Comments
We at Rethink Priorities’ Animal Welfare Department want to ensure our work contributes to the animal advocacy movement to its full potential, so we’re seeking your feedback! If you've previously engaged with[1] our animal welfare work, we want to hear from you.
📊 To ensure we're bringing impact for animals and the broad animal-focused movement, we kindly ask you to fill out this short survey by Sunday, June 29, EOD.
Your feedback, no matter if negative, positive, candid, short, or long, is crucial to understanding our impact, usefulness for the movement, and our room for improvement and growth.
Please consider helping us: this can take 10-25 minutes of your time, but we’ll make sure to pay attention to every input! 🎯
Take our impact survey!Thanks,
Elisa and Ula, on behalf of the RP Animal Welfare team
Rethink Priorities is a think-and-do tank dedicated to informing decisions made by high-impact organizations, funders, and policymakers across various cause areas.
By "engaged with", we mean: having read any of our write-ups or reports or attended talks delivered by our staff or events we have organized.
Thanks for sharing! I think it would be good if all questions were optional[1], and participants had the option of going back to previous pages of the survey.
Does this question depend a lot on the counterfactual of the foundations' money? I would be willing to pay much more if the expenses were reimbursed by a random foundation than the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF).
One can reply symbolically with e.g. ".", but I guess a few people may not think about this, and do not submit the survey as a result.
Thanks for the feedback, Vasco! :) I implemented these changes (back button and making long-form questions optional).
Re: valuation question, I agree that this depends partly on counterfactual. For ease of use, I would advise thinking of the average foundation that operates in the effective animal advocacy space to answer this question.
Thanks, Elisa!