Animal advocates use all kinds of approaches to assist animals—from working company campaigns to get chickens out of cages, to researching wild animal welfare science, to influencing lawmakers to assist plant-based insurance policies. However which of those approaches are probably the most promising, and the way can they be made more practical? Evaluating and evaluating them is a monumental problem—particularly as our area has much less empirical analysis obtainable to information choices than different trigger areas, corresponding to international well being and growth.1
Nonetheless, the animal advocacy proof base is rising: On common, we add greater than 100 articles to our Analysis Library every month. That is nice information; nevertheless, it brings its personal challenges. Whereas we have now all the time consulted present analysis to tell our grantmaking and charity advice choices, the rising quantity and complexity of analysis known as for ACE to undertake a extra systematic and dynamic strategy to synthesizing outcomes from empirical research and updating our eager about intervention effectiveness.
The problem isn’t distinctive to us: Advocates, funders, and researchers navigating this increasing and infrequently contradictory “proof maze” can simply develop into overwhelmed. Analysis from Faunalytics has highlighted this very concern, discovering that advocates typically want extra accessible syntheses to make knowledgeable choices.2
In February 2024, ACE launched a undertaking aiming to deal with this drawback. We began out with the first objective of sharpening our personal grantmaking and charity advice choices, whereas additionally addressing what we noticed as a bottleneck for the broader motion. We needed to create an intensive, dynamic overview of the proof for the virtually 30 intervention varieties in our Menu of Interventions—whether or not they have been proven to work, what their dangers are, and beneath what situations we count on them to be kind of efficient.
We developed this useful resource internally and are actually excited to share Higher for Animals: Proof-Primarily based Insights for Efficient Animal Advocacy.
This useful resource is a residing doc. We’ll replace it a number of instances a yr with new proof, and we hope it can evolve with suggestions from you, our neighborhood. At ACE, we now repeatedly seek the advice of these proof critiques when evaluating charities or grant functions. Understanding the state of the proof for the interventions a charity makes use of helps us assess the power of their idea of change, gauge whether or not they observe finest follow in how they implement the intervention, and ask them probably the most significant questions on their work.
To assist make this detailed info extra accessible to a variety of audiences, beginning later in September we’ll launch a collection of social media and weblog posts spotlighting one intervention every month.
We hope that readers will use our new useful resource in a number of methods:
We hope that researchers will critique our conclusions, ship us proof we could have missed, and contemplate researching among the greatest gaps within the proof base.
We hope that advocates will provide their on-the-ground perspective on how these interventions work in follow, and use our findings to tell their technique and ways.
We hope that funders will discover this a useful useful resource on the state of the proof for various advocacy approaches, to tell their prioritization.
This undertaking was an enormous effort and wouldn’t have been doable with out the crucial suggestions and strategic enter of numerous volunteers, advocates, researchers, and funders. An enormous thanks to everybody who contributed!
Under, we stroll you thru how this useful resource got here to be, our analysis course of, and the primary limitations.
The Mission
We knew we couldn’t develop this useful resource in a vacuum. We began by consulting different organizations doing comparable work, as a way to collaborate and keep away from duplication, together with Mercy For Animals, Faunalytics, and Rethink Priorities. These conversations confirmed the undertaking would fill a singular and obligatory hole, and complement different efforts within the motion.
We developed an in depth analysis protocol, adapting one developed at Faunalytics for our functions. The protocol detailed our search technique, pointers for evaluating and synthesizing proof, and the important thing analysis questions we needed to reply for every intervention. After trialing the protocol on an preliminary set of subjects, we shared early drafts with a spread of exterior reviewers—funders, advocates, and researchers—and used their suggestions and our expertise of trialling the protocol to refine our course of.
Utilizing the refined protocol, our researchers, analysis fellow, and a gaggle of wonderful volunteers wrote proof critiques on the remaining subjects. These had been usually reviewed by ACE’s Packages group. We additionally submitted a subset for exterior peer evaluation, deciding on the interventions mostly utilized by the charities we consider for advice or grants. These peer reviewers included researchers and advocates with specialist experience on these subjects.
The Analysis Course of
For every matter, our researchers started by scouring key sources, from tutorial databases like Google Scholar to the Faunalytics Analysis Library and analysis stories from teams throughout the motion. This created a longlist of potential articles for inclusion.
We then shortlisted probably the most related and rigorous research. Whereas our preliminary plan was to cap this at round 10 articles per intervention as a consequence of group capability, this ended up various significantly by intervention sort. For some interventions, we reviewed practically 50 articles to construct a coherent image. For others, an absence of direct analysis meant we needed to depend on only a few articles, theoretical arguments, and/or proof from adjoining fields.
From there, we synthesized the proof by evaluating, evaluating, and mixing the findings from all shortlisted articles to type a coherent general image. We targeted this evaluation on a set of key questions, beginning with “Is it efficient?”, the place we outline effectiveness by way of diminished or averted animal struggling. Subsequent, we dug deeper to know related context and dangers. We consider it’s unhelpful to label most approaches as merely “good” or “dangerous;” nuance is crucial. An intervention’s success virtually all the time relies on the context: the place and the way it’s applied, who the audience is, and what the precise ask is. We explored the proof for situations that may make an intervention kind of prone to succeed, and the way it may probably backfire and inadvertently hurt animals or the motion.
Lastly, we introduced all the things collectively into an general evaluation of how promising we expect the intervention is. We additionally decided our degree of confidence primarily based on the standard, amount, and settlement of sources obtainable, and recognized the high-priority analysis questions that, if answered, may change our minds or improve confidence in our verdict.
We now replace the proof critiques each few months with new analysis, most of which is recognized by way of our month-to-month Analysis Digest, which collates new analysis related to farmed animal advocates each month.
Limitations
Our conclusions about interventions’ effectiveness are to be interpreted with warning for a number of causes:
This isn’t a scientific evaluation. As a consequence of capability constraints, we had been unable to conduct a full and complete literature evaluation and as an alternative used our greatest judgment to pick out research for inclusion. Regardless of a number of rounds of inside and exterior suggestions, it’s doable we missed essential analysis that might change our general evaluation.
Publication bias. Educational journals usually tend to publish research with constructive or statistically important outcomes. This will skew the obtainable proof, probably making interventions seem more practical than they’re. Though we searched exterior of basic tutorial publications, we didn’t have the capability to seek for unpublished information.
Give attention to short-term results. It’s typically a lot tougher to measure the long-term influence of interventions, so our conclusions could overrepresent short-term results. We’ve got, nevertheless, tried to evaluate the proof for each short- and long-term wherever doable.
Generalizability. Findings from one research in a selected nation or with a specific demographic could not apply elsewhere, and interventions utilized in Europe and North America are overrepresented within the present literature. We’ve got tried to notice these limitations the place they’re obvious and counsel replication in different geographical contexts.
Restricted proof base. For some interventions, we needed to depend on lower-quality proof (like case research) or much less related proof from adjoining fields. Our confidence rankings replicate this uncertainty.
Hidden potential. Even for interventions we discovered to be much less promising, there could also be particular contexts during which they’re extremely efficient that haven’t but been researched. We due to this fact need our verdicts to be dynamic, to remain open to being incorrect, and to vary with new proof.
Not totally complete. Our Menu of Interventions captures the interventions the charities we consider for advice or assess as potential grantees use mostly, but it surely doesn’t seize each strategy that exists within the motion.
We’d like to proceed receiving suggestions. As a result of we don’t have time to reasonable a flurry of feedback, in case you’d like to offer suggestions on the undertaking as an entire, or a specific intervention, please e mail alina.salmen@animalcharityevaluators.org or max.taylor@animalcharityevaluators.org together with your suggestions, or to request remark entry to the doc.
Alina joined ACE in September 2022. She holds a Ph.D. in Social Psychology, with a give attention to gender function beliefs and attitudes towards veganism. She is captivated with utilizing her analysis abilities to assist ACE’s mission and cut back animal struggling as a lot as doable.
ACE is devoted to making a world the place all animals can thrive, no matter their species. We take the
guesswork out of supporting animal advocacy by directing funds towards probably the most impactful charities and packages,
primarily based on proof and analysis.
167 Recipients engaged on promising initiatives
42 International locations throughout six continents.
$68M Donations throughout the animal advocacy motion.
$58,000,000+ in donations already made to our really useful charities between January 2019 and March 2025
Trying to make your first donation? We’re comfortable to assist
