2018 Donor Survey Analysis
Table of Contents
- Key Takeaways
- Research Aims
- Methodology and Limitations
- Donation Analysis
- Measuring ACE’s Impact
- ACE Community Analysis
- Questions for Further Research
Key Takeaways
- The response rate for the Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) 2018 donor survey was at least 11%,1 with 162 respondents answering at least one question on the survey, and 102 completing the full survey.
- The majority of respondents (92%) reported using ACE’s recommendations to guide their donations in the past 12 months.
- Most respondents (79%) reported that ACE’s recommendations led them to increase their animal charity donations by $1 to $999.
- ACE seems to divert some funds to farmed animal advocacy from other causes.
- On a question allowing for multiple responses, only 37% of respondents indicated that they would have donated to farmed animal advocacy charities in the past year without ACE’s influence.
- Eleven percent of respondents indicated that, without ACE’s influence, the money they donated to ACE and our Top Charities would not likely have gone to any charity. That is, they would have used their donation money for personal spending and/or savings, and/or they weren’t sure how they would have used it.
- Additionally (and non-exhaustively), respondents indicated that, without ACE’s influence, they would have used their donations for the following:
- Other EA-aligned charities (alone or with other responses): 43%
- Other animal charities (alone or with other responses): 33%
- Other charities (alone or with other responses): 20%
- Donors to ACE and ACE Top Charities are heavily influenced by the principles of effective altruism (EA).
- Seventy-two percent of respondents identify as effective altruists.
- Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that, had it not been for ACE’s recommendations, they would have donated to other EA-aligned organizations. For the third year in a row, this was the most common counterfactual use of donations reported.
- Sampling strategies and potential biases mean that these findings are not generalizable to the general ACE and Top Charity donor populations (see Methodology and Limitations).
Research Aims
We conduct a survey of donors to ACE and our Top Charities annually. It helps us understand who is donating to ACE and who is using our recommendations when donating to our Top Charities. It also contributes to our understanding of how much money we are influencing and how it may have been spent otherwise.
This survey was first designed, distributed, and reported on in 2017, though some minor changes were made to the survey in 2018. A similar version of the survey was also distributed and reported on in previous years.
Methodology and Limitations
In October 2018, we distributed a web-based survey using our mailing list of known individuals who donated to ACE and our Top Charities in the previous year. We also asked our 2017 Top Charities to send the survey to their mailing lists of donors who reported being influenced by ACE. Our 2017 Top Charities were Animal Equality, The Good Food Institute (GFI), and The Humane League (THL).
The survey was hosted via QuestionPro and incorporated branching logic, such that not all respondents received all questions. The survey had two sections, including 12–18 questions in the first section (dependent upon participants’ responses) and an optional second section with five additional questions. The first section included questions about donors’ behavior and motivation. The second, optional section included questions about the donors’ attitudes towards effective altruism and our two funds (the Recommended Charity Fund and the Effective Animal Advocacy Fund).
ACE distributed the survey to 300 donors who had donated to ACE between November 27, 2017 and October 23, 2018, who had valid email addresses, and who opted to join our mailing list. Sixty-nine of those donors had given primarily to ACE, and 231 had given primarily to our Top Charities during that period. Individuals who only donated to our Recommended Charity Fund were not included.
Our 2017 Top Charities distributed the survey to their donors who made donations between November 27, 2017 and November 25, 2018, and who they believed had been influenced by ACE. They included 116 Animal Equality donors, 71 GFI donors, and 400 THL donors. Thus, the survey population does not include an equal proportion of donors from each organization. The total number of recipients may be equal to or fewer than 887, as some duplication between groups may have occurred. Participants were instructed, however, to complete the survey only once.
Of the individuals who received the survey, 218 (at least 25%) viewed the survey. Of these, 162 (74%) started the survey and 102 (47%) completed it. Partial responses are included within the analysis. In total, the percentage of recipients who began the survey is at least 18%, and the percentage of recipients who completed the survey is at least 11%. If duplication occurred in distribution, the response rate would be higher.
As sampling was based on purposive and convenience strategies, samples are likely to be affected by selection bias, with certain groups potentially being over- or under-represented. As in previous years, an incentive was not provided for survey participation. Therefore, participants likely represent those most motivated to participate in such research. While we can learn about a portion of our donors by analyzing this survey data, it is important to note that it is not generalizable to the population of donors supporting ACE and/or our Top Charities. For instance, there are likely other donors who did not report that they had been influenced by ACE when donating directly to one of our Top Charities. Those donors would not have received this survey, and we expect that their views may differ systematically from those of our survey respondents.
Donation Analysis
ACE’s general influence on respondents
The majority of respondents (92%) reported that they had used ACE’s recommendations to guide their donations during the previous 12 months. This reflects the nature of the sample population, which represents donors who are likely to have been influenced by ACE. These results are slightly higher than those from 2017, when 88% of respondents reported using our recommendations.
“Have you used ACE’s recommendations in the past twelve months?”
When asked whether—and by how much—their donations to animal charities had increased as a result of ACE’s recommendations, 66 respondents (40.7%) indicated that their total donation amount had increased, 22 respondents (13.6%) indicated that their donation amount had not increased, and 74 respondents (45.6%) declined to answer the question. Sizes of the reported increases in donation are represented in the following frequency chart.
How much did your donations to animal charities increase this year because of ACE?
First-time animal charity donations
Twenty-one percent of 121 respondents indicated that 2018 was the first year they donated to any animal charity (not limited to ACE and our recommended charities). These donations could include those that may have, if not for ACE’s work, gone to other causes.
“Was this the first year you donated to an animal charity?”
ACE’s influence on first-time animal charity donations
Of those who donated to an animal charity for the first time in 2018, three-quarters indicated that ACE had been an important influencing factor: 36% “very strongly,” 24% “strongly,” and 16% “moderately.” A further 24% of respondents reported that ACE influenced their decisions “weakly.” None indicated that it influenced their decisions “very weakly.”
We also investigated the extent to which ACE influenced first-time donations to each of our Top Charities:
- 96% of Animal Equality donors indicated that ACE influenced their decision “strongly” or “very strongly.”
- 79% of The Good Food Institute donors indicated that ACE influenced their decision “strongly” or “very strongly.”
- 89% of The Humane League donors indicated that ACE influenced their decision “strongly” or “very strongly.”
“How strongly did ACE influence your first-time donation to each Top Charity?”
Donation distribution across charities
When asked to which charities they had donated, 53% of respondents reported donating to ACE and 86% reported donating to one of our three 2017 Top Charities. The majority of ACE donors (75%) also donated to a Top Charity. Of the 102 individuals who reported donating to a Top Charity (86% of respondents), 52% reported donating to one, 19% to two, and 29% to all three. THL’s donors were the most likely to have donated to other Top Charities (41% of THL’s donors, compared to 7% of Animal Equality’s and 22% of GFI’s donors).
Many respondents reported donating to one of our Top Charities for the first time this year. Animal Equality donors were most likely to report that this was their first year donating to them, which might be due, in part, to the fact that Animal Equality was the only 2017 Top Charity that did not also receive this ranking in 2016:
- Out of 46 respondents who reported donating to Animal Equality, 74% reported that it was their first time donating to them.
- Out of 49 respondents who reported donating to The Good Food Institute, 63% reported that it was their first time doing so.
- Out of 78 respondents who reported donating to The Humane League, 45% reported that it was their first time doing so.
“Was this the first year you donated to an animal charity?”
Animal Equality
The Good Food Institute
The Humane League
Measuring ACE’s Impact
Tracking the amount of funding that ACE influences to our recommended charities is one way to measure our impact.2 Of course, we’re highly interested in how donors would have used their funding if it hadn’t been for ACE’s recommendations. We can have a greater positive impact by moving funding from other causes to farmed animal advocacy, whereas we might have less impact if we are shifting funding from one farmed animal charity to another.
How much did respondents donate?
We asked respondents how much money they donated to ACE and our Top Charities combined. Of the 73 individuals who responded, 41 (56%) had donated between $1 and $999. Thirteen respondents (18%) donated between $1,000 and $2,499, 9 respondents (12%) donated between $2,500 and $4,999, 4 respondents (5%) donated between $5,000 and $9,999, and 2 respondents (3%) donated between $10,000 and $24,999. Four respondents (5%) reported donations of $50,000 or more. In total, in 2018 a greater proportion (44%) reported donating $1,000 or more than in 2017 (24%) or 2016 (29%).
We have been tracking the amounts donated to ACE and our Top Charities (combined) over time. Below, we compare these donations in 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Donations to ACE and ACE Top Charities over the past three years
Seventy-seven respondents reported the total amount that they donated in 2017 to all causes (including but not limited to animal advocacy). Of those, 24 respondents (31.17%) reported donating between $0 and $999 to charity. Fifty-three respondents (69%) reported donating $1,000 or more to charity. Below, we compare the amount that respondents donated to ACE and our Top Charities (combined) to the amount that respondents donated to all causes.
Donations to ACE and ACE Top Charities and donations to all causes
Counterfactual use of donations
When asked how they would have otherwise used the money they had donated to ACE and/or our Top Charities, 88% of respondents indicated that they would have donated to some type of charity.3 Thirty-seven percent of respondents stated that they would have donated to other farmed animal advocacy charities and 43% of respondents indicated that they would have donated based on the principles of effective altruism to charities not affiliated with farmed animal advocacy (some of which may have gone to other animal causes ACE considers to be high impact, such as wild animal suffering or food technology). “Donations based on the principles of effective altruism” was the most popular response this year, as well as in 2016 and 2017. Respondents were able to select multiple response options.
| Counterfactual Use of Donations4 |
Percentage |
| Other EA-aligned charities (alone or with other responses) | 43% |
| Other farmed animal charities (alone or with other responses) | 37% |
| Other animal charities (alone or with other responses) | 33% |
| Other charities (alone or with other responses) | 20% |
| Other animal charities, but NOT other farmed animal charities | 16% |
| Combination of personal spending, savings, and/or “don’t know” only | 12% |
| Savings only | 6% |
| Personal spending only | 3% |
| Don’t know only | 2% |
ACE Community Analysis
How did respondents learn about ACE?
When asked how they had learned about Animal Charity Evaluators, participants were most likely to cite the effective altruism movement (60% of 108 responses). A further 20% had learned about ACE from a Google search, 6% from a friend, 3% from social media, 2% from an ACE recommended charity, 2% at a conference or event, and 1% from a book, while 4% could not recall. These responses are fairly consistent with our 2017 findings, whereby the most popular responses were: “through effective altruism” (43%), “from a Google search” (15%), and “from a friend” (9%).
“How did you learn about ACE?”
Of the seven respondents who selected “other,” three included responses:
- “A Sam Harris Podcast”
- “Peter Singer’s TED talk”
- “A cross link in a reader’s comment on the Givewell blog”
Why did respondents donate to ACE?
We asked ACE donors why they donated to ACE in 2018 and offered the seven following options (with the opportunity to select up to two):
- I want to support research about which interventions are most effective.
- I want to support research about which charities are most effective.
- I value ACE’s charity evaluations to help me determine my own charitable giving.
- I value ACE’s efforts to promote effective animal advocacy.
- I want to see more philanthropic funding go to effective charities.
- I think meta-charities are generally the most effective giving opportunities.
- Other (write-in response required)
Among the 59 respondents, the most commonly cited reasons for donating to ACE were valuing ACE’s efforts to promote effective animal advocacy (41%), wanting to support research about charity effectiveness (41%), and valuing ACE’s evaluations in determining one’s own contributions (39%). Other common responses were supporting research into intervention effectiveness (32%) and wanting effective charities to receive more philanthropic funding (34%). Only 7% of respondents indicated that they donated to ACE because they believe that meta-charities are the most effective giving option, and one respondent indicated a reason outside of those provided. Responses were fairly consistent with our 2017 donor survey.
“Why did you donate to ACE?”
Comparing “larger” and “smaller” donors
We compared respondents who reported donating less than $1,000 to ACE and/or our Top Charities (“smaller” donors) to those who donated $1,000 or more (“larger” donors) on the following measures:
- Whether they used ACE’s recommendations to guide their donations
- Whether it was their first time donating to any animal charity
- Whether they had donated to ACE, GFI, Animal Equality, and/or THL
- How they had heard about ACE
- Why they had donated to ACE (if applicable)
- Whether they identify as an effective altruist
Donating behavior and motivation were generally similar between “larger” and “smaller” donors. Differences emerged in a few key areas that, although unlikely to be generalizable to the broader donor population (see Methodology and Limitations), may suggest important areas for future research.
We found that GFI donors included the largest proportion of larger donors (55%), followed by ACE (47%), THL (42%), and Animal Equality (38%).
Proportion of “larger” and “smaller” donors to each charity
This year, respondents to our survey who were larger donors were more likely than those who were smaller donors to identify as effective altruists (76% and 60%, respectively). Interestingly, the reverse was true in 2017 (68% and 86%).
“Do you identify as an effective altruist?”
Larger donors
Smaller donors
While in 2017 smaller donors were more likely to report having learned about ACE through the effective altruism movement (51% of smaller and 42% of larger donors), the reverse was true in 2018 (31% and 63%, respectively). Larger donors were, however, much less likely to have learned about ACE through a Google search (7% of larger donors in 2018 and 16% in 2017), while smaller donors were more likely to have done so (26% and 17%, respectively).
Do respondents identify as effective altruists?
In our 2018 donor survey, 72% of respondents indicated that they identify as effective altruists, 7% stated that they did not identify as effective altruists, and 21% didn’t know. In 2017, 61% of respondents identified as effective altruists.
“Do you identify as an effective altruist?”
2018
2017
Questions for Further Research
- How representative are our survey respondents of all donors to ACE and our Top Charities?
- How open are our donors to areas of advocacy that are underexplored (e.g., fish advocacy or helping wild animals)?
- Do some areas of ACE’s work (e.g., charity reviews, intervention reports, blog posts, or social media) affect donor behavior more than others?
- Are donors more influenced by the content of our reviews or charities’ recommendation status?
- What further studies can be conducted to better understand how much money ACE redirects and where this money would have gone otherwise?
- How do first-time donors use ACE’s information, compared to those who have donated previously?
- What additional strategies can ACE undertake to improve engagement with our materials both inside and outside of effective altruist communities?
- Are there any areas of our work that influence donors more than we think is appropriate? For example, do donors weigh our cost-effectiveness estimates or our intervention reports more than we think they should?
We do not know the exact response rate, as we are unable to monitor for duplication in survey distribution between ACE and our Top Charities.
We do not believe this is the only way—or necessarily the best way—for us to measure our impact.
As participants were able to select multiple options (45% selected more than one response, not accounting for “Don’t Know” responses), charity donations may have accounted for only a portion of where this money would have gone for these respondents.
Responses in this table don’t add to 100% because not all combinations are represented and some responses are counted more than once. For instance, if one respondent chose “farmed animal advocacy,” “other animal charities,” and “EA-aligned” charities, that respondent would be represented in three rows.