Members of the EA community are not the only potential high-impact individuals. In 2024, we also run pilots to target other communities of highly ambitious altruists with promising impact potentials such as altruistic leaders, award-winners (students, scientists, etc.), and scholarship holders. This means our cost-effectiveness does not depend on whether we will reach the penetration rate we put in here as an estimation.

This is how many partipants we believe we will be able to deliver to in 2025 after the next program iteration. N=150 plus the ones covering the costs on their own.

Overhead cost per program 20% including technology, research, HR, outsourcing, management (USD)

Conservative estimate based on the pre-post productivity increase measured in our study on 42 EAs. On avergage, they worked 4 hours more after, and reported a ~20% increase of productivity during the worked hours which equated to another ~5 hours (overall ~9 hours) . We took a conservative estimate of 6 hours to take into account that not all of this effect might be causal to the program.

Conservative estimate based on the analysis of the Happier Lives Institute in the duration of the effects of psychotherapy (p.11+) as well as the duration of the effects of layperson-guided mental health programs on mental health improvement (p. 18). We assume a linear relationship between mental health and productivity based on this paper.

We work with the underlying assumption that productivity is related to outcomes such as salary and quality of work. Based on a standard working year of 2,000 hours (assuming full-time employment), a 6-hour-per-week increase over 1.5 years would result in a 25% salary uplift for the additional hours worked. This means the equation is more applicable for freelancers, students, and employees in EA organizations than for employees in non-EA organizations.

If 100% of revenue generated as a result of increased productivity were donated to one of GiveWell's most cost-effective charities (AMF, in this example)

Some of this 10% of particpants may turn their increased productivity into donations; others may use it towards equally cost-effective labor supporting a variety of cause areas. The remaining 90% in this model use their reclaimed time for personal projects, leisure, non-EA labor, etc.

We use "deaths averted" as an outcome metric because of its common use as a benchmark, but participants may also use their time for cause areas with other outcome metrics (e.g., x-risk reduction, improving wellbeing, animal welfare, etc.)