Interesting! Open Philanthropy (OP) granted 8.3 M$ to THL in 2023, and Animal Charity Evaluatorsâ 2023 review of THL mentioned a funding gap for 2024 and 2025 of 10.5 M$. So I assume OPâs last $ going to THL each year is either at or above OPâs cost-effectiveness bar (it could be above because OP may not want to provide more than a certain fraction of the total funding of THL). However, in this case, I do not understand why the cost-effectiveness implied by Emilyâs statement differs from THLâs estimate. @Martin Gould or @EmmaTheresa may have thoughts on this.
I clicked on the link over âjust $2.63 to spare a henâ on the page from THL you linked, but it is broken[1].
I sent an email to info@thehumaneleague.org informing THL about it, and asking them if they could share how they obtained their cost-effectiveness estimate.
Please donât treat cost-effectiveness estimates as such an exact science. There are so many subjective choices you make in them. For example, you could say that cage-free campaigns speed up changes by 5 years, or 50 years. Both choices are defensible but the result will be 10 times different just based on this choice alone.
Itâs impossible to tell without seeing the THLâs estimate, but they probably were conservative when estimating their cost-effectiveness. Itâs what I would do if I was doing such estimate for THL. $2.63 per hen impacted is already high enough for most people to want to donate. Maybe itâs even better because itâs more believable. And if they make it less conservative, someone might criticize them. In any case, THL took down the $2.63 estimate, so thatâs a strong reason not to treat it seriously.
Interesting! Open Philanthropy (OP) granted 8.3 M$ to THL in 2023, and Animal Charity Evaluatorsâ 2023 review of THL mentioned a funding gap for 2024 and 2025 of 10.5 M$. So I assume OPâs last $ going to THL each year is either at or above OPâs cost-effectiveness bar (it could be above because OP may not want to provide more than a certain fraction of the total funding of THL). However, in this case, I do not understand why the cost-effectiveness implied by Emilyâs statement differs from THLâs estimate. @Martin Gould or @EmmaTheresa may have thoughts on this.
I clicked on the link over âjust $2.63 to spare a henâ on the page from THL you linked, but it is broken[1].
I sent an email to info@thehumaneleague.org informing THL about it, and asking them if they could share how they obtained their cost-effectiveness estimate.
Please donât treat cost-effectiveness estimates as such an exact science. There are so many subjective choices you make in them. For example, you could say that cage-free campaigns speed up changes by 5 years, or 50 years. Both choices are defensible but the result will be 10 times different just based on this choice alone.
Itâs impossible to tell without seeing the THLâs estimate, but they probably were conservative when estimating their cost-effectiveness. Itâs what I would do if I was doing such estimate for THL. $2.63 per hen impacted is already high enough for most people to want to donate. Maybe itâs even better because itâs more believable. And if they make it less conservative, someone might criticize them. In any case, THL took down the $2.63 estimate, so thatâs a strong reason not to treat it seriously.
Yeah this is a really good point, I have no idea how to square the numbers with big grants from OP to THL