The post Sources of Information for Animal Advocacy Research appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>For more information on animal advocacy research and its benefits for animal causes, check out our blog post on the topic.
This is not an exhaustive list, and we are interested to hear what other sources of information you have found especially useful.
Organization | Resource | Description |
---|---|---|
Animal Charity Evaluators | Research library | A curated collection of research done by individuals, organizations, and academics in the fields of animal welfare science, psychology, social movements, and other relevant fields. |
Animal Charity Evaluators | Research newsletter | A newsletter including all the empirical studies ACE is aware of from the last month about advocating for farmed animals or providing evidence that may be of interest to farmed animal advocates. |
Animal Ask | Research database | In-depth, cross-comparative research to guide decision-making toward the most promising opportunities for animals. |
Animal Welfare Library | Animal Welfare Library | A large collection of high-quality animal welfare resources. |
Bryant Research | Insights | In-depth original research on meat reduction and alternative proteins. |
Charity Entrepreneurship | Animal welfare reports | Reports on animal welfare published by Charity Entrepreneurship. |
EA Forum | Animal welfare posts | Effective Altruism-focused forum with many posts on animal welfare. |
Faunalytics | Original studies | Original studies on animal issues and animal advocacy conducted by Faunalytics. |
Faunalytics | Research library | A large library of research about animal issues and animal advocacy. |
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | FAOSTAT | Food and agriculture data for over 245 countries and territories, dating from 1961. |
Food Systems Innovation | Animal Data Project | Curated resources for topics related to wild animals and animals used for food, products, research, and entertainment. |
Impactful Animal Advocacy | Slack community | A global online hub where advocates frequently share animal advocacy research. |
Impactful Animal Advocacy | Newsletters | Monthly newsletter covering a range of animal advocacy updates and resources. |
Impactful Animal Advocacy | IAA Wikis | A collection of Wiki databases on a variety of animal advocacy topics. |
Open Philanthropy | Farm animal welfare research reports | Open Philanthropy’s research reports on farmed animal welfare. |
Our World in Data | Animal Welfare | Data, visualizations, and writing on animal welfare. |
Plant Based Data | Libraries | An organization providing studies and summaries on why we need a plant-based food system. |
Rethink Priorities | Research reports | Rethink Priorities’ research reports on animal welfare. |
Sentience Institute | Summary of evidence for foundational questions in animal advocacy | A summary of the evidence on all sides of important foundational questions in effective animal advocacy. |
Tiny Beam Fund | Beacon | A series of key messages from academic works useful for tackling industrial animal agriculture in developing countries. |
Tiny Beam Fund | Academic Studies Without Tears | A series that aims to turn academic research findings into accessible information for advocacy and frontline groups. Readers have to sign up via email. |
The post Sources of Information for Animal Advocacy Research appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Why Grants Are Important: The Benefits of Grants Explained appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>Grants are financial donations awarded by grantmakers—usually government agencies, corporations, or foundations—to support the work of an organization or individual.1 They do not need to be repaid. Some grants are restricted to funding specific projects, e.g., conducting research into animal welfare or expanding vegan options in schools. On the other hand, unrestricted grants can be used how the charity sees fit, e.g., for operational expenses, such as staff salaries.
Grants are usually awarded through a competitive process,2 the exact details of which are specific to each funder. (See Movement Grants: Process and Timeline for an example of what a grantmaking process can look like.) In general, grant-seekers must first identify their goals and financial needs. They must then craft a compelling proposal for what they plan to accomplish using additional funding. After submitting the proposal during an open call for applications, a panel of experts or grantors assesses each applicant’s proposal and selects the most promising projects. Several grantmakers hold multiple funding rounds per year, so even if your application is unsuccessful, you may be eligible to reapply for the next round of grants.
Grants help people and organizations carry out their ideas for helping a particular cause. For animal advocates, grants provide impactful opportunities to execute projects that would have otherwise been impossible without financial aid. By injecting funding directly into the animal advocacy movement, grants enable more initiatives to be tested in important cause areas, increasing the body of evidence for what interventions work best to help animals. Additionally, grants can aid in boosting the visibility, stability, and credibility of new organizations.3
Grant funding is crucial for advancing the global animal advocacy movement, especially for species and regions with limited support for animal advocacy initiatives. With their respective Movement Grants from ACE, Nurture Imvelo Trust and Shangano Arts Trust were both able to raise the profile of animal advocacy and veganism in Zimbabwe. With a $7,000 grant to run a campaign about caged hens, Nurture Imvelo Trust raised awareness of the effects of battery cages on hen welfare, created educational animations, hosted two radio programs, promoted 17 cage-free farmers, and met with animal welfare policymakers to determine effective lobbying strategies for better animal welfare laws. Shangano Arts Trust used its $5,000 grant to run educational workshops for 1,000 women and 4,000 children in Zimbabwe and introduce plant-based diets in schools.
Animal advocacy organizations often operate on limited budgets, making financial support and stability a critical component of their success. Depending on the funder’s award limit and the scope of the applicant’s project, grants for animal charities can range from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, making them an impactful funding source for nonprofits of all sizes to expand their reach, hire qualified staff, and invest in necessary resources to effectively carry out their missions. In 2022, Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) received a $40,000 Movement Grant to put toward staff costs, allowing them to jumpstart their work to improve the welfare of farmed shrimps. By 2023, the organization had commenced producer and corporate outreach work on shrimp welfare in India and increased the visibility of farmed shrimp welfare as a neglected yet tractable issue. Shrimp Welfare Project is now one of ACE’s Recommended Charities, ensuring that they will receive biannual grants from the Recommended Charity Fund through 2025.
By providing financial backing, grants amplify the impact of animal advocacy initiatives. A well-funded project has the potential to reach more communities, save more lives, and influence public perception, thereby creating a ripple effect of positive change that extends far beyond the initial scope of the initiative. For example, ACE granted Sentience Politics $25,000 to support their campaign to ban factory farming in Switzerland, which was put to a public vote in 2022. The campaign was featured in billboards, newspaper ads, public transport, and post offices. They mobilized over 1,400 volunteers to accelerate its reach and received media coverage in 800 outlets, resulting in 1.06 million voters (37.1%) saying “yes” to the ban. Although the ban did not pass this time, the public support was significant and encouraging for future campaigns.
Grants provide a platform for visionary projects that push the boundaries of conventional animal advocacy, encouraging organizations to think creatively and develop innovative solutions that lead to more effective and sustainable outcomes for animals. Animal Ask, which received a $40,000 ACE Movement Grant to support the costs of a new researcher in 2022, provides organizations with in-depth research to help them design and implement their campaigns as effectively as possible. Their research has already helped identify the most promising ways to approach various animal advocacy goals, and their consulting services have supported numerous animal charities in creating campaigns that are likely to help the most animals.
Whether it’s developing new vegan products, researching ways to help farmed and wild animals, or revamping the food industry to reduce animal suffering, grants facilitate research and technological advancements that can revolutionize the way we interact with animals and reduce the demand for animal products. In 2021, ACE granted Cellular Agriculture Australia (CAA) $20,000 to help increase the supply of commercially competitive, sustainable, and ethical cell-cultured products in Australia. With help from their grant, CAA published research papers in Food Australia, launched Australia’s first online course on cellular agriculture, and held a session at the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology’s annual conference to over 300 registrants across 90 food companies and research institutes.
Grants often require collaboration between different organizations, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose within the animal advocacy space. World Day for the End of Fishing (WoDEF) works with partner organizations year-round to abolish fishing and the farming of aquatic animals, including crustaceans and cephalopods. They are best known for their awareness day, also named World Day for the End of Fishing. WoDEF’s first Movement Grant enabled them to hire their first staff, while their second allowed them to grow their reach even further and achieve a new record of organizations participating in the awareness day. This collaborative approach enables the pooling of resources, expertise, and ideas, resulting in more comprehensive and impactful initiatives.
There are many important steps to take when applying for a grant.
Movement Grants is our grant program dedicated to building and strengthening the global animal advocacy movement through grants. We prioritize supporting initiatives that use novel interventions, target large numbers of animals, and operate in regions that are underrepresented in animal advocacy. By supporting a wide variety of organizations, we also provide new evidence about what interventions work best to help animals.
Applications for Movement Grants are open from February 19 through March 17, 2024. Donations to Movement Grants will be distributed in June and July 2024 to promising projects around the globe working to reduce animal suffering.
For a limited time, your donation to ACE’s Movement Grants program will be doubled—up to $300,000 USD. Your generosity will support our next round of promising recipients. Grants will be awarded in June and July.
Double your Movement Grants donation today!.
The post Why Grants Are Important: The Benefits of Grants Explained appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Recommended Charity Fund: January 2024 Update appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>By making a gift to our Recommended Charity Fund, you will support multiple impactful charities working around the globe to reduce animal suffering. Note that as of November 2023, ACE now conveniently recommends just one tier of charities: Recommended Charities. Much of the inspiring work outlined below would not be possible without the grants provided by this fund. Thank you!
Wild Animal Initiative’s research team:
Wild Animal Initiative’s outreach team:
Wild Animal Initiative’s grants team:
DVA’s Sri Lanka Project
DVA’s Thailand Project
DVA’s Vietnam Project
DVA’s U.S. Centers Project
If you are inspired by these achievements, please donate to support ACE’s Recommended Charity Fund. Your gift today will help reduce future animal suffering. Thank you!
SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDED CHARITY FUND
The post Recommended Charity Fund: January 2024 Update appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Vegan Diet 101: Benefits and Resources to Get Started appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>As the popularity of veganism continues to rise,1 more and more people are discovering the delicious and diverse array of plant-based foods. The once-common misconception that vegan diets are bland and nutrient-deficient has become far less relevant, thanks to the incredible culinary innovations that have emerged in recent years. So, what is veganism all about, and why are more people choosing to adopt a vegan diet? In this blog post, we will explore the ins and outs of eating vegan, including its benefits, potential challenges, and ways to start eating vegan.
A vegan diet is based on the philosophy and lifestyle of veganism, which aims to avoid all forms of animal consumption and cruelty. People who follow a vegan diet consciously choose not to eat animal products, such as meat, eggs, dairy, honey, and other animal-derived substances like gelatin or lard.
A vegan diet typically includes a wide range of plant-based foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, nuts, seeds, and plant-based oils. In addition, vegans also consume fortified foods like cereal, juices, and nutritional yeast and take supplements to obtain extra nutrients.2 Thanks to plant-based alternatives like tofu, tempeh, and meat substitutes, as well as dairy alternatives derived from soy, almonds, or oats, vegans can enjoy many of the same meals they did before going vegan.
Veganism is an ethical stance, meaning vegans go beyond their dietary practices to also avoid animal-derived products such as leather and animal-tested cosmetics. Thus, the vegan diet is typically associated with individuals who follow a completely vegan lifestyle.3 On the other hand, the plant-based diet is not necessarily rooted in ethics and, in some cases, may include small amounts of animal-derived products.4 For this reason, some vegans avoid certain foods that are labeled “plant-based,” although many foods with this label are also vegan.5
There are several reasons why people choose to embrace a vegan diet. In a 2019 survey of over 12,000 vegans from 97 countries, more than two-thirds of participants said their concern for animal welfare was their primary reason for becoming vegan.6 Personal health and environmental benefits have also been cited as common motivators for adopting a vegan diet.7
A well-planned vegan diet can meet nutritional needs and promote overall health while aligning with ethical and environmental considerations. Research suggests that a vegan diet offers several specific health benefits, such as lower cholesterol levels, improved blood pressure, weight management, and a reduced risk of heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.8
In addition to its health benefits, adopting a vegan diet can be a highly effective way to avoid the damaging outcomes commonly associated with factory farming and animal agriculture in general.
There is evidence that following a vegan diet can significantly reduce environmental destruction and climate change caused by animal agriculture and food production.9 One study found that vegan diets contributed to 75% less greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution, and land use compared to diets containing meat and dairy.10 The study also found that vegan diets had a 66% lower impact on biodiversity and used 54% less water than standard omnivorous diets.
Although veganism alone cannot solve all of the humanitarian issues related to agriculture and food production, adopting a vegan diet can help reduce support for the specific harms caused by factory farming. Many public health threats arise from practices on factory farms, including transmission of zoonotic diseases, antibiotic resistance, and contamination of soil, water, and air in nearby communities.11 Vegan diets also avoid contributing to the harmful conditions for workers at factory farms, who are at risk of several occupational hazards, such as physical harm from animals or farm equipment, repetitive strain injuries, and psychological trauma due to the distressing and physically demanding nature of their work.12
Vegan diets reduce the overall demand for animal products, which reduces the need for large-scale factory farms. Fewer factory farms means that fewer cows, chickens, fishes, and other farmed animals will be born into lives of human-caused suffering. Wild animals also benefit from reducing meat and seafood production, which are responsible for habitat loss, deforestation, overfishing, ecosystem imbalance, and biodiversity loss.13 Plant-based food production uses less land than animal agriculture, meaning that former farms can be rewilded, and wild animals can better thrive in their natural habitat.
As with any other way of eating, it is important for vegans to maintain a balanced diet. People who follow an unbalanced vegan diet are at a higher risk of developing developing iron, calcium, vitamin D, iodine, selenium, and B12 deficiencies.14 Overdependence on highly processed products, such as vegan junk foods and certain meat and dairy alternatives, can also negate the health benefits of a plant-based diet.15
Starting a healthy vegan diet requires careful planning to ensure you get all the nutrients you need while also satisfying your taste buds. This can be challenging without the guidance of experienced vegans. Fortunately, several organizations offer programs, resources, and recipe guides designed to make your vegan transition as smooth and delicious as possible!
The resources mentioned above are not comprehensive, but they can serve as a good starting point for those who are interested in adopting a vegan diet. Keep exploring different options until you find what best aligns with your goals and values.
To support organizations that make transitioning to a vegan diet easier and promote the development of new ones, please consider supporting Movement Grants.
The post Vegan Diet 101: Benefits and Resources to Get Started appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Supporting Animal Charities as a Family appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>According to a study by the ASPCA, animal charities form a critical lifeline for countless animals.1 In fact, studies show that direct financial contributions to animal charities can have immediate, measurable effects on their operations.2 When families come together, pooling individual resources, their cumulative donation can have an even stronger effect.
To make sure that your family’s donation makes the biggest difference for animals, it’s crucial to gauge the actual difference these chosen charities are making. As highlighted by Animal Charity Evaluators, assessing the charity’s track record for achieving positive outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and transparency should be a key part of the decision-making process.
Financial Contributions: Direct monetary support can address charities’ needs, from organizational costs to project and campaign expenses. We need to make sure our bucks go to those animal charities that really put their money where their mouth is—that are clear about how they use the funds and are honest, too. Financial support of effective animal welfare organizations can create lasting change.
Remarkably, financial contributions have proven instrumental in the success of Movement Grants recipients. These grants have been a game-changer, fueling innovative campaigns for animal rights, spearheading critical research efforts, and crafting tools that push the boundaries of what’s possible in animal welfare.
As many animal charities may not typically accept non-monetary gifts, it is advisable for families to consult directly with the charity’s Philanthropy or Donations manager. By asking about what the charity really needs and their current projects, families can smartly decide whether to give unrestricted or targeted donations (5). This way, they make sure that their help is directed where it’s needed most.
Engaging in volunteer work is known to strengthen family bonds and develop empathy. Animal charities give families a real shot at making the world better. Additionally, families can explore a variety of volunteering opportunities that align with their interests and abilities:
These diverse roles not only give you a real taste of animal advocacy, but they also arm families with the know-how to make their volunteering pack more punch.
In addition to these hands-on activities, it’s crucial for families to engage in conversations about the importance of giving and kindness. Discussing topics such as animal welfare and charity can significantly enrich children’s understanding and empathy toward animals and broader societal issues. Resources such as Motherhood Community offer insightful articles and discussions that help in nurturing compassion and social responsibility within families. These resources can be particularly helpful in providing guidance on how to approach these topics with children of various ages, ensuring that the message is both age-appropriate and impactful.
The power of community cannot be understated. One of the most effective ways households can throw their weight behind animal charities is by cranking up the volume on their cause.
One often overlooked avenue in supporting animal charities is partnering with local businesses.4 Teaming up in this way can not only stoke the community spirit but also supercharge the positive impact we’re making for our four-legged, winged, and aquatic pals.
Families can initiate conversations between animal charities and businesses, acting as ambassadors. Forming these alliances not only strengthens the resources of the charity but also sparks a greater community interest in this important issue.
Wrapping things up, let’s act as catalysts—donating, volunteering, or spreading the word about animal charities can spark significant changes in these animals’ lives.
Donating to animal welfare groups lets families make a meaningful contribution during the holidays. Whether through targeted donations, volunteering, or raising awareness, each action drives change. Act now!
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (n.d.)
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (n.d.)
The post Supporting Animal Charities as a Family appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Victories for Animals in 2023 and Our Hopes for 2024 appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>—Heather Herrell, Development Director
—Mo Esan, Board Member
—Eleanor McAree, Movement Grants Manager
—Holly Baines, Communications Manager
—Max Taylor, Researcher
—Eleanor McAree, Movement Grants Manager
—Stien van der Ploeg, Executive Director
—Eleanor McAree, Movement Grants Manager
—Max Taylor, Researcher
—Alina Salmen, Researcher
—Holly Baines, Communications Manager
—Holly Baines, Communications Manager
—Max Taylor, Researcher
—Alina Salmen, Researcher
—Max Taylor, Researcher
—Heather Herrell, Development Director
—Mo Esan, Board Member
—Eleanor McAree, Movement Grants Manager
—Stien van der Ploeg, Executive Director
This year’s victories for animals would not have been possible without the support of empathetic donors. By becoming a monthly donor to the Recommended Charity Fund, Movement Grants, or ACE, you help ensure that passionate advocates can continue their essential work to create a better world for animals, one victory at a time.
The post Victories for Animals in 2023 and Our Hopes for 2024 appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Why Should People Donate to Animal Charities? appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>Animal suffering is a vast and pervasive problem. Billions of animals endure unimaginable pain and distress in factory farms and decaying wild spaces. The sheer scale of the problem can make the situation seem overwhelming and hopeless, especially considering the limited resources available to develop solutions and create meaningful change.
Fortunately, there are many organizations dedicated to positively impacting the lives of both farmed and wild animals. Their tireless efforts and compassion embody the belief that all sentient beings deserve a better, more humane world—by supporting these organizations, you can help create a kinder world for animals.
Helping animals is not just a moral and ethical choice; it reflects our commitment to justice and compassion. By helping animals, we expand our circle of compassion, fostering a more inclusive and empathetic society. Embracing anti-speciesism, we acknowledge that all sentient beings deserve consideration and respect, regardless of their species. Helping animals promotes a world where kindness and justice are extended to all, including those who cannot speak for themselves!
In the U.S., animal charities are 501(c)3 entities, meaning that they exist solely for charitable purposes rather than to serve private interests1. In a broader sense, an animal charity is any nonprofit organization dedicated to helping animals. These organizations include both animal rescues that focus on specific animals and advocacy groups that campaign more generally for animals on a range of topics. Different charities focus on specific animal groups, such as farmed or wild animals, and use different interventions to advocate on their behalf, such as awareness building, media outreach, educational initiatives, research and analysis, and corporate and political campaigns.
Some animal charities aim to help as many animals as possible by implementing strategies and initiatives that maximize positive impact on animals’ wellbeing. These effective animal charities are driven by measurable, evidence-based, and strategic approaches designed to create the greatest good for animals.
Animal charities play a crucial role in creating a more just and compassionate world for both animals and humans. They work toward protecting and improving the lives of millions of animals subjected to cruelty, neglect, and other forms of human-caused harm. Animal charities also raise awareness about the treatment of animals across various industries and promote compassion toward all living beings. Additionally, they educate the public about the environmental, health, and ethical impacts of animal consumption, and encourage innovation to create and advance more sustainable and humane alternatives.
Beyond the moral imperative, helping animals has profound ripple effects across various critical issues. A reduction in animal agriculture, for instance, plays a pivotal role in mitigating climate change by curbing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving natural resources. Many animal charities intersect with social justice as they address disparities in access to food and resources, particularly in communities affected by the environmental consequences of industrial animal farming. Animal advocacy efforts can also positively impact public health by reducing the risk of zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance.
By fostering more ethical and sustainable relationships with animals, you are contributing to a holistic, interconnected network of positive change that extends to numerous facets of our society and the world at large.
The issue of animal suffering is so vast that each strategy, regardless of its approach, plays a valuable role in improving the welfare of animals. You can find and support effective animal charities that address a diverse array of cause areas, ensuring that many ways of helping animals are being funded. Many turn to ACE to support effective organizations that rely on scientific evidence and research to determine how best to alleviate the suffering of billions of animals worldwide. Effective animal charities might also be a good match for your philanthropy if you are seeking to support groups that prioritize data-driven interventions and efficient resource allocation, making them a powerful force in the ongoing effort to improve the lives of animals that share our planet.
Animal charities play a crucial role in protecting and caring for animals. However, they heavily rely on donations to sustain their operations and achieve their goals. This issue is particularly challenging for charities that focus on farmed and wild animals, as they receive significantly less funding compared to organizations that focus on companion animals. Donations also help ensure the stability of these organizations, enabling them to withstand changes in the business cycle or external shocks that may affect the amount of funding they receive.
Empower a kinder world by making strategic donations to these effective animal charities fostering compassion, justice, and sustainable change for farmed and wild animals.
Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği (CHKD), also known as Kafessiz Türkiye, is a Turkish organization that is primarily dedicated to improving farmed animal welfare standards—in particular, farmed chickens and fishes. They achieve this through corporate, individual, and media outreach, as well as research, education, and capacity-building initiatives to strengthen the animal advocacy movement. By donating to Kafessiz Türkiye, you can make a difference in the lives of farmed animals.
Dansk Vegetarisk Forening (DVF) is a Danish organization dedicated to promoting plant-based nutrition and reforming the food system. Their research, education programs, and public outreach inspire individuals and companies alike to make kinder, more sustainable food choices. Your donations help support DVF’s efforts to create a healthier and more sustainable future in Denmark and beyond.
Faunalytics is a nonprofit organization based in the United States that provides animal advocates with relevant information for advocacy. Their efforts include conducting and publishing independent research, collaborating with partner organizations on various research projects, and promoting existing research and data for animal advocates through their website’s content library. By donating to Faunalytics, you can help provide animal advocates with the information they need to make a difference.
Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) works to improve the welfare of farmed fishes. Their main program in India, the Alliance For Responsible Aquaculture, involves working directly with fish farmers to implement water quality improvements. FWI also heavily invests in research and development to identify more cost-effective welfare improvements. Your donation to FWI will help fuel their efforts to improve the lives of farmed fishes in India and elsewhere.
Legal Impact for Chickens (LIC) files strategic lawsuits for chickens and other farmed animals, develops and refines creative methods to enforce existing cruelty laws in U.S. factory farms, and sues companies that break animal welfare commitments. LIC’s first lawsuit, a shareholder derivative case against Costco’s executives for chicken neglect, achieved significant media exposure. By donating to LIC, you can help make factory-farm cruelty a liability in the United States.
New Roots Institute educates U.S. students about the connections between industrial animal agriculture and important issues like animal welfare, climate change, human rights, and public health. Their Leadership Program offers a year-long fellowship for students interested in exploring factory farming’s impacts and solutions. Your donations to New Roots Institute will support their programs to empower the next generation to end factory farming.
Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) is the first organization to focus exclusively on improving farmed shrimp welfare. Their efforts include raising awareness about the welfare of farmed shrimps and outreach and collaboration with stakeholders across the supply chain to improve welfare standards. By donating to SWP, you can help increase the visibility of shrimp welfare as a neglected and tractable issue.
Sinergia Animal works to improve the welfare of farmed animals, promote plant-based products, and strengthen the animal advocacy movement in several countries in Asia and South America. They collaborate with major retailers to ensure that animal welfare commitments are made and met. They also engage in research, investigations, policy work, and outreach to media, institutions, and producers. Your donations help support Sinergia Animal’s efforts to create a better world for farmed animals.
The Good Food Institute (GFI) supports research and start-ups focused on alternative proteins in regions around the globe. They also engage with corporations, institutions, and policy work to strengthen the capacity of the animal advocacy movement. Your donations to GFI support their efforts to develop and promote plant-based and cell-cultured alternatives to animal products in several countries.
The Humane League (THL) operates in the U.S., the U.K., and Japan, where they work to help farmed animals through vegan advocacy and corporate outreach to improve farmed animal welfare standards. THL supports the growth of the global animal advocacy movement via the Open Wing Alliance, a coalition whose mission is to end the use of battery cages worldwide. Your donation to THL helps advance their work to create a kinder world for all farmed animals.
Wild Animal Initiative is a U.S.-based organization working to advance the wild animal welfare science field. By conducting their own research and supporting other wild animal researchers, Wild Animal Initiative aims to increase academic interest in wild animal welfare and identify evidence-based solutions to improving wild animals’ wellbeing. Donating to Wild Animal Initiative supports their crucial work to improve our understanding of wild animals’ lives and promote their wellbeing.
We understand that it can be difficult to decide which effective animal charities to donate to, let alone make several transactions to support them. Fortunately, you can support all 11 of the above animal charities in a single transaction by making a gift to the Recommended Charity Fund. This fund supports ACE’s current Recommended Charities—which have been rigorously evaluated based on our criteria—in a biannual disbursement determined by our Programs team.
Donate to ACE’s Recommended Charity Fund
The post Why Should People Donate to Animal Charities? appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Why We Assess Charities’ Organizational Health appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>ACE’s charity evaluations aim to identify organizations that are the most likely to produce significant benefits for animals with additional donations. To do this, we assessed charities in 2023 based on four criteria: Impact Potential, Cost-Effectiveness, Room for More Funding, and Organizational Health.
In this blog post, we set out the rationale for assessing the last of those criteria: Organizational Health. We outline what we mean by organizational health, why and how we assess it, and some outstanding limitations and uncertainties with our assessments. We are focusing on this criterion because some have told us they find it less intuitive than our other evaluation criteria due to its less direct impact on animals.
Our assessment method is not set in stone. As we continue to expand our knowledge, engage with external experts, and learn from the charities that we evaluate—particularly those whose location, culture, and other circumstances we are less familiar with—we will continue to refine our methods to ensure they are as accurate and representative as possible.
While definitions of “organizational health” vary, a healthy organization can be broadly defined as one where “culture, climate, and practices create an environment conducive to employee health and safety [and] organizational effectiveness.” Such an organization “improves employee performance and productivity, thereby positively promoting an organization’s image,” and “supports high employee performance, [with] employees [who] have an interest in the organization’s future success.”
For ACE’s organizational health assessments, we particularly seek to understand whether there are any aspects of an organization’s leadership or workplace culture that could pose a risk to the charity’s long-term effectiveness or stability, thereby reducing its potential to help animals. For example, an organization’s leadership team might be continually distracted by unproductive internal conflicts, or their staff might be unhappy and disengaged to the extent that the organization’s performance suffers. Such organizations are less likely to consistently deliver on their objectives and effectively use their human and financial resources, which ultimately translates into fewer animals being helped by their work. In other words, we focus on identifying whether a charity seems to have significant risks to its organizational health, rather than seeking to determine how good its organizational health is.
One factor missing from that list is the direct benefits for individual staff members at the organization. Healthy organizations are likely to be more pleasant places to work, and as animal advocates ourselves, we think that helping people enjoy their work is in itself a good thing. Positive staff wellbeing is also instrumentally valuable in that it is likely to result in better outcomes for nonhuman animals. However, our ultimate mission is to help nonhuman animals, and our assessment is not designed to promote staff wellbeing solely for its own sake.
The primary reason that we consider organizational health is its positive correlation with organizational effectiveness. This can help us to understand whether charities’ effectiveness might be constrained by organizational health risks within our two-year recommendation period, even if their work currently seems effective based on our other evaluation criteria.
There are also some studies indicating that organizational health has a negligible impact on organizational performance. For example, a study by Xanthopolou et al. (2022) indicates that “strong cultures do not have a significant impact on organizational performance in the public sector”—though ultimately, the authors state that they are sufficiently unsure about the study’s findings that they can only confidently conclude that organizational culture and its effect on performance needs further investigation. While there are relatively few such studies, this may partly be due to publication bias; see the Limitations and Uncertainties section below.
Problems with leadership and workplace culture could negatively affect the reputation of the broader animal advocacy movement, as well as employees’ wellbeing and willingness to remain in the movement. Previous harassment cases within the movement, which received significant media coverage at the time, indicate that this is a valid concern.
We expect the strength of the broader animal advocacy movement to correlate positively with the health of individual organizations within it. A movement whose organizations’ leadership teams treat all of their staff well, encourage constructive feedback on their own performance, deal robustly with reports of poor behavior, and demonstrate genuine accountability is likely to be a more sustainable and attractive one than a movement whose leadership does not do those things.
This is particularly important for a movement like the animal advocacy movement, which some audiences perceive as radical and extreme. If we are to be taken seriously, welcome new members, and forge or maintain alliances with key stakeholders, we need to cultivate a positive external image. (This is easier said than done, and ACE has sought to be transparent about our own past mistakes in this area.) By assessing organizational health, ACE hopes to promote charities that are positively influencing the animal advocacy movement’s reputation and support leaders in the movement to consider how best they can put in place robust organizational practices.
Many of our donors care about charities’ organizational health and want to ensure their donations go to charities with practices that contribute to an effective and sustainable animal advocacy movement. This is compounded by the fact that we are only aware of a small number of organizations working on improving the organizational health of the movement. Given the likely importance of this to the movement’s long-term effectiveness, many of our donors are keen that we help to fill that gap.
We are aware that some donors want us to go further in our organizational health assessments, acting as more of a watchdog organization. This is not currently possible as our team does not have the time or the expertise to conduct comprehensive, watchdog-type investigations into each of the charities that we evaluate. However, we see the value of such work and hope to see an effective, well-established organization filling this space in the future.
Below, we outline what this looked like in our 2023 evaluations. For further details, please take a look at the full reviews of our 2023 Recommended Charities.
We provided charities with a list of policies that appear to be strong indicators of organizational health, based on a review of the relevant evidence, advice from external experts such as Scarlet Spark, the policies assessed by organizations such as Charity Watch and Charity Navigator, and our own learnings from charities in previous evaluations. We asked charities to indicate which of these they had implemented. These included policies and processes to ensure fair compensation, psychological safety, clear organizational design and communication, fair performance assessments, access to learning and development, and a fitting approach to representation, equity, and inclusion.
This list also included basic governance policies, including an anti-retaliation policy protecting whistleblowers and those who report grievances, a conflict of interest policy, a policy setting out procedures for the storage and destruction of documents, and a process for documenting minutes of board and board committee meetings.
Lastly, we asked questions about the structure and membership of their board of directors to assess how they aligned with the best practices set out by BoardSource. Where relevant, we also asked about charities’ approach to international expansion, particularly how they navigated any potential power imbalances between offices in the Global North and the Global South.
We recognize that not all of these policies and processes will be common, or relevant, in all countries and contexts, which is why we followed up on any potential gaps with the charity’s leadership so that we could understand the full context.
We solicited charities’ staff and volunteer perspectives via our engagement survey, based on the Gallup Q12 Employee Engagement Survey and supplemented by other models and frameworks such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory, Google’s Project Oxygen, and cross-cultural research by Culture Amp.
The engagement survey also contained a link to an anonymous Whistleblower Form, developed with support from legal experts at Animal Defense Partnership, for any staff or volunteers who wished to report issues of harassment and discrimination.
Please refer to our 2023 Engagement Survey for further details, including the full set of survey questions.
In some cases, our assessment indicated a potential issue or gap. For example, the charity might have been missing several important policies, or a significant proportion of staff might have reported low levels of engagement and satisfaction. In those cases, we asked the charity some follow-up questions, alongside any other questions regarding our assessment of the other evaluation criteria.
After gathering the information mentioned above, we held a meeting with the Evaluations Committee (formed of a subset of our Programs team) to discuss each charity’s organizational health assessment. This was to establish whether, as a team, we had any major concerns about the organizational health of a charity that would pose a significant risk to its effectiveness and stability, and should therefore prevent that charity from being recommended.
Once we completed our assessment of all four evaluation criteria, we held several team meetings to finalize our recommendation decisions. In 2023, our organizational health assessments did not yield any major concerns at any of the charities we evaluated, so performance on this criterion was not a deciding factor at this final stage of the process.
Some factors that could be considered relevant to a charity’s organizational health are assessed through other criteria. For example, our Room for More Funding evaluation assesses charities’ budget and expenditures (both historic and projected), while our Cost-Effectiveness evaluation assesses how effectively charities have used their funding to achieve positive outcomes for animals.
We also do not ask charities for the demographics of their staff. While we think that it is important for charities to have robust procedures in place to prevent discrimination and promote healthy Representation, Equity, and Inclusion (REI) within the organization, we do not think that it is helpful to use demographic diversity as a proxy for this, particularly given that we assess charities in a range of countries and cultures where demographic diversity is likely to differ for a variety of irrelevant reasons.
In practice, gaining an accurate picture of charities’ organizational health is very difficult. For example, we recognize that our engagement surveys are subject to selection bias and may also not reflect employees’ true opinions, as they are aware that their responses could influence ACE’s evaluation of their employer.
In some of our past approaches to this criterion, we sought to give a more comprehensive assessment of charities’ strengths. However, we realized that we were not able to conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation to be confident in these assessments, some of which later turned out to be very different from the reality.
In 2020, we therefore changed our approach to this criterion. Since then, we have focused on determining whether there might be issues in the organization’s management that have a significant negative impact on staff productivity and wellbeing, and could be detrimental to the organization’s effectiveness and stability, with potential knock-on effects to the broader movement. While we do still note positive elements of charities’ culture and leadership, this is not the focus of our assessments.
While we strive to continually improve our assessment of charities’ organizational health, we recognize that several limitations remain. Below, we set out some of these limitations and some of the ways in which we have sought to address them.
Limitation: We are currently unable to fully investigate harassment and discrimination claims due to a combination of time constraints, lack of expertise, and the often anonymous nature of the reports that we receive. This adds complexity and uncertainty to our assessments, and may also cause frustration among charities that we evaluate, especially when we are unable to share specific details about these claims for confidentiality reasons.
How we are addressing this: This year, we have sought to improve the channel for people to submit such reports, linking to the more comprehensive Whistleblower Form codeveloped with Animal Defense Partnership, rather than directly asking about harassment and discrimination in the engagement survey. We hope this helps to ensure that claimants understand the implications of providing such information, improve the comprehensiveness of any such information that we receive, better enable us to follow up with claimants, and better identify the level of detail we are able to share with the leadership of the charity in question. At the same time, we recognize that requiring claimants to fill out a separate, more comprehensive form may reduce the number of reports that we receive.
Limitation: Our engagement survey only provides a limited window into a charity’s workplace culture and may not fully represent the broad range of experiences within the organization. In particular, we recognize that surveying staff and volunteers can lead to inaccuracies due to selection bias and also may not reflect employees’ true opinions, as respondents are aware that their answers could influence ACE’s evaluation of their employer. We also recognize that our assessment represents a snapshot at a point in time and may not fully capture ongoing cultural shifts within an organization.
How we are addressing this: This year, we have included a wider range of questions in the survey and collaborated with the organizational consultants Scarlet Spark to help ensure these questions are likely to be effective predictors of organizational stability and effectiveness. As in previous years, we do not rely solely on the results of the engagement survey to make our assessment. Rather, we assess organizational health from multiple perspectives to arrive at the most appropriate decision within the time available based on all the information we have, including our follow-up conversations with the charity’s leadership.
Limitation: At larger organizations, there are more likely to be instances of harassment, discrimination, and other issues—not just because a greater number of staff members means a greater number of people who can commit or perceive misconduct, but because interpersonal and team dynamics inevitably become more complex at larger organizations. Conversely, smaller organizations may be less likely to have robust policies and processes in place, and their average engagement survey scores can be significantly affected by just one or two dissatisfied staff members.
How we are addressing this: For larger organizations, we do not expect a clean sweep of high scores across the board on their engagement survey. Likewise, if we were to receive a report of potential misconduct at a larger organization, our expectations of the charity’s leadership staff would differ depending on whether this appeared to be a widespread problem, or one restricted to one particular team within the organization. For smaller organizations, we account for the fact that they may simply lack the resources to introduce comprehensive governance processes. We also consider whether low average engagement survey scores are due to consistently low scores from all staff, or due to a small number of anomalies.
Limitation: Our assessment may be biased toward certain Western workplace practices. As a U.S.-based organization with staff based predominantly in the U.S. and western Europe, our understanding of best-practice organizational health is inevitably skewed toward the cultures with which we are most familiar.
How we are addressing this: We seek to recognize this bias at all stages of the assessment and continually learn from the charities we evaluate, rather than imposing a “one-size-fits-all” approach onto each charity’s unique situation. For example, we recognize that not all of the policies and processes that we ask charity leadership about will be common or relevant in all countries and situations. Where there are indications that important policies and processes may be lacking, we follow up with the charity to gain a better understanding of the context. Particularly if the charity is based outside of the U.S., we are also eager to learn of additional policies they may have that they find to be important contributors to their effectiveness. In this way, we hope that this exercise can be mutually informative for ACE and for the charities that we evaluate.
This year, we also modified our engagement survey questions to reduce their focus on western cultures and piloted the questions with charities from different global regions to help ensure this was successful. More broadly, we continually seek to improve our understanding of different contexts, such as by engaging experts in different regions and attending conferences in those regions. We will continue to explore how best to improve the applicability of our assessment across all national contexts, using evidence from the countries where our evaluated charities are based.
Limitation: We are aware of the time demands that our organizational health assessment makes of charities, both leadership’s time in providing us with the information that we need, and staff time in completing the engagement survey.
How we are addressing this: After each year’s evaluations, we conduct a survey with the evaluated charities to gauge their satisfaction with our various assessments and understand how long the process took them. Based on these survey results and our own retrospection of this year’s evaluations, we will seek to strip out any elements of our organizational health assessment that do not appear to be relevant to our decision making.
Limitation: As an evidence-driven organization, we seek to base all of our assessment methods on the best available data. However, reliable, larger-scale evidence on the impact of different aspects of organizations’ leadership and culture on organizations’ actual performance is fairly scarce. Such evidence specific to the nonprofit sector is even scarcer, and evidence specific to the animal advocacy movement is scarcer still. This is even more the case when looking for evidence that is specific to certain regions. There is also a chance that the available evidence is skewed by publication bias; that is, we expect that a study showing that inclusive leadership and workplace diversity typically leads to higher performance is more likely to get published than one showing that strong leadership and workplace diversity has a negligible impact on performance.
How we are addressing this: Despite the limitations mentioned above, based on existing evidence (such as the various studies cited in this blog post), our discussions with external experts, and on our own experience of evaluating charities, we are confident that organizational health is sufficiently relevant to a charity’s likely performance that it should be an important part of our evaluations. We will continue to review the available literature and consult with external experts to ensure our methods are based on the most up-to-date evidence.
We view our organizational health assessment as vital in ensuring that our recommended charities run transparent, sustainable, and compassionate organizations where staff are empowered to work as effectively and sustainably as possible. We are extremely proud to recommend charities that carry out their activities and conduct their operations in a way that is likely to help as many animals as possible over the long term. At the same time, we recognize that our approach has limitations, and we will continue to strive to address these, supported by guidance from external experts and feedback from the charities we evaluate.
To view all of the sources cited in this post, see the reference list.
The post Why We Assess Charities’ Organizational Health appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post ACE’s List of Farmed Animal Advocacy Organizations appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>More recently, ACE has also used this list to help estimate the neglectedness of farmed animal advocacy within each country, which informs our Impact Potential assessment for the charities we evaluate.
A public version of the list is saved here—we encourage others in the movement to use it as they find fit. It comprises a list of farmed animal advocacy charities around the world and a provisional estimate of the number of farmed animal advocacy charities per country. The list is not exhaustive, and we expect it will contain some significant omissions. We plan to continue updating this list, so we welcome suggestions for additional charities to include and for any other relevant sources of information.
ACE also evaluates charities that focus on wild animal welfare (of which there are very few), but this list solely includes farmed animal advocacy charities.
N.B. The charities listed are not necessarily endorsed by ACE, and each charity may or may not agree with ACE’s mission or methods.
The charities included in this list appear to dedicate a significant proportion of their resources to farmed animal advocacy. This includes charities that primarily focus on other areas (e.g., animals used for entertainment, companion animals, or environmental conservation). In practice, “a significant proportion” is difficult to define and assess, so this list is inevitably somewhat subjective.
This list also includes organizations offering direct help to farmed animals (for example, by providing veterinary care and shelter for rescued farmed animals), where these appear to dedicate a significant proportion of their resources to broader efforts to change public opinion, policy, or industry practices related to farmed animals. Again, this interpretation is bound to be somewhat subjective, and we welcome suggestions for additional charities to include.
Based on this list, when accounting for headquarters and subsidiaries, the global distribution of farmed animal advocacy organizations meeting our inclusion criteria is set out in the figure below.
The ten countries with the highest number of farmed animal advocacy organizations that we are aware of are:
There are 75 countries where we currently have no record of farmed animal advocacy organizations that meet our inclusion criteria. The ten largest of these countries, by human population, are:
The post ACE’s List of Farmed Animal Advocacy Organizations appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>The post Highlights From Our 2023 Reddit AMA appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>Thank you to Vegan Hacktivists and the r/vegan team for hosting this AMA for us.
Note: Questions and answers have been edited for length and/or clarity. Links to the original sources on Reddit are provided beneath each response.
The post Highlights From Our 2023 Reddit AMA appeared first on the Animal Charity Evaluators blog.
]]>