Unrestricted funding would not necessarily be spent proportionately across the totality of our budget. If, as is currently the case, we have raised a greater percentage of our gap for animals than non-animals, unrestricted funding could, for example, go mostly to non-animals. However, it is still the case that animal-restricted funding would cause us to do more animal-focused research than we otherwise would.
How do you allocate your unrestricted funding in response to restricted donations? E.g., if someone donates $5K to animal welfare, will the proportion of unrestricted funding going to animal welfare stay roughly the same, or decrease slightly (or increase)?
My guess from your comments are to:
1. allocate restricted funding first, and then
2. decide based on the remaining gaps where to allocate unrestricted funding.
You wrote in another comment “100% of any animal-specific funding is always 100% spent on pro-animal research”. This could indeed apply to 1, but once we consider 2, would it still be the case that $X to animals means $X more dollars spent on animals? Wouldn’t it end up being less because you’ll allocate less of the unrestricted funding in 2 to animals?
We in fact do (1) then (2). However, to continue your example, donations to animal work still end up going to animals. If it were the case, say, that we hit the animal total needed for 2020 before the overall total, additional animal donations would go to animal work for 2021.*
It is true in this scenario that in 2020 we’d end up spending less unrestricted funding on animals, but the total spent on animals that year wouldn’t change and the animal donations for 2020 would not then be spent on non-animal work.
*We would very much state publicly when we have no more room for further donations in general, and by cause area.
Unrestricted funding would not necessarily be spent proportionately across the totality of our budget. If, as is currently the case, we have raised a greater percentage of our gap for animals than non-animals, unrestricted funding could, for example, go mostly to non-animals. However, it is still the case that animal-restricted funding would cause us to do more animal-focused research than we otherwise would.
How do you allocate your unrestricted funding in response to restricted donations? E.g., if someone donates $5K to animal welfare, will the proportion of unrestricted funding going to animal welfare stay roughly the same, or decrease slightly (or increase)?
My guess from your comments are to:
1. allocate restricted funding first, and then
2. decide based on the remaining gaps where to allocate unrestricted funding.
You wrote in another comment “100% of any animal-specific funding is always 100% spent on pro-animal research”. This could indeed apply to 1, but once we consider 2, would it still be the case that $X to animals means $X more dollars spent on animals? Wouldn’t it end up being less because you’ll allocate less of the unrestricted funding in 2 to animals?
We in fact do (1) then (2). However, to continue your example, donations to animal work still end up going to animals. If it were the case, say, that we hit the animal total needed for 2020 before the overall total, additional animal donations would go to animal work for 2021.*
It is true in this scenario that in 2020 we’d end up spending less unrestricted funding on animals, but the total spent on animals that year wouldn’t change and the animal donations for 2020 would not then be spent on non-animal work.
*We would very much state publicly when we have no more room for further donations in general, and by cause area.