Fund an outcome,
not a hope.
Most animal-welfare giving buys activity: a number of surgeries, a number of camps. What it rarely buys is the ability to say afterwards whether the population actually changed. That is a measurement problem, and it is fixable.
Activity is easy to buy. Change is not.
Sterilisation only reduces a population if it clears a coverage threshold in a defined area. Below it, animals are replaced faster than they are treated: real welfare benefit for individual dogs, no population effect. Both outcomes are reported the same way, as a count of surgeries.
A question, a partner, and a finish line.
You bring an objective and a geography. We turn it into a scoped question with a real denominator, or, where none exists, a baseline study to establish one first.
Unit costs are published and sourced, not quoted. You see the arithmetic: animals, rate, duration, field teams, before anything is committed.
A named local organisation does the fieldwork. The study design, the data tooling and the record layer come from StrayPaw.
Outcomes post to the animal records as they happen. At the end you get coverage measured against the baseline, not a count of activity.
A number you could defend to an auditor.
Every figure in a StrayPaw programme carries its source, its year and its confidence, so an auditor can trace any of them back. Where a number does not exist, the register names who would hold it, and the proposal costs the study that would produce it.
Population, coverage and unit cost each cite a published origin and year.
Ward-level geography where it exists; an explicit share of a state where it does not.
Outcomes tie to the animals your funding actually reached.