GiveBetter x Los Angeles

Streets Are For Everyone

Road-safety advocacy, collision-survivor support, education and community programs

Research time: ~11 min on GPT-6 Astra Light
  • Research — reviewed programs, finances and impact evidence.

Updated: 2026-09-14

Donate

Summary

What do they do? SAFE works on road-safety policy, local street improvements, survivor support and education. Its camera-implementation work offers a concrete route from advocacy to fewer serious crashes. The quantified estimate below prices only that pathway against all recipient costs—not SAFE's entire portfolio.

Why we’re interested in this organization:

  • Direct participation in implementation coalitions, not only general awareness campaigning.

  • Independent studies support a camera-to-injury pathway, with current LA plans providing a concrete deployment scale.

  • Original accounts permit a full-recipient denominator including fundraising costs netted from revenue.

Our main reservations:

  • Ordinary-gift additionality is especially uncertain: the 2023 return describes vendor-directed advocacy and current city plans are publicly financed.

  • The $65 million per 10 LA QALYs central scenario is a subjective camera slice, not an overall rank or measured portfolio return.

  • LA beneficiary residence, residual camera-days changed by SAFE, and local casualty yield remain unobserved; zero and downside are plausible.

What do you get for your dollar? $65.1M per better life: ten additional quality-adjusted life years in Los Angeles. Camera implementation health only; other impacts unestimated.

At D=C: 0.3125 additional attributable camera-years; 0.00475 deaths and 0.00825 serious nonfatal injuries avoided before resident allocation. No event participants, PSA views, bills supported, citations, speed reductions or locations treated are themselves counted as QALYs.

1. What do they do?

SAFE combines policy advocacy, local street projects, survivor navigation and public education. Its current policy agenda spans DUI, e-bikes, speeding and other road-safety issues; support or sponsorship is not evidence that a bill has become law. Survivor services include emotional support, insurance and medical navigation, and help finding legal services. Those outcomes, community representation, and the wider policy portfolio remain unpriced here. The camera model covers LA City locations only, not the other California pilot cities or SAFE's work outside the MSA.

2. Monitoring and information sharing

SAFE describes implementation checklists and coordination with local coalitions, followed by a December 2025 city report card. These establish participation, not causal acceleration. Current LADOT information and its August 2026 update anticipate a fall launch; the old report-card grades are not used as current deployment status. The decisive monitoring would be dated camera activation/interruption records, documented changes attributable to SAFE rather than staff/vendor/other advocates, matched crash outcomes, beneficiary residence, and the unrestricted staffing or contracting gap.

3. Qualitative assessment

Camera effectiveness is better supported than advocacy additionality. NHTSA's synthesis finds meaningful site-specific injury reductions but notes context dependence. Tang's 2017 quasi-experimental study supplies projected native annual yields of up to 190 fatalities and 330 serious injuries prevented per 1,000 additional cameras, with rebound away from cameras; it is not an LA estimate. A 2025 NYC study finds injury reductions during the first seven months, not a perpetual compounding monthly effect. We retain only 10% of the UK native yield and apply an additional displacement adjustment as explicit judgments. Fines, mistaken citations, privacy risks and financial distress can reduce welfare; statutory safeguards are not proof that harms disappear.

4. What do you get for your dollar?

The 2024 original return reports $396,681 expenses, split $236,640 program, $116,901 management and $43,140 fundraising. Adding $53,282 direct event costs netted against revenue gives a $449,963 full-recipient cash denominator. The similarly grossed-up 2022-24 costs are $224,206, $324,459 and $449,963 (mean $332,876); all three returns mark cash accounting. Program narratives contain allocation inconsistencies, so no program-cost bargain is inferred. The conditional camera slice produces 0.3125 additional attributable camera-years, 0.00475 deaths and 0.00825 serious nonfatal injuries avoided before geographic allocation, or 0.06917 LA QALYs per annual cost normalization. Its price is about $65.1 million per 10 LA QALYs. This is not a whole-portfolio estimate: unpriced programs may be valuable or harmful, and no confidence interval or overall ranking follows from the extreme stress scenarios.

Model, assumptions and sensitivity

All recipient cash costs, including netted direct fundraising costs, for an ordinary unrestricted funding normalization. Numerical benefits cover only residual LA City camera implementation; not whole-portfolio return and not a restricted gift to cameras. Public resource costs excluded from donor price but disclosed and sensitized.

Only the 125 LA City locations enter N. g=.90 is an explicit resident-benefit prior for LA+Orange counties, not LA County population share, office location, event attendance or percentage of SAFE operations. Non-MSA visitors/commuters excluded; other cities and statewide policy benefits unpriced.

For ordinary incremental D: K=(D/C)*N*t*p*a*b additional camera-years. Deaths=K*fd*z*s; serious nonfatal injuries=K*fi*z*s. L=u*(1-exp(-(mu+ln(1+d))*T))/(mu+ln(1+d)). Q_all=(Deaths*L+injuries*qi)/(1+d). Q_LA=g*Q_all. Price=10*D/Q_LA. Displayed normalization D=C=449963; never claim one gift alone changes all cameras. qi is a discounted-at-injury lifetime decrement over a finite ten-year injury horizon.

C
449963 USD gross recipient cash costs per year (observed). 2024 Part IX $396,681 plus $53,282 event costs netted against revenue in Part VIII; no event income subtraction or program-only denominator. [safe-99024]
N
125 LA City camera locations (observed). Current planned system locations, not camera lenses, completed deployments, or lives saved. [la-camera-current] [la-camera-council]
t
0.25 camera-years per location conditional on successful intervention (judgment). A residual three-month delay/interruption equivalent within the next year, not five years of credit for the already-authorized pilot. Can represent partial network delays with the same sum of camera-days. [safe-camera-work] [la-camera-aug26]
p
0.2 probability coalition changes residual implementation (judgment). Explicit analyst prior, not a historical win rate or source-calibrated probability; city/vendor already intend rollout. [la-camera-council] [safe-reportcard]
a
0.2 SAFE share of coalition's incremental implementation effect (judgment). Multiple advocacy organizations, officials, consultants and vendor participate. Co-sponsor status does not measure causal share. [safe-camera-work] [safe-reportcard]
b
0.25 marginal ordinary-funding responsiveness (judgment). Discount for sponsorship, vendor-directed work, other revenue, reserves, and donor replacement; no verified staffing gap. Zero is plausible. [safe-99023] [safe-99024] [safe-support]
fd
0.19 fatalities prevented per additional camera-year in external study (observed). Tang's projection of up to 190 lives saved per 1,000 additional cameras annually; upper projected external yield, not measured LA yield. Paper dated September 2017; exact publication day unknown. [tang2017] [lse-tang2017]
fi
0.33 serious injuries prevented per additional camera-year in external study (observed). Tang's separate projection of up to 330 serious injuries prevented per 1,000 additional cameras annually. This projected external upper yield is not measured LA impact; fatalities and nonfatal serious injuries kept separate. [tang2017] [lse-tang2017]
z
0.1 external effect retained in LA (judgment). 90% haircut for older UK sites, high historical casualty risk, local baseline uncertainty, two-direction system differences, and short implementation horizon; not empirical calibration. [tang2017] [nhtsa-camera] [nyc-camera2025]
s
0.8 net benefit retained after traffic displacement (judgment). 20% further reduction for rebound beyond sites; newer NYC evidence is more reassuring but does not identify LA spillovers. [tang2017] [nyc-camera2025]
g
0.9 share of modeled beneficiaries resident in LA or Orange County (judgment). Only LA City locations modeled; 10% excluded for visitors and commuters resident outside the MSA. Road location does not establish residence. Stress .70-.98, not an observed bound. [la-camera-current]
u
0.85 utility weight of survival (judgment). Average counterfactual health utility; no local survivor age/health mix.
T
30 maximum remaining life-years per death avoided (judgment). Finite horizon; not an indefinite value for every crash avoided.
mu
0.01 annual competing mortality hazard (judgment). Simple age-mix proxy; uncertainty in remaining lifetime is explicit.
d
0.03 annual QALY discount rate (judgment). Continuous equivalent log(1.03) for survival, one-year event delay.
qi
1 discounted-at-injury QALY loss avoided per serious nonfatal injury (judgment). Judgment for discounted-at-injury lifetime loss over at most ten years; no validated local severity distribution. Stress .1-3 QALYs; separate from death outcomes.
publicAnnual
7950000 USD annual city camera program estimate (observed). Impact Report Table 1 includes $1.2 million staffing plus $6.75 million equipment/vendor; Council narrative gives $6.675 million vendor estimate, a $75 thousand discrepancy. Estimates, not final outturn. [la-camera-impact] [la-camera-council]

Conditional camera slice only—not whole-portfolio estimate: Cost: $450K; Los Angeles QALYs: 0.06917138089842043; all-population QALYs: 0.0768570898871338. N=125; t=.25; p=.2; a=.2; b=.25; fd=.19; fi=.33; z=.1; s=.8; g=.9; u=.85; T=30; mu=.01; d=.03; qi=1. Pilot financed and planned without gift; only residual implementation equivalents priced.

Weak additionality and low transfer, not a lower confidence bound: Cost: $450K; Los Angeles QALYs: 0.00002721422302001308; all-population QALYs: 0.000038877461457161546. t=1/12; p=.05; a=.05; b=.1; z=.02; s=.5; g=.7; u=.7; T=15; qi=.1; other inputs central.

Strong residual influence and transfer, not an upper confidence bound: Cost: $450K; Los Angeles QALYs: 13.155091991546835; all-population QALYs: 13.423563256680444. t=.5; p=.5; a=.4; b=.5; z=.5; s=1; g=.98; u=.9; T=40; qi=3; other inputs central.

Funders or city/vendor entirely substitute for gift: Cost: $450K; Los Angeles QALYs: 0; all-population QALYs: 0. b=0; no finite positive QALY price.

Net harm exceeds the modeled camera benefit: Cost: $450K; Los Angeles QALYs: -0.06917138089842043; all-population QALYs: -0.0768570898871338. Illustrative signed downside: unmodeled health harms equal twice the camera health benefit; not an empirical bound or monetized fine estimate. No positive QALY price.

Camera slice with incremental public resource costs: Cost: $470K; Los Angeles QALYs: 0.06917138089842043; all-population QALYs: 0.0768570898871338. Add $19,875 public operating resources for K=.3125 camera-years using $7.95 million/125; fixed costs may not vary this way. Fines are transfers, not negative resource costs.

Whole recipient portfolio including other policies and support: Cost: $450K; Los Angeles QALYs: unknown; all-population QALYs: unknown. Do not substitute the camera-slice value for the unestimated whole-portfolio return.

Counterfactual: Without marginal ordinary funding, AB 645 remains enacted, city funding, vendor installation, paid outreach and other advocates continue. Only a probabilistic residual three-month-equivalent delay/interruption avoided within the next year is modeled. No causal claim about future bill passage; no indefinite pilot renewal, no annual re-crediting of the same survivor.

Attribution: p=.20 is coalition incremental implementation probability; a=.20 allocates its effect to SAFE; b=.25 is response to marginal ordinary funding after sponsors, reserves and replacement. These separate conditional judgments are not empirical probabilities. The evidence establishes participation but does not calibrate any of them. Their product can be zero.

Structural and prior-dominated. Central numerical result is a camera-only decision scenario, not an identified portfolio best estimate or statistical expected value. Poor/favorable combinations are stress tests, not credible bounds. Nonhealth fines/privacy harms and benefits of other programs are not assigned invented QALYs. Zero and negative net-health scenarios retained; a whole-portfolio ranking would be misleading without additional causal work.

Sensitivity

  • Price scales inversely with additional camera-years, external transfer and resident share. g=.70 vs .90 increases price by 28.6%; .98 lowers it by 8.2%.
  • At central clinical/transfer assumptions, each attributable camera-year yields 0.22134841887494536 LA QALYs. Reaching $1 million/10 requires 20.328268089152893 attributable camera-years per annual recipient cost; $100 thousand/10 needs ten times that.
  • Camera technology's effect is not SAFE's effect. Replacing p*a*b with 1 would wrongly give an ordinary gift all coalition, public and vendor credit.
  • Removing the priced injury term leaves the finite survival integral; no separate lifetime credit for repeated crashes or recurring injury-years.
  • Using the three-year gross cash-cost mean $332,876 reduces the price by the cost ratio, but understates current expense growth; central uses latest year.
  • City memorandum vendor estimate $6.675 million differs from Impact Report $6.75 million. Use total Table 1 $7.95 million only in public-cost sensitivity; no false precision about executed public contract.

Unresolved inputs

  • Actual marginal SAFE staff/contracting plan and unrestricted gap; current vendor and government-related revenue by payer and restrictions.
  • Residual camera-days changed by SAFE relative to planned city/vendor/coalition baseline; evidence to calibrate p, a and b.
  • Casualty baselines and before/after comparison at 125 selected sites, adjusting selection and crash migration.
  • LA/Orange resident share, ages, injury severity and remaining survival of affected road users.
  • Causal health and nonhealth returns of other policy, survivor, education and community programs; vendor-related opportunity costs and enforcement harms.

5. Funding and previous grants

The 2023 original return describes advocacy priorities and direction from Verra Mobility, alongside $81,781 program revenue. This documents a commercial relationship, not improper conduct or the amount of current vendor support. In 2024, program revenue was $290,088 and net assets $149,829; the payers and restrictions are not sufficiently disaggregated to establish a gift-sensitive gap. LADOT's Council report already plans procurement, staff and public outreach, while its Impact Report estimates $7.95 million annual public costs plus $0.5 million one-time services, initially financed by sales-tax funds with citation cost recovery. Ordinary donations do not buy these cameras or merit all rollout benefits. The model discounts substitution and includes only a residual delay/interruption equivalent within one year; no five-year enactment credit, donated-asset multiplier, or claimed funding match is applied.

Annual expenses

Organization-level spending, including programs, administration and fundraising. The research list averages three comparable, consecutive full fiscal years when available.

  • FY 2022: $224K; Streets Are For Everyone, EIN 47-3036490, 12-month period, Cash accounting; Part IX plus separately netted event costs and cost of goods sold. Source
  • FY 2023: $324K; Streets Are For Everyone, EIN 47-3036490, 12-month period, Cash accounting; Part IX plus separately netted event costs and cost of goods sold. Source
  • FY 2024: $450K; Streets Are For Everyone, EIN 47-3036490, 12-month period, Cash accounting; Part IX plus separately netted event costs and cost of goods sold. Source

6. Sources

  1. 2024 Form 990, Parts I, III, VIII, IX, X and XII. Streets Are For Everyone; IRS original return via ProPublica. Published: 2025-12-17; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  2. 2023 Form 990, including vendor-directed advocacy description. Streets Are For Everyone; IRS original return via ProPublica. Published: 2024-11-16; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  3. 2022 Form 990. Streets Are For Everyone; IRS original return via ProPublica. Published: 2024-01-30; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  4. Speed camera implementation update. Streets Are For Everyone. Published: 2025-08-08; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  5. AB 645 implementation report card, updated December 16. Streets Are For Everyone. Published: 2025-12-16; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  6. 2026 legislation and priorities. Streets Are For Everyone. Published: 2026-08-07; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  7. Free support services and named sponsors. Streets Are For Everyone. Published: not stated; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  8. Speed Safety System: current launch information. Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Published: not stated; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  9. Weekly Update August 13, 2026: fall camera launch. Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Published: 2026-08-13; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  10. Speed Safety System Pilot Program Impact Report and Use Policy: Council memorandum. Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Published: 2026-02-11; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  11. Attachment A: January 2026 Impact Report, released with February Council memorandum. Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Published: 2026-02-11; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  12. Do Speed Cameras Save Lives? SERC Discussion Paper 221. Cheng Keat Tang; London School of Economics. Published: not stated; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  13. Speed cameras reduce road accidents and traffic deaths: research summary. London School of Economics. Published: 2017-10-25; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  14. Countermeasures That Work: Speed Safety Camera Enforcement. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Published: not stated; retrieved: 2026-09-14.
  15. Can speed cameras make streets safer? Quasi-experimental evidence from New York City. Stagoff-Belfort, Ben-Menachem and Beck; PNAS; university repository. Published: not stated; retrieved: 2026-09-14.