrestricted donations per $ spent (in reality, it is lower due to overhead[1]). That is less than 1 $, and I think the multiplier for the unrestricted funds is even lower due to diminishing returns[2], so it looks like you should not be spending unrestricted funds on the program. Am I missing something?
Thank you for letting me know about the tags. The methodology we use to allocate resources differs to yours. As I mentioned earlier, our mission and theory of change also play a significant role in the decision-making process.
Regarding prioritization: You can find details on how we allocate funding across programmatic areas in our financial statements. Our funding distribution varies from year to year, and different sources of funding also influences how resources are allocated—not just cost-effectiveness.
I was looking for your thinking on prioritisation, not just the allocation of funds (this results from your thinking, but is not the prioritisation process itself).
As I mentioned earlier, the only portion of our unrestricted funding that supports our diet change work comes from donors who, while choosing to give unrestrictedly, have expressed that this program is their primary motivation for supporting us.
I am not sure I got it. If those donors give unrestrictedly, you could use their donations to support your cage-free work which you also think is more cost-effective than your meal replacement work?
Hi @Vasco Grilo🔸
It is always a pleasure to share more about our work.
Regarding prioritization: You can find details on how we allocate funding across programmatic areas in our financial statements. Our funding distribution varies from year to year, and different sources of funding also influences how resources are allocated—not just cost-effectiveness.
ACE has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of our three largest programs in terms of expenditures, and they explain their methodology in their review.
The animal protection movement includes many funders with diverse theories of change, and not all are guided solely by cost-effectiveness. We respect and appreciate these differing perspectives, as we believe this diversity encourages reflection and strengthens our movement. Ending factory farming is a highly complex challenge, and we recognize the importance of testing various interventions to drive progress.
As I mentioned earlier, the only portion of our unrestricted funding that supports our diet change work comes from donors who, while choosing to give unrestrictedly, have expressed that this program is their primary motivation for supporting us.
I have checked your financial statements for 2023. It would be great if you added how much restricted and unrestricted funds you spend on each program.
Hi @Vasco Grilo🔸 We spent approximately USD 80,000 in unrestricted funds on this program. However, we received over USD 100,000 in unrestricted donations this year because of this program—these donors likely would not have contributed if we had focused solely on cage-free initiatives. We believe it is fair and aligns well with our mission and theory of change.
Thanks, Carolina! Just one note, you do not have to tag me, as I receive email notifications even if you do not.
If I understand correctly, of your spending of 248 k$ on Nourishing Tomorrow in 2023, 80 k$ was unrestricted, and 168 k$ (= (248 − 80)*10^3) was restricted to that program. I think you are saying the program as a whole caused 100 k$ of additional unrestricted donations that year. If so, the program caused 0.403 $ (= 100*10^3/(248*10^3)) of additional unrestricted donations per $ spent (in reality, it is lower due to overhead[1]). That is less than 1 $, and I think the multiplier for the unrestricted funds is even lower due to diminishing returns[2], so it looks like you should not be spending unrestricted funds on the program. Am I missing something?
I suppose some of the spending on people, operations, finance and management is related to the program.
I guess decreasing the spending on the program by 1 % would decrease the additional donations by less than 1 %.
Hi Vasco,
Thank you for letting me know about the tags. The methodology we use to allocate resources differs to yours. As I mentioned earlier, our mission and theory of change also play a significant role in the decision-making process.
I was looking for your thinking on prioritisation, not just the allocation of funds (this results from your thinking, but is not the prioritisation process itself).
I am not sure I got it. If those donors give unrestrictedly, you could use their donations to support your cage-free work which you also think is more cost-effective than your meal replacement work?