Hi Vasco! I indirectly address this question above. Indeed, we think that SWP is a great, highly cost-effective donation opportunity, and we’re proud to have been one of their early funders.
However, I’d be hesitant to make confident broad-stroke claims about comparative cost-effectiveness. That said, AWF have visibility across many different funding opportunities and can allocate funds to wherever they’ll have the highest marginal impact. If we believed funding SWP at a larger scale would be more cost-effective than other opportunities we’re considering, we could increase our support to them. This would indicate that it’s better to donate to AWF since we can make that comparison and choose an opportunity that is more cost-effective on the margin.
However, some of the grants we make have a high expected value, but their impact is not as certain. At this point, SWP represents a more “certain” opportunity for impact with a proven track record. Some of our grants may help start and scale the next SWP (as they did with SWP in the past), and some will not pan out and achieve 0 impact, so if a donor wants to have a higher certainty of impact, rather than rely on expected value-driven/hit-based giving, then donating to SWP directly may be a better option for them.
Thanks, Karolina. It makes sense that you think donating to AWF is better than to SWP. As you say, AWF should otherwise fund SWP more. However, I still do not understand how you conclude that. I estimate SWP has been 173 times as cost-effective as cage-free campaigns, but a significant fraction of AWF’s funds go to such campaigns. I guess you think I am greatly overestimating the past cost-effectiveness of SWP, but I do not know why.
Hi Vasco! I indirectly address this question above. Indeed, we think that SWP is a great, highly cost-effective donation opportunity, and we’re proud to have been one of their early funders.
However, I’d be hesitant to make confident broad-stroke claims about comparative cost-effectiveness. That said, AWF have visibility across many different funding opportunities and can allocate funds to wherever they’ll have the highest marginal impact. If we believed funding SWP at a larger scale would be more cost-effective than other opportunities we’re considering, we could increase our support to them. This would indicate that it’s better to donate to AWF since we can make that comparison and choose an opportunity that is more cost-effective on the margin.
However, some of the grants we make have a high expected value, but their impact is not as certain. At this point, SWP represents a more “certain” opportunity for impact with a proven track record. Some of our grants may help start and scale the next SWP (as they did with SWP in the past), and some will not pan out and achieve 0 impact, so if a donor wants to have a higher certainty of impact, rather than rely on expected value-driven/hit-based giving, then donating to SWP directly may be a better option for them.
Thanks, Karolina. It makes sense that you think donating to AWF is better than to SWP. As you say, AWF should otherwise fund SWP more. However, I still do not understand how you conclude that. I estimate SWP has been 173 times as cost-effective as cage-free campaigns, but a significant fraction of AWF’s funds go to such campaigns. I guess you think I am greatly overestimating the past cost-effectiveness of SWP, but I do not know why.