A case study for animal-focused local EA movement building: Effective Animal Altruism London

Dis­claimer: I am an em­ployee of Sen­tience In­sti­tute but this post rep­re­sents en­tirely my own views, rather than those of my em­ploy­ers or those pro­vid­ing feed­back on the post. My ac­tions referred to in this post were ei­ther taken be­fore I be­gan my em­ploy­ment at SI or in my spare time since then. Thank you to Han­nah Mas­son-Smyth, David Nash, and Holly Mor­gan for their com­ments on an ear­lier draft of this post, as well as for their work sup­port­ing EAAL.


Effec­tive An­i­mal Altru­ism Lon­don (EAAL) is one part of is one part of the Effec­tive Altru­ism (EA) com­mu­nity in Lon­don. EAAL works mostly in­de­pen­dently from the move­ment build­ing char­ity Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don.

The goals of this post of this post are:

  1. To help those in­ter­ested in EA move­ment build­ing to de­cide how best to sup­port the growth of the effec­tive an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy com­mu­nity, in­clud­ing through the more de­tailed sup­ple­men­tary ma­te­rial.

  2. To provide an­other per­spec­tive into EA move­ment build­ing more widely, es­pe­cially re­gard­ing met­rics other than IASPCs.

  3. To elicit feed­back on how EAAL could im­prove, or how we should pri­ori­tise our time, in­clud­ing con­sid­er­ing the pos­si­bil­ity that EAAL isn’t worth spend­ing time on at all.

After mod­ify­ing for coun­ter­fac­tu­als, sur­vey re­sults sug­gest that EAAL has in­creased the knowl­edge of the most en­gaged mem­bers of the EAAL com­mu­nity by over 50%, in­creased their in­cli­na­tion to­wards EA, caused at least one sig­nifi­cant ca­reer plan change, and led to some sig­nifi­cant changes in the char­i­ties that in­di­vi­d­u­als sup­port. It does not seem to have caused much change in cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion.

At the end, I in­clude an ex­tremely rough cost-effec­tive­ness es­ti­mate that sug­gests that the re­sources spent on EAAL are likely to have fallen short of the cost-effec­tive­ness of 80,000 Hours, al­though pos­si­bly by less than an or­der of mag­ni­tude. This differ­ence may be in­signifi­cant in the light of cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion con­sid­er­a­tions or un­mea­sured long-term im­pli­ca­tions.

Ob­jec­tives of Effec­tive An­i­mal Altru­ism Lon­don

Broadly, the goal of EAAL has been to en­courage en­gage­ment with effec­tive an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy (EAA), in or­der to gen­er­ate im­pact for an­i­mals, i.e. a re­duc­tion of an­i­mals’ suffer­ing or en­hance­ment of their wellbe­ing. At times, we have used op­por­tu­ni­ties to en­courage en­gage­ment with EA more widely, to gen­er­ate im­pact for hu­man­ity, such as through broad in­tro­duc­tions to EA at the start of an event, al­though this has never been the ex­plicit main goal of an EAAL event.

Sup­ple­men­tary information

In­for­ma­tion on the in­ter­na­tional, lo­cal, and per­sonal con­text and back­ground to Effec­tive An­i­mal Altru­ism Lon­don can be found here.

De­tailed in­for­ma­tion about how my views have changed on the im­por­tance and use­ful­ness of var­i­ous au­di­ence and ac­tivity types for Effec­tive An­i­mal Altru­ism Lon­don can be found here. In sum­mary, I’ve shifted away from fo­cus­ing on a broad au­di­ence to sup­port­ing those with high in­cli­na­tion to­wards EAA already and sup­port­ing em­ploy­ees of an­i­mal char­i­ties.

Some con­sid­er­a­tions for and against form­ing a spe­cific EAA sub­group of a lo­cal EA group can be found here. I con­clude that this is only likely to be worth do­ing in some quite spe­cific con­di­tions.

Although I haven’t nec­es­sar­ily listed all of the sources for the ideas in­cluded in these files, the de­vel­op­ment in my views has been shaped mostly by:

  • The ex­pe­rience of run­ning the group and re­flec­tion on what we have/​haven’t achieved.

  • Con­ver­sa­tions with oth­ers en­gaged in move­ment build­ing, es­pe­cially David Nash.

  • Re­sources put out by CEA, es­pe­cially the mod­els listed here.

  • Con­ver­sa­tions and re­sources spe­cific to EAA, es­pe­cially from Sen­tience In­sti­tute and An­i­mal Char­ity Eval­u­a­tors.

  • Var­i­ous other EA re­sources, such as those posted on the EA Fo­rum.


The ev­i­dence of im­pact for sev­eral of the met­rics used here comes from a sur­vey con­ducted ear­lier in Jan­uary 2019 with some of the more en­gaged mem­bers of the EAAL com­mu­nity. Sev­eral ques­tions asked about how re­spon­dents’ views, ac­tions, and ca­reers had changed since Jan­uary 2017, when I started or­ganis­ing EAAL. This sur­vey was sent di­rectly to those who I thought EAAL might have af­fected sig­nifi­cantly and who I thought were un­likely to feel ir­ri­tated about filling in a 5 to 10 minute sur­vey. It there­fore does not rep­re­sent the av­er­age at­tendee at an EAAL event or the en­tirety of EAAL’s im­pact. 28 peo­ple re­sponded.

After each mea­sure of po­ten­tial im­pact I also asked a vari­a­tion of this ques­tion: “If you an­swered ‘Yes’ to the above ques­tion, what pro­por­tion of this change/​these changes do you sus­pect is/​are di­rectly or in­di­rectly due to the events, com­mu­nity, and/​or sup­port that you have been in­tro­duced to via Effec­tive An­i­mal Altru­ism Lon­don? (i.e. what pro­por­tion of this change would not have hap­pened if EAAL did not ex­ist at all).” I mod­ified the re­sults for each mea­sure of im­pact by the given pro­por­tion.

De­spite the in­clu­sion of these ques­tions, there are sev­eral fac­tors that may mean that the ‘true’ im­pact of EAAL on re­duc­ing an­i­mal suffer­ing through these in­di­vi­d­u­als is lower than the sur­vey data im­plies:

  • Without the re­sources put into EAAL, some of the same im­pact might have been achieved by Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don more widely with­out ad­di­tional re­sources, e.g. if some of the sur­vey re­spon­dents had at­tended wider EA events. In sub­se­quent calcu­la­tions, I’ll use a dis­count rate of 15% to ac­count for this. [1]

  • The par­ti­ci­pants may have given un­re­al­is­ti­cally high an­swers in or­der to make the or­ganisers of EAAL feel pleased with our efforts. Note that given the phras­ing of the sur­vey, the mes­sage that I sent to par­ti­ci­pants, and the depth of en­gage­ment of par­ti­ci­pants them­selves, I wouldn’t ex­pect this effect to be large. [2] In sub­se­quent calcu­la­tions, I’ll use a dis­count rate of 20% to ac­count for this.

  • So­cial de­sir­a­bil­ity bias in an­swer­ing the ques­tions. In sub­se­quent calcu­la­tions, I’ll use a dis­count rate of 5% to ac­count for this. [3]

  • I’m gen­er­ally un­sure about how to ac­count for the prob­lem of dou­ble count­ing im­pact be­tween EAAL and the in­di­vi­d­u­als them­selves.

For some of the ques­tions, I trans­formed qual­i­ta­tive re­sponses into nu­mer­i­cal scales. Th­ese re­sults were then mul­ti­plied by the pro­por­tion of the change that they at­tribute to EAAL. In some cases, this num­ber was mul­ti­plied again by a figure to rep­re­sent the likely sig­nifi­cance of the change, where those who donate at least 10% of their in­come or cur­rently do in depth vol­un­teer­ing for an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy or­gani­sa­tions were coded as +1. [4]

The origi­nal ques­tions can be seen here. The anonymised re­sults and num­bers used in the trans­for­ma­tions and calcu­la­tions can be seen here. This sheet con­tains the pre­cise re­sults of the calcu­la­tions, whereas the num­bers be­low have been rounded.

Sur­vey data on re­al­i­sa­tion of ac­tions to gen­er­ate im­pact for an­i­mals:

Th­ese are the most di­rect mea­sures of EAAL hav­ing gen­er­ated im­pact so far. I do not be­lieve that they are the only met­rics of im­por­tance, how­ever.

  • EAAL: I asked the sur­vey re­spon­dents if their ca­reer plans had changed since Jan­uary 2017 and what pro­por­tion of this they would at­tribute to EAAL. The re­sults sug­gest that EAAL was re­spon­si­ble for 1.5 im­pact-ad­justed sig­nifi­cant plan changes. [5]

  • EAAL: I asked the sur­vey re­spon­dents whether the char­i­ties that they donate to, vol­un­teer for or oth­er­wise sub­stan­tially sup­port had changed since Jan­uary 2017 and what pro­por­tion of this they would at­tribute to EAAL. The re­sults sug­gest that EAAL was re­spon­si­ble for 4.5 “im­pact-ad­justed sig­nifi­cant char­ity changes.” [6]

  • Per­son­ally (al­though I haven’t checked my em­ploy­ers’ thoughts on this), I sus­pect that I would not have been able to se­cure my cur­rent role were it not for the op­por­tu­ni­ties and in­cen­tive for deeper en­gage­ment in EAA that were pro­vided to me by or­ganis­ing for EAAL. I sus­pect that my ca­reer in EAA would have been de­layed by at least a year were it not for Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don and the op­por­tu­nity to or­ganise EAAL events.

Sur­vey data on in­creased aware­ness and knowl­edge:

This met­ric mat­ters be­cause it may lead to re­al­i­sa­tion of ac­tions to gen­er­ate sig­nifi­cantly greater im­pact for an­i­mals at later time points. This seems more likely to be the case for deeper and more spe­cific knowl­edge, es­pe­cially among those already deeply en­gaged with an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy (such as em­ploy­ees of char­i­ties) or among in­di­vi­d­u­als who seem ded­i­cated to EAA, than it does for wider pub­lic aware­ness.

  • EAAL: I asked the sur­vey re­spon­dents how far their knowl­edge and un­der­stand­ing of EA and EAA had in­creased or deep­ened since Jan­uary 2017 and what pro­por­tion of this they would at­tribute to EAAL. The re­sults sug­gest that EAAL was re­spon­si­ble for an av­er­age in­crease in knowl­edge and un­der­stand­ing of 70%.

  • EAAL: I asked the sur­vey re­spon­dents if they had changed their views about the pri­ori­ti­sa­tion of broad cause ar­eas, sub-cause ar­eas within an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy (e.g. farmed or wild an­i­mals), or spe­cific in­ter­ven­tions within an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy, and what pro­por­tion of this they would at­tribute to EAAL. The re­sults sug­gest that EAAL was re­spon­si­ble for less than 1 “im­pact-ad­justed sig­nifi­cant pri­ori­ti­sa­tion change.” [7]

Sur­vey data on in­creased in­cli­na­tion and sup­port for EAA:

This met­ric mat­ters be­cause it may lead to re­al­i­sa­tion of ac­tions to gen­er­ate sig­nifi­cantly greater im­pact for an­i­mals at later time points among the deeply en­gaged. It is also im­por­tant among those who are not deeply en­gaged, as it may have im­pli­ca­tions for the long-term im­pact of EA as a wider move­ment.

  • EAAL: I asked the re­spon­dents how far their in­cli­na­tion to­wards and sup­port for EA and EAA had changed since Jan­uary 2017 and what pro­por­tion of this they would at­tribute to EAAL. The re­sults sug­gest that EAAL was re­spon­si­ble for an av­er­age in­crease by more than 0.5 on a −2 to 2 scale.

  • EAAL: I also asked the sur­vey re­spon­dents if they thought that their own in­cli­na­tion hadn’t changed or had de­creased but that EAAL had helped to pre­vent a greater de­crease in in­cli­na­tion. Only 8 re­sponded to this ques­tion and the re­sults sug­gested a neg­ligible effect.


At­ten­dance is not in­her­ently valuable or pos­i­tive. It is there­fore only a use­ful met­ric in­so­far as it some­times serves as the best proxy for the met­rics that mat­ter more. Go­ing for­wards, I will only use at­ten­dance as a mea­sure of suc­cess for events in­tend­ing to pro­mote broad aware­ness of EAA (or EAAL more speci­fi­cally). Note that the at­ten­dance figures for EAAL in­clude some es­ti­mates for a few miss­ing events that are not in­cluded in the Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don figures; this may give the im­pres­sion that EAAL at­ten­dance has been a slightly larger pro­por­tion of wider Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don at­ten­dance than it ac­tu­ally has. [8]

  • EAAL: 320 es­ti­mated unique at­ten­dees at­tend­ing once or more in 2018.

  • Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don more widely: 604 unique at­ten­dees at­tend­ing once or more in 2018.

  • EAAL: 506 es­ti­mated at­ten­dances in 2018 (av­er­age 1.5 at­ten­dances per tracked at­tendee).

  • Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don more widely: 1430 at­ten­dances in 2018 (av­er­age 2.4).

Re­peat at­ten­dance:

Re­peat at­ten­dance seems like a bet­ter proxy for en­gage­ment with EA /​ EAA than raw at­ten­dance.

  • EAAL: 80 es­ti­mated sep­a­rate at­ten­dees at­tend­ing twice or more in 2018. [8]

  • Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don more widely: 114 sep­a­rate at­ten­dees tracked as at­tend­ing twice or more in 2018.

Re­source costs

The di­rect fi­nan­cial cost of EAAL over the past two years has been low. I am usu­ally able to use free venues, and sus­pect that I have spent less than £250 on venue hire in to­tal (where I have paid for venues, I have redi­rected money from dona­tions I would oth­er­wise have made to EAA char­i­ties).

Of course, I have spent money on travel to and from events, food, drink, and snacks for at­ten­dees or for my­self. At each event, how­ever, this tends to be un­der £20, and gen­er­ally comes from per­sonal money that I would oth­er­wise likely spend on my­self (e.g. on go­ing to a restau­rant or pub with non-EA friends), so the coun­ter­fac­tual cost is low. I would guess that the spend­ing of at­ten­dees at the event is used similarly, al­though this may not always be the case; a friend told me that he used to find Effec­tive Altru­ism Lon­don so­cials dis­ap­point­ing be­cause he had con­cep­tu­al­ised them as a way to have im­pact, rather than as an en­joy­able event, and found it frus­trat­ing when they did not ob­vi­ously ap­pear to lead to im­pact. In this sense, many at­ten­dees may bud­get their spend­ing (or be sub­con­sciously af­fected by their spend­ing) differ­ently, and their at­ten­dance at EAAL events may de­tract from time and money that could have been di­rected to­wards di­rect work for an­i­mals.

In terms of or­gani­sa­tional time, I am fairly con­fi­dent that or­ganis­ing EAAL was one of the most im­pact­ful ac­tivi­ties that I could have done for an­i­mals, since I pre­vi­ously lacked knowl­edge of EAAL, or op­por­tu­ni­ties for di­rect im­pact. I am no longer con­fi­dent that this is the case go­ing for­wards. Although it is rare that my in­volve­ment in EAAL in­volves di­rect trade-offs with re­search out­put for my pro­jects for Sen­tience In­sti­tute, if I spent less time on EAAL, I would likely spend more time on more ap­pli­ca­ble skill-build­ing (such as im­prov­ing my un­der­stand­ing of statis­tics) or on small in­de­pen­dent con­tri­bu­tions to EAA re­search.

Of course, when events in­volve ex­ter­nal speak­ers or or­ganisers, there will be time and re­source costs for them too.

I es­ti­mate I have spent the equiv­a­lent of £7800 on EAAL. [9] Han­nah Mas­son-Smyth notes that she has spent the equiv­a­lent of £1200 on EAAL. [10] David Nash es­ti­mates that he has spent the equiv­a­lent of £1000 on EAAL. This brings a com­bined es­ti­mated to­tal of £10,000 spent on EAAL over two years. Note that these es­ti­mates are quite un­cer­tain and the coun­ter­fac­tu­als are quite un­clear. Note that some other in­di­vi­d­u­als have made smaller con­tri­bu­tions, but I have not in­cluded es­ti­mates for their costs here, [11] nor have I in­cluded po­ten­tial costs for at­ten­dees or guest speak­ers.

Ex­tremely rough cost-effec­tive­ness estimates

Note that all of the cost-effec­tive­ness es­ti­mates be­low are very un­cer­tain, and there are likely long-term or in­di­rect im­pli­ca­tions of our work that have not been fac­tored in that could greatly al­ter the con­clu­sions. [12] Th­ese es­ti­mates should be seen as fa­cil­i­tat­ing ex­tremely rough bal­l­park com­par­i­sons for rel­a­tively short-term out­comes, rather be­ing pre­cise mea­sures of ac­tual im­pact.

Given an es­ti­mated cost of £10,000 on EAAL, and an es­ti­mated 1.56 IASPCs caused through EAAL, the cost per IASPC is £6410.

By com­par­i­son, in De­cem­ber 2016, 80,000 Hours es­ti­mated that each plan change worked out as hav­ing cost £470. This sug­gests that the cost per IASPC for EAAL is over an or­der of mag­ni­tude larger than it was for 80,000 Hours at that point.

As noted above, I don’t think that IASPCs cap­ture the to­tal im­pact of EAAL. How­ever, I would be sur­prised if the to­tal im­pact of EAAL was more than 3 times as valuable as its im­pact through IASPCs. The sur­vey is un­likely to have cap­tured all of EAAL’s im­pact, but I would be sur­prised if the to­tal im­pact of EAAL was more than 3 times as valuable as its im­pact recorded in the sur­vey. It there­fore seems that EAAL is likely to fall short of the cost-effec­tive­ness of 80,000 Hours, al­though pos­si­bly by less than an or­der of mag­ni­tude. [13]

Of course, a di­rect com­par­i­son be­tween EAAL and 80,000 Hours as­sumes that EA move­ment build­ing gen­er­ally and EAA move­ment build­ing are equally valuable. I cur­rently be­lieve that EAA is similarly high in ex­pected value to some of the most promis­ing far fu­ture-ori­ented cause ar­eas, [14] and or­ders of mag­ni­tude higher in ex­pected value than some other cause ar­eas sup­ported more di­rectly by EA move­ment build­ing, such as work on global health. The calcu­la­tions here there­fore sug­gest to me that work on EAAL has been similarly cost-effec­tive to work by 80,000 Hours, al­though read­ers’ own con­clu­sions may differ by sev­eral or­ders of mag­ni­tude, de­pend­ing on their views on cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion.


[1] From my knowl­edge of the par­ti­ci­pants, my 90% sub­jec­tive cred­i­bil­ity in­ter­val is that the im­pact of EAAL should be dis­counted by 5% to 45%.

[2] From my knowl­edge of the par­ti­ci­pants, my 90% sub­jec­tive cred­i­bil­ity in­ter­val is that the im­pact of EAAL should be dis­counted by 10% to 70%.

[3] From my knowl­edge of the par­ti­ci­pants, my 90% sub­jec­tive cred­i­bil­ity in­ter­val is that the im­pact of EAAL should be dis­counted by 3% to 15%.

[4] This cod­ing was based on my knowl­edge of the in­di­vi­d­u­als. Donat­ing 1% was coded as 0.1, donat­ing 10% as 1. Cur­rently work­ing for an an­i­mal char­ity was coded as 2, likely to work for an an­i­mal char­ity in the fu­ture or cur­rently do­ing skil­led/​in depth vol­un­teer­ing as 1, cur­rently do­ing some vol­un­teer­ing but where I was un­sure about their plans or po­ten­tial was coded as 0.1. If there was no rele­vant in­for­ma­tion about vol­un­teer­ing, donat­ing, or ca­reer plans, I coded this as 0.

[5] I ac­ci­den­tally made the sur­vey so that re­spon­dents could only tick 1 of these op­tions from a list which in­cluded op­tions re­lated to other is­sues, so the re­sults may slightly un­der­value the num­ber of changes of this type.

[6] I made this met­ric up. Vol­un­teer­ing or dona­tion changes were rated on a scale from +2 (all changed) to 0, then were ad­justed for sig­nifi­cance and for the pro­por­tion that EAAL was re­spon­si­ble for.

[7] I made this met­ric up. Changed cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion was rated as 10, changed sub-cause pri­ori­ti­sa­tion as 1, and changed in­ter­ven­tion type pri­ori­ti­sa­tion as 0.1. Th­ese re­sults were mul­ti­plied by the same ad­just­ment for sig­nifi­cance as used for dona­tions (see foot­note 4) and the pro­por­tion at­tributed to EAAL.

[8] Note that we are miss­ing ex­act at­ten­dances for sev­eral events: 1) pre-EAG talks, ap­prox­i­mately 50 at­ten­dees, of whom I’d guess 40 were unique, 2) Q&A with Kristo­pher Gaster­atos of Cel­lu­lar Agri­cul­ture So­ciety, ap­prox­i­mately 20 at­ten­dees, of whom I’d guess none were unique, 3) ap­prox­i­mately 5 so­cials, with an es­ti­mated av­er­age at­ten­dance of 12, of whom I’d guess 6 were unique. For each of these, I have halved the num­ber of non-unique at­ten­dees to add to the “re­peat at­ten­dance” figures. The es­ti­mated at­ten­dance figures in­clude both these es­ti­mates for events miss­ing data, and tracked at­ten­dances at other events.

[9] Although I have never tracked the time spent on EAAL ac­tivi­ties, I would es­ti­mate that over the past two years, my mean time in­put per week ex­clud­ing the time spent di­rectly at events (i.e. on or­gani­sa­tional work, read­ing speci­fi­cally for events, and ad­min) has been ap­prox­i­mately 5 hours (90% SCI 1 to 9 hours). If I in­clude the time spent at, or trav­el­ling to events, I would ex­pect that this would rise to ap­prox­i­mately 6 hours (90% SCI 2 hours to 13 hours). Th­ese con­fi­dence in­ter­vals are so wide par­tially due to un­cer­tainty about what to count as speci­fi­cally be­ing in­tended for EAAL, as op­posed to wider en­gage­ment in EAA. Across two years, my es­ti­mates would mean 520 ex­clud­ing travel or 624 hours in­clud­ing travel ded­i­cated to EAAL. My cur­rent salary works out as about £15 per hour, as­sum­ing I work a 40 hour week (I work more than this in prac­tice, or slightly less if I don’t count breaks dur­ing the work­ing day). Count­ing one hour of my time as worth £15, ex­clud­ing travel time or money spent on travel and snacks, I there­fore es­ti­mate £7800.

[10] This in­cludes the time spent at the so­cials (or at least the ‘offi­cial’ time span of the so­cial) as well as read­ing ma­te­ri­als and prepar­ing any ma­te­ri­als for the themed so­cials and ad­min; send­ing fol­low up info fol­low up con­ver­sa­tions with at­ten­dees. Han­nah notes that the so­cials are an en­joy­able ex­pe­rience for her and she would choose to at­tend at least 50% of them if she was not an or­ganiser. Ex­clud­ing the time spent at so­cials, the es­ti­mate would be con­sid­er­ably less, around £450. This does not in­clude the time spent or­ganis­ing The Hu­mane League’s ac­tion par­ties.

[11] Saulius Šimčikas spent some time in set­ting up EAAL in 2016, be­fore I be­came in­volved in Jan­uary 2017. An­drew Leeke and Danielle or­ganised one event each in 2018.

[12] Hilary Greaves has ex­plained that for re­peated ac­tions, “there are some highly-struc­tured, sys­tem­atic rea­sons for think­ing there might be a gen­eral ten­dency of my ac­tion to make things bet­ter, but there might also for some other rea­sons be a gen­eral ten­dency to make things worse… when you take the long-term per­spec­tive and you take se­ri­ously the thought that what you’re ul­ti­mately in­ter­ested in is all of the effects that your ac­tions will have and not just the ones that are nearer in time or eas­ier to mea­sure, ac­tu­ally the to­tal effect of your in­ter­ven­tion will be mas­sively dom­i­nated by the un­fore­seen ones… I think re­ally your prop­erly con­sid­ered EA dona­tion be­havi­our should be al­most en­tirely driven by what your best guess is about that stuff that we haven’t mea­sured. If that’s so, then there doesn’t re­ally seem to be any place in the pic­ture for the im­pact eval­u­a­tions that we have.”

[13] If we es­ti­mated that the to­tal im­pact of EAAL was twice its im­pact through IASPCs and that the to­tal im­pact of EAAL was twice as much as the sur­vey sug­gests, this would sug­gest £1603 per IASPC.

[14] For an ex­pla­na­tion of why, see this post by Jacy Reese