Please note that this report is archived, as it was written in February, 2016 and is not up to our current standards.

Animal advocacy organizations use undercover¹ investigations, sometimes just referred to as investigations, to document animal abuse and raise awareness of various forms of suffering and injustice against animals. This increased awareness is expected to result in various outcomes that benefit animals, including influencing company policies, laws, and consumption choices. We focus our research on investigations of animal agriculture,² but this intervention is also used to document animal abuse in other areas, such as laboratory research that involves live animals³ and the breeding of companion animals.⁴ We believe that undercover investigations have had significant direct effects in reducing farm animal suffering through corporate policy change. We think they also have major effects, in expectation,⁵ on consumption choices and some long-term outcomes such as increasing the likelihood of future corporate policy change, although the size of long-term effects is much more uncertain. While there’s a chance that some undercover investigations could have bad long-term outcomes, we think that risk is relatively small.

What are undercover investigations?

We use the term “undercover investigation” to refer to any project where activists obtain documentation (e.g. photos and videos) of the treatment of animals without the explicit cooperation of the people or organizations using the animals. We focus primarily on investigations of farms and other animal agriculture facilities. This documentation is usually shared with the public through mainstream news and social media.⁶ Although the evidence obtained is sometimes used to press charges, the documented abuses are often legal and standard industry practice.⁷ Organizations present the evidence from these investigations alongside messages that advocate for the end of animal agriculture, advocate for less suffering of farmed animals (but not opposing animal agriculture itself), or a blend of the two.

Investigations are often connected to other forms of advocacy. The documentation and public outrage resulting from the investigation is often used by the investigating organization to pressure the company supplied by the facilities being investigated to improve its animal welfare policies.⁸ The documentation is also sometimes used in grassroots and online outreach intended to inspire consumers to reduce or eliminate their consumption of animal products.⁹

What are their strengths?

In the best-case scenario, undercover investigations can lead to immediate changes through corporate or legal policy change and consumers reducing their consumption of animal products, as well as contribute to long-term outcomes by growing the animal advocacy movement and increasing public concern for farm animal issues.

Investigations seem to gather a significant amount of attention in the news and on social media.¹⁰ There is also clear evidence that they have led to corporate policy change.¹¹ We are much more uncertain what effects they have on consumer choices and long-term change, although we expect both are fairly promising.

We are also quite uncertain about what factors make an investigation most effective. Some factors, like whether an individual worker is criminally charged or whether the focus of the investigation is on blatant abuse like punching and kicking animals, might increase the amount of attention an investigation receives, but also might reduce the impact of the publicity because (i) this abuse seems more easily dismissed as “one bad farm” or “one bad worker,” and (ii) the issue being highlighted constitutes a smaller portion of the the total suffering farmed animals endure compared to practices like extreme confinement and chronic health issues.¹²^,¹³

In addition to focusing on the most severe forms of suffering, we think that investigations can be more effective by focusing on individual stories. This can involve combining footage of various facilities to show the life story of the farmed animals. It can also involve highlighting the work of a specific investigator, especially when they discuss how the investigation affected them personally. We generally believe storytelling is an effective way to promote empathy and connect people with farm animal issues.¹⁴

It seems like some factors likely increase the impact of investigations in specific situations. For example, when a certain unethical practice, such as confining hens in battery cages, is being critiqued in popular media, investigations that highlight this issue could synergize with existing pressure to change policies or gain additional attention.¹⁵

What are their weaknesses?

Although we have seen substantial impact from investigations in terms of media coverage and corporate policy change, there’s less evidence for their potential impact on consumer choices and long-term outcomes. One concern, mentioned above, is that some investigations might give the impression that the issues with the animal agriculture industry are limited to a few abusive workers. Although we recognize this concern, we think that current media coverage indicates that the public recognizes more pervasive issues, such as the confinement of animals in battery cages and gestation crates.¹⁶

The undercover investigations that achieve the most coverage in the U.S. are those that involve investigators gaining employment at animal agriculture facilities.¹⁷ These investigations are quite expensive compared to strategies popular in other countries like visiting the facility at night and placing hidden cameras to document abuse.¹⁸ Still, even employment-based investigations seem to be a cost-effective way of capturing media coverage.¹⁹

It appears that, at least in the U.S., undercover investigations have diminishing marginal returns in their ability to capture media coverage after a certain point. Mercy For Animals capped the number of investigations released in 2015 for this reason,²⁰ and are working on expansion into other countries where saturation is less of a concern.²¹ There are many countries where investigations have not become very popular, and as long as one believes work in these countries is not much less effective, this means additional funding likely has similar effects as existing funding in undercover investigations. Additional funding might have greater effects in some countries due to lower costs.

There’s a plausible concern that this saturation suggests all future investigations are less effective, rather than just investigations beyond the current rate. We aren’t very concerned about this because media outlets appear to be at least as interested in covering investigations as they used to be as long as there are not too many being released around the same time, and further investigations make the average reader/viewer more likely to realize that the issues are systemic across the animal agriculture industry.

Overall, we think the weaknesses of undercover investigations are limited.

What about long term effects?

Possible Positive Effects

The long term effects of undercover investigations are quite unclear, and we have little evidence available here beyond speculative reasoning.

Similarly to corporate outreach, we think investigations can promote discussion and concern for the treatment of farmed animals. In the long term, this can increase the chances of success for other advocacy efforts, such as leafleting and ads, corporate policy change, and legal change. The current perception in the U.S. that farmed animals are frequently mistreated for commercial gain,²² especially through extreme confinement practices, might be the result, at least in part, of the many undercover investigations released over the past several years.²³ The outreach methods like leafleting and online ads that use undercover investigations might also be a significant factor in this change.

Possible Negative Effects

As with possible positive long term effects, we have much uncertainty about the possible negative long term effects.

The footage used in undercover investigation videos could make people depersonalize the individual animals affected, especially if the rhetoric of the video is abstract and generalized rather than speaking of the animals as individuals.²⁴ It’s possible that incorporating “happy” footage of animals, like that from farm animal sanctuaries, could reduce this effect if it exists.

Many investigations focus on blatant abuse by individual workers, such as punching and kicking the animals.²⁵ They also tend to target a specific farm.²⁶ This could risk making people think the issues of animal agriculture are localized or exist at only a few “bad apple” farms. We think this concern is reduced when viewing undercover investigations in aggregate. Given how many have come out, and that advocate rhetoric emphasizes the systemic nature of the abuse, we don’t think this is a significant concern.

Investigations frequently involve deceit, such as working at the farm while wearing hidden cameras. Some investigations that don’t involve deceit involve visiting farms without the permission of the facility’s owners.²⁷ Either of these approaches could lead to a negative view of animal advocates if they are seen as liars or criminals. On the other hand, they could also make advocates seem brave or make the cause seem more important since advocates are willing to go to such lengths to help the animals, which seems to be more common in public discussion of investigations to date.²⁸

Conclusions

Overall, we think investigations fit well into long term animal advocacy strategy. It seems more likely than not that investigations increase concern for farmed animals, and that outcome seems very promising for building a better world for animals. There are plausible concerns that some investigations could negatively affect the way people perceive animal abuse, such as by suggesting that it is a localized concern that can be easily resolved. Like with other animal advocacy interventions, we are much more uncertain about the long-term effects than the short-term effects. We would tentatively conclude that the long-term effects of investigations seem more promising than other interventions like leafleting and corporate outreach, but we put limited weight on this consideration in our overall understanding of how effective or ineffective any intervention is.

Do we recommend it? Why or why not?

We recommend undercover investigations in most instances when done by experienced organizations, although we are concerned about saturation in the U.S. that could reduce the effectiveness of investigations beyond the current level, and the potential for investigations that are conducted poorly to reduce the overall reputation of animal advocates. We think that more research is needed on what makes some investigations more impactful than others, but tentatively, we consider thoughtful messaging, such as emphasizing that abuse is rampant throughout the industry and highlighting the stories of individual animals, as important. Additionally, undercover investigations seem particularly effective when coupled with other advocacy strategies, such as protests and corporate outreach, especially if they provide public pressure for a specific campaign, such eliminating battery cages.

What are characteristics of a strong undercover investigation?

Coverage of the investigation reaches a wide audience, usually by being featured in a major news outlet and promoted on social media. This increases the number of people who may change their consumption as a result of the investigation, participate in activism, or help animals in other ways. It also increases the credibility of the investigation, which can make individuals and institutions, such as animal agriculture companies, take the investigation more seriously. We are fairly uncertain about what increases coverage of an investigation, but some promising factors include connections from the farm being investigated to well-known companies and the existing media contacts of the organization conducting the investigation.
The investigation is conducted with careful consideration for how it will be perceived by the general public, limiting the risk of harm from advocates being seen as inappropriately deceitful, criminal, or having other negative features and the risk of investigators being charged with a crime, including associated legal fees. This is especially important because it could affect the perception of investigation groups in general.
The investigation is conducted with a thoughtful understanding of the current landscape of animal advocacy, including which practices or companies are currently under heightened scrutiny. By incorporating that focus, such as investigating a battery cage facility while battery cage bans are being discussed in the national media, an investigation can both gain increased attention and make other efforts more likely to succeed, such as legal and corporate reform.
The messaging used when the investigators present their documentation is optimized to effect change, such as by highlighting individual animals and systemic abuse. Highlighting the fact that the mistreatment of animals is an institutional issue, rather than a personal or localized issue, might do more to inspire positive action such as dietary change and activism. A systemic focus also aligns investigating organizations with other groups who advocate on behalf of workers in the animal agriculture industry. These workers often suffer from physical hazards, difficulty in earning a living wage, and other issues.²⁹
The investigation is conducted by an organization with prior experience in this area, or the leaders of the project have discussed possible strategies with an experienced organization. There are many organizations with strong records in undercover investigations, and advocates should use their experience to inform future campaigns. Some organizations that have had success with undercover investigations are Mercy For Animals, Animal Equality, Compassion Over Killing, Direct Action Everywhere, The Humane Society of the United States, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Each of these groups uses somewhat different tactics.

How strong is the evidence about the efficiency of undercover investigations?

The primary immediate effects of undercover investigations ― corporate policy change and media coverage ― are directly observable, although the extent to which policy changes are attributable to an investigation as opposed to corporate outreach is unclear.

The other effects of undercover investigations, such as reductions in consumption of animal products, have less robust evidence. The most scientific piece of evidence we know of is an economics study that found, “Increasing media attention to animal welfare issues triggers consumers to purchase less meat rather than reallocate expenditures across competing meats,” based on an analysis of national consumption data and numbers of new stories between 1999 and 2008.³⁰ Our report on this study, and a similar study on media attention and demand for eggs, found them to be inconclusive.³¹ We will also consider ways that we can conduct similar analyses of our own on the relationship between media coverage and consumer purchases.

Given the limited evidence on the effects of undercover investigations on dietary change and other indirect outcomes, we are uncertain but quite optimistic about the total impact of this intervention.

Resources

Conversation with Wayne Hsiang
Conversation with Carter Dillard
Conversation with Matt Rice
Private communication with a representative of a charity that conducts numerous investigations outside the United States.

We primarily focus on investigations that involve going “undercover,” meaning without the facility owner’s explicit consent to document the facilities and use that documentation to spread awareness of the problems involved. Some investigations, but not many, do involve explicit cooperation, such as when a chicken farmer working for Perdue Farms cooperated with Compassion in World Farming to document what the farmer saw as inappropriate farming practices. See McKenna, M. (February 19, 2015). A Factory Farmer Strikes Back at the Company He Works for. Wired.

Our claims in this review apply similarly to different types of investigations, including employment-based, open rescues, and cooperative. We have noted where our beliefs differ depending on the type of investigation.
For more information on our focus on farmed animals, see our cause prioritization page.
HSUS is one organization that conducts undercover investigations of live animal research facilities.

“A nine-month undercover investigation by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has pulled back the curtain on the secretive, federally-funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana, revealing routine and unlawful mistreatment of hundreds of chimpanzees and other primates.”—(March 4, 2009). Undercover Investigation Reveals Cruelty to Chimps at Research Lab. HSUS.
PETA is one organization that conducts undercover investigations of “puppy mills.”

“A PETA investigator worked for months at Nielsen Farms, a puppy mill in Kansas. The investigator’s job was to feed, water, and clean up after hundreds of dogs condemned to cramped wire enclosures.”—Puppy Mill Prison. PETA.
By “in expectation,” we mean “in terms of expected value,” which is the product of the likelihood of the effect and the magnitude of the effect if it occurs. For example, we would say taking a lottery where you have a 10% likelihood of earning a million dollars has a major effect on your total income, in expectation, even though the most likely outcome is that you will not win the lottery.
“MFA also reaches out to mainstream media outlets that might be interested in covering the investigation.

…

Mainstream media is not the only way that MFA distributes their work; they also use social media.”—Conversation with Matt Rice (February 9, 2015).
“Matt, MFA’s legal team, and independent animal welfare experts then review relevant portions of the footage and evaluate whether what it shows is criminal abuse or standard industry practice (which is also abusive). When criminal abuse is identified, Matt works with MFA’s legal team to draft formal complaints and get them to appropriate law enforcement agencies.”—Conversation with Matt Rice (February 9, 2015).
“MFA’s investigation team also works to identify all the links in the facilities supply chain, from the farm to the point of sale for consumers, so MFA can work with companies in the supply chain to make animal welfare policy changes.”—Conversation with Matt Rice (February 9, 2015).
For example, the meatvideo.com website used by MFA currently shows the video, “What Cody Saw Will Change Your Life,” which features the story of one of its investigators and some footage of investigations. (Accessed December 31st, 2015.)
It seems most media coverage of the suffering of animals in animal agriculture is in response to undercover investigations. The other common topic is corporate policy change, such as switching to cage-free eggs. Other forms of activism like leafleting and protests seem to get less media coverage relative to the amount of resources put into them, although we have not done a systematic analysis of the differences.

For example, Animal Equality estimates that their investigations have earned 182 million media views in 2015 and 312 million in 2014.
For example, “The investigation at Wiese Brothers Farms led to one of their largest corporate outreach victories. This was a dairy farm that they connected to DiGiorno Pizza, which is owned by Nestle, the largest food company in the world. Nestle got such a large media and public response that they decided to work with MFA to implement an animal welfare policy, and the policy they implemented is probably the most comprehensive animal welfare policy ever implemented by a company. They announced a policy change in 2014 that will apply to every farm that supplies them, in 90 countries.”—Conversation with Matt Rice (February 9, 2015).
One example of an investigation that focused on blatant worker abuse was a recent video released of a Perdue chicken supplier. News coverage of this investigation mostly focused on the individual worker’s actions, such as this piece, “Man arrested after undercover video reveals alleged abuse at Perdue chicken supplier,” in the Washington Post. The quotes from animal advocates in the piece did refer to the systemic nature of abuse in the industry, which we see as increasing the impact of the coverage.
Although we do not have a formal write-up on which abuses of farmed animals cause the most suffering, and such judgments are necessarily subjective, we think we can make reasonable estimations based on the length the suffering is endured and the severity at each moment. We expect worker abuse, such as punching and kicking, is endured for a much shorter period of time per animal than confinement and health issues, and does not have a proportionally larger severity. We think most animal advocates familiar with these issues would agree with this assessment.
See some of the resources in the Social Psychology section of our Research Library, including “’If I look at the mass I will never act’”: Psychic numbing and genocide” and “Explaining the ‘Identifiable Victim Effect.’”
An example of this strategy was a 2008 investigation of a California egg farm by Mercy For Animals, which was released shortly before California voted on Prop 2, a ballot proposition that prohibits certain kinds of extreme confinement of farmed animals.
In 2015, there was substantial media coverage of battery cages, which frequently referred to undercover investigations and addressed the systemic nature of the issue, such as, “Free the Hens, Costco!” in the New York Times. “Even after an undercover investigation recently documented a Costco egg supplier locking birds in cages with the mummified corpses of their dead cage mates, Costco responded that the supplier was ‘behaving appropriately.’”
The only U.S. group we know of currently doing non-employment-based investigations is Direct Action Everywhere (DXE), which released their first investigations in 2015. The two investigations they have released seem to have received less media coverage than other investigations, although this could change as DXE grows.

Note, the following quote comes from a conversation that took place before the second investigation DXE released, “DXE has had 50 press appearances in 2015 so far, and they expect to get 3-5 per month throughout the year. They estimate that 50-100k people were exposed to animal rights as a result of each of these press appearances. In addition, they place a lot of emphasis on social networks; they had over 50k unique views on their video, and they estimate 5 million people were exposed to their work through social media in the weeks after the initial release, including shared demonstrations and press coverage. This estimate is approximate, since some data is hard to collect with their decentralized model.”—Conversation with Wayne Hsiung (March 13, 2015).

Mercy For Animals is the group that seems to conduct the most investigations in the United States and uses an employment-based strategy. From January to August 2015, they recorded 7,069 media pieces about their work with an estimated billions of people reached with six investigations.

We would note that we have large uncertainty about whether employment-based investigations are actually better at producing media coverage, especially given the small sample size available and confounding variables at play, such as the differing ages and sizes of these organizations. We are not comfortable making a claim in either direction for this effect.
Private communication with a representative of a charity that conducts numerous investigations outside the United States.
See the cost-effectiveness estimates in our reviews of Mercy For Animals.
“This number is purposefully lower than last year because they were concerned too many investigations could reduce the amount of attention each new one gets in the media.”—Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 2, 2015).
“They now have a full-time investigator in India, gathering footage for them. The first release in India is going to be different than the ones in North America. They also have contracted an investigation firm in China to work in each of the main animal agriculture industries, such as eggs, poultry, pork. In Mexico, MFA has two investigators ready to start working who are Mexican citizens. MFA is finishing legal due diligence to be sure they conduct their investigations within the bounds of state and federal laws.

…

These investigations are especially exciting because there haven’t been many investigations in these countries. This means they are more likely to grab substantial media attention, spark public outrage, and prompt corporate and policy changes.”—Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 2, 2015).
We think most people who work on farm animal advocacy would agree with this claim based on their personal experiences interacting with the public. In general, we haven’t found very convincing survey evidence for or against the claim, but there is one survey that found “A total of 64% of survey respondents agree with the statement, ‘farmers and food companies put their own profits ahead of treating farm animal humanely.’” Lusk, J, Norwood, B.F., Prickett, R. (August 17, 2007). Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal Welfare: Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey. Oklahoma State University.
Although we haven’t performed a full analysis, it appears that public awareness of poor conditions for farmed animals has increased over the last 10-20 years. For instance, we think there has been more discussion of these issues in the media and through documentaries, and there has been more public reaction through seeking out “humane” alternatives and supporting legal and corporate policies that restrict certain practices. These changes correspond to the growth of undercover investigations as a tactic, and it’s clear how undercover investigations could lead to increased public awareness and that farmers and corporations react to them as if they do.
It seems plausible that if identifiable victims make a problem more personal and personalize the victims, then discussing the issue without identifiable victims could have the opposite effect. However, we have not seen substantial evidence for this effect and we consider it only as a possibility rather than a likely downside.
One example of an investigation that focused on blatant worker abuse was a recent video released of a Perdue chicken supplier. News coverage of this investigation mostly focused on the individual worker’s actions, such as this piece, “Man arrested after undercover video reveals alleged abuse at Perdue chicken supplier,” in the Washington Post. The quotes from animal advocates in the piece did refer to the systemic nature of abuse in the industry, which we see as increasing the impact of the coverage.
Scanning through lists of undercover investigations, such as this one, or lists of news articles covering investigations, we see that most focus on the specific farm involved, often naming them in the headline or mentioning that it was a farm, rather than the industry as a whole, where the abuse occurred.
Direct Action Everywhere conducts this sort of investigation in the United States. When the activists are open about their identities and activities, these are referred to as “open investigations” or “open rescues” (if at least one animal is rescued from the farm by the activists).
One of the largest examples of this framing has been the media and public reaction to “ag gag” laws that have been introducing in state legislatures to prevent undercover investigations from happening. Even media outlets that tend to be less opinionated have still condemned these laws and talked about the importance of undercover investigation work, such as in this interview on CNN Money in June 2015.
For more information on the harms suffered by workers in the animal agriculture industry, see this summary by the Food Empowerment Project.
“As a whole, media attention to animal welfare has significant, negative effects on U.S. meat demand; Direct effects of media attention are primarily associated with pork and poultry demand; Increasing media attention to animal welfare issues triggers consumers to purchase less meat rather than reallocate expenditures across competing meats.”—Tonsor, Glynn T., Olynk, Nicole J. (September 2010). U.S. Meat Demand: The Influence of Animal Welfare Media Coverage. Kansas State University.
Regarding the egg study: “With moderately more certainty, we can conclude that Prop 2 media coverage resulted in slight increases in demand for cage-free and organic eggs, and a slight decrease in demand for conventional eggs, but did not cause a decrease in demand for eggs in general.”

Regarding the meat study: “While this is consistent with the hypothesis that media coverage of animal welfare causes a decrease in demand for meat, their evidence is not sufficient to substantially increase our confidence in this hypothesis.”—Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products

Activism Philosophy	Activism Approach
varies	investigation of an animal agriculture facility, sharing the information with the public and pressuring the company to make changes

Target Demographics	Target Animal(s)	Size of Campaign	Time Delay between Intervention and Results
consumers, corporations	varies, typically land animals	varies, usually several people working full- or part-time	immediately after release, but some results could occur years later

General Summary of Area I (Type).
Video investigations and rescues can take many forms. For instance, advocates performing open investigations may enter a farm or other facility with the clear intent of taking video to release to the public, generally at night in order to avoid being asked to leave before they are finished. Open rescues are usually performed similarly, but with advocates finding and rescuing some particularly distressed animals while they are at the facility. In undercover investigations, advocates disguise their intent at the farm or facility, either claiming to take video for an unrelated purpose or using hidden cameras and disguising the fact that they are filming at all. We discuss any investigations and rescues where producing video footage and still images to distribute to the public is considered an important part of the project. Some investigations and rescues do not produce such outcomes; these are not addressed in our report. The types of investigations and rescues which are most common vary based on the laws and corporate cultures of individual countries. In general investigations seem to be more common than rescues. Undercover investigations in which investigators working on farms disguise the fact that they are filming at all are very common in the US, while in Europe less resource-intensive investigations are often possible. Investigations can have negative consequences for farmers and farm-workers (who may be prosecuted for cruelty if a crime has occurred or face economic penalties due to bad publicity) and for corporations linked publicly to the farms investigated (which may also face economic penalties due to publicity). However, they are often considered to be in the (human) public interest, as they can reveal conditions which may be illegal or indicate problems with food safety. Most organizations that are well-known for their investigation programs invest considerable effort in preparation for investigations and rescues and in carrying them out in the best and most professional way possible. Some investigations and rescues are carried out by individuals or organizations with less expertise; the people we spoke with were divided on how much expertise and preparation mattered. Videos and still photos from investigations and rescues are extremely useful to organizations besides those who conducted the investigations, and provide a basis for much of the educational work that advocates do. Organizations carrying out investigations also work with other groups to ensure that they investigate any topics of particularly immediate interest, for instance releasing investigations relevant to ongoing corporate or legal campaigns that they are pursuing together with other organizations.

Code	Question an (R) in the Score column indicates that a score of 1 would be generally considered preferable to a score of 7	Score (1-7)
II.1.a	How many times has a similar intervention been attempted before?	7
	Has a similar intervention ever been attempted in the same context as the one being evaluated?	6
II.1.b	How widely have previous campaigns varied in total results?	2
	How widely have previous campaigns varied in efficiency?	2
	How well have previous predictions of results matched actual results?	5
	How well have previous predictions of costs matched actual costs?	5
II.2	How many different avenues of success does the campaign have available?	4
	How many intermediate positive outcomes does the campaign have?	4
II.3.a	How well understood are the neurological abilities of the primary animal group targeted by the campaign?	5
	How well understood are the neurological abilities of any other animal groups targeted by the campaign?	5
II.3.b	How well understood are individual and social group responses to this type of campaign?	3
	How well understood are economic factors affecting the outcome of this campaign?	4
II.3.c	How well understood is the primary ecological impact of this intervention?	1
	How well understood are any other ecological impacts?	1
II.4.a	How many known uncertainties affect the outcome of the campaign?	3(R)
	How strongly do known uncertainties affect the outcome of the campaign?	5(R)
II.4.b	How many steps separate the actions of the campaign from a change in animal welfare?	6(R)
	How many different actors are involved in the chain of events between the success of the campaign and the change in welfare?	6(R)

General Summary of Area II (Certainty of Success)
Undercover investigations of animal agriculture offer a relatively high certainty of success for the specific goal of reaching large numbers of people with information, although this varies significantly between campaigns and organizations. Investigations often lead to corporate policy change. Both these outcomes are directly observable. We have more uncertainty about the outcome of consumer dietary change from being exposed to this information. Anecdotal evidence, such as self-reported interest in vegetarianism and veganism, is common, but there is little evidence for how many people make these changes for any given campaign. There are a small number of studies investigating the effect of animal welfare media coverage on demand for animal products, but their findings were very inconclusive. As detailed in that report, the first study looked at the association of demand for eggs with press coverage of a farmed animal welfare ballot measure. Their model suggested that the proportion of eggs sold that were organic and cage-free increased while the proportion of conventional eggs decreased. The model did not output the effect on total demand, but total demand did rise after the ballot measure was passed, so the evidence might not even indicate a reduction in total egg production. The second study looked at the association of meat demand with press coverage over a longer time scale across the US. This study did find a negative association (when there was more press coverage, there was lower demand), but this is only very weak evidence of a causal relationship. These studies might also not represent the true effects due to small sample size, issues with the data, or other reasons. Undercover investigations might also cause indirect impact by increasing public opposition to animal agriculture or certain features of it. This could facilitate the success of future animal advocacy tactics such as corporate outreach or grassroots outreach. We have substantial uncertainty regarding the presence and magnitude of these effects.

Code	Question an (R) in the Score column indicates that a score of 1 would be generally considered preferable to a score of 7	Score (1-7)
III.1	How many specialized skill sets are required?	4(R)
	How much expertise is required in the most demanding area?	6(R)
III.2.a	How demanding is the typical workload associated with the campaign?	7(R)
III.2.b	How many hours per week does the typical staff member work on the campaign when it is making its minimum demands?	3(R)
	How many hours per week does the typical staff member work on the campaign when it is making its maximum demands?	6(R)
III.2.c	How many staff members are involved with the campaign when it is ongoing but at the time when fewest people are working on it?	2(R)
	How many staff members are involved with the campaign at the time when the most people are working on it?	5(R)
III.3	How many rare or difficult-to-obtain materials does the campaign require?	2(R)
	How severe is the difficulty of obtaining the hardest-to-obtain material needed for the campaign?	2(R)

General Summary of Area III (Barriers to Entry)
Undercover investigations that involve taking a job at an animal agriculture facility involve a substantial amount of resources. Resources can include hiring and training an investigator to do this work, having the proper recording equipment, seeking legal advice regarding the investigation, having the investigator undergo the emotional and physical strain of their work, having staff comb through the footage, and having the ability to share the footage with media outlets in a professional and effective manner. Open investigations and rescues, or other similar activities that don’t involve employment at the facility, can probably be done with more limited resources. However, the basic requirements of a capable investigator (or several), recording equipment, and careful planning still apply. These costs can be reduced if the action is taken as part of an existing organization or network. Several of these requirements seem to reduce as the organization conducting the investigations becomes more experienced. For example, recording equipment can be used for multiple investigations. Importantly, once an organization has established itself, getting attention from the press likely becomes much easier. The intensity of work on a particular investigation can vary widely. The investigator might have to visit several facilities to find one where they can film. They might need to work in a position that doesn’t involve direct contact with the animals for a lengthy period of time before moving into a position where they can document cruelty.

Code	Question an (R) in the Score column indicates that a score of 1 would be generally considered preferable to a score of 7	Score (1-7)
IV.1.a	How large a chain effect does the intervention likely have?	6
IV.1.b	How likely is the campaign to inspire other victories?	4
IV.1.c	How significant a change in public mindset is this campaign likely to cause?	3
IV.2.a	How much alienation is this campaign likely to cause?	2(R)
IV.2.b	How high is the risk that the campaign may be more harmful than beneficial?	3(R)

General Summary of Area IV (Expected Indirect Effects)
Undercover investigations probably have some indirect effects through inspiring other organizations to conduct similar campaigns and providing an environment in which it is easier for future campaigns to gain more attention, although there are concerns about saturation at a certain number of investigations in a specific country or region. We think the indirect effects are fairly large compared to most other intervention, mostly because of the press coverage they have received and how frequently they are referenced by the general public when farmed animals issues are brought up. The coverage of “ag gag” laws, for example, seems to have helped the general public appreciate the importance of helping farmed animals.

Final Determination (Overall Summary and Recommendations)
Undercover investigations are costly campaigns involving a large number of resources. They have huge potential to grow the animal advocacy movement and support other campaigns like corporate outreach and consumer dietary change. These effects are difficult to measure, especially in trying to attribute them to any specific campaigns, but in aggregate, it appears that undercover investigations have had a tremendous effect. We recommend undercover investigations in most instances when done by experienced organizations, although we are concerned about saturation in the U.S. that could reduce the effectiveness of investigations beyond the current level, and the potential for investigations that are conducted poorly to reduce the overall reputation of animal advocates. We think that more research is needed on what makes some investigations more impactful than others, but tentatively, we consider thoughtful messaging, such as emphasizing that abuse is rampant throughout the industry and highlighting the stories of individual animals, as important. Additionally, undercover investigations seem particularly effective when coupled with other advocacy strategies, such as protests and corporate outreach, especially if they provide public pressure for a specific campaign, such eliminating battery cages.

Activism Philosophy	Activism Approach
Undercover (and other) investigations often take a welfare-oriented approach, pointing out specific cruelties experienced by farmed animals. Rescues can be viewed as a welfare intervention but are more often designed to have an animal rights/antispeciesist message.	Video from investigations and rescues is often used for primarily educational purposes; it is distributed to the public to demonstrate what animals experience on farms. Some organizations also pursue legal action or corporate policy change based on the results of their investigations.

Target Demographics	Target Animal(s)	Size of Campaign	Time Delay between Intervention and Results
broadly targeted to consumers in a region/country. Sometimes a specific demographic such as policy makers is particularly targeted by the choice of media to take the exclusive.	for investigations, most often larger animals like cows or pigs; for rescues, usually small animals like poultry	Ranges from effort of a few days to many months working on the project; investigations and rescues often fit into larger campaigns lasting months to years.	Time delay between intervention and people seeing footage can be very short (days or weeks); to corporate policy change, weeks to years; to legal action, days to weeks

General Summary of Area I (Type). Please also address, if applicable, relevant details about how the intervention is likely to affect human interests; the capability of the organization planning the intervention; and the intervention’s appeal to other organizations.
Video investigations and rescues can take many forms. For instance, advocates performing open investigations may enter a farm or other facility with the clear intent of taking video to release to the public, generally at night in order to avoid being asked to leave before they are finished. Open rescues are usually performed similarly, but with advocates finding and rescuing some particularly distressed animals while they are at the facility. In undercover investigations, advocates disguise their intent at the farm or facility, either claiming to take video for an unrelated purpose or using hidden cameras and disguising the fact that they are filming at all. We discuss any investigations and rescues where producing video footage and still images to distribute to the public is considered an important part of the project. Some investigations and rescues do not produce such outcomes; these are not addressed in our report. The types of investigations and rescues which are most common vary based on the laws and corporate cultures of individual countries. In general investigations seem to be more common than rescues. Undercover investigations in which investigators working on farms disguise the fact that they are filming at all are very common in the US, while in Europe less resource-intensive investigations are often possible. Investigations can have negative consequences for farmers and farm-workers (who may be prosecuted for cruelty if a crime has occurred or face economic penalties due to bad publicity) and for corporations linked publicly to the farms investigated (which may also face economic penalties due to publicity). However, they are often considered to be in the (human) public interest, as they can reveal conditions which may be illegal or indicate problems with food safety. Most organizations that are well-known for their investigation programs invest considerable effort in preparation for investigations and rescues and in carrying them out in the best and most professional way possible. Some investigations and rescues are carried out by individuals or organizations with less expertise; the people we spoke with were divided on how much expertise and preparation mattered. Videos and still photos from investigations and rescues are extremely useful to organizations besides those who conducted the investigations, and provide a basis for much of the educational work that advocates do. Organizations carrying out investigations also work with other groups to ensure that they investigate any topics of particularly immediate interest, for instance releasing investigations relevant to ongoing corporate or legal campaigns that they are pursuing together with other organizations.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= No past attempts 7=Multiple organizations have started this type of campaign each year for at least the past decade.
Notes: Undercover investigations are very common in the US, and multiple organizations have been attempting them yearly (often several times per year) since the early 2000s. Other types of video investigations and rescues are less common or performed by fewer groups, especially within a particular country. (For instance, open rescues have been rare in the US in the recent past, although they have been more common in parts of Europe and perhaps Australia.) While some aspects of an investigation or rescue are similar regardless of where it is performed, legal risks and challenges imposed by farmers can vary significantly between countries.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Few similarities, and no exact parallels, exist between past campaigns and one being evaluated, in terms of target demographic, geographic location, organizational similarity, etc. … 7=Multiple campaigns have been previously attempted that have identical or near identical contexts as the one being evaluated, in terms of the factors listed above.
Notes: Most campaigns target very similar demographics (roughly, a general news audience, or a slightly more educated news audience) and are performed in countries where other similar campaigns have previously taken place, in fact often by the same organization within the past year. However, organizations try to avoid running consecutive campaigns that are similar in terms of species addressed and geographic location, because it is easier to get media coverage for investigations on new topics. Some of the most successful campaigns are the most novel in this way; campaigns which portray activities the public did not already know about are considered especially newsworthy. This also means that a campaign which is extremely similar to a recent previous campaign cannot be expected to have the same level of success, because the previous campaign changes the context for the new campaign in a meaningful way.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Very wide variation; some campaigns have achieved remarkable results, while others have been completely unsuccessful or counterproductive 7=Very little variation; it is difficult to detect any meaningful difference in results
Notes: Campaigns vary widely in results, in part because of their dependence on cooperation from outside parties for the best possible outcomes. Some campaigns receive considerable national or international media coverage, while others are disseminated primarily via the conducting organization’s social media presence. This can result in significant differences in the number of people who view an investigation or rescue, and also in how seriously it is taken by corporate policy makers. Additionally, some investigations result in major policy changes by large corporations while others are not directly linked to this type of change (or only to smaller changes of a similar type); this has to do with both the strategies and capabilities of the conducting organization and hard-to-predict characteristics of corporations targeted for change.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Very wide variation; some campaigns have had large results with few resources, while others have been completely unsuccessful or counterproductive 7=Very little variation; all variation in results can be explained by variation in resources put in
Notes: Campaigns vary widely in efficiency in part due to differences in strategies for obtaining access to animals and video footage, and in part due to differential follow-up and differential cooperation by outside actors such as corporations and the media.

Comment on what is known about the reason(s) for the above mentioned variations between campaigns. Specifically, what variables were external and which were specific to a particular campaign/organization.
Organizations are able to control the subject of an investigation/rescue and to some extent the method they use to conduct the investigation. For instance, they can choose whether to conduct an investigation or a rescues, and whether to take footage in multiple locations for a combined release or to have one investigation correspond to one farm. There are also some characteristics that are under organizational control to some extent but are difficult to change for a given project: for instance, some organizations have departments devoted to corporate outreach and experienced personnel with media connections, while others don’t; these differences can affect how much coverage an investigation is likely to receive, or how likely it is to lead to corporate change. (Although organizations with fewer resources in these areas can still get some of them same effects by working together with other organizations or investing more time in securing media coverage.) Some characteristics are less under organizations’ control. The fastest and cheapest way to obtain footage of farm conditions is to do open investigations, which involve trespassing on farms at night. Such investigations are safe even for established organizations in some countries, where even trespassing charges will be thrown out on the grounds that investigators were doing a public service, but can be risky in other areas which are less sympathetic to investigators. Undercover investigations in which activists film openly but under a pretext also have advantages, most notably the high quality of footage that can be obtained, but are difficult or impossible to conduct in areas where farmers are aware of the possibility of investigations. Media and corporate responses are also clearly outside organizations’ control, although organizations which conduct many investigations or rescues can develop skills that help them identify investigations which are likely to be of strong interest to the media or corporations it is particularly valuable to target. These factors seem to be subject to considerable chance even for the most experienced organizations, however.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Very poorly; advance predictions do not appear to correlate with campaigns’ eventual success 7=Very well; successful campaigns were in general widely expected to succeed and unsuccessful ones were clearly longshots
Notes: There is some evidence that organizations are able to predict which investigations and rescues will get good results in the media. There is much less evidence that they’re able to predict which investigations will get good results from corporations (especially because it is difficult to plan an investigation to affect a particular corporation).

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Very poorly; most campaigns have either raised funds they were unable to use or had unexpected expenses leading them to need more funding than projected 7=Very well; campaign costs have generally matched the planned budget closely
Notes: Organizations that perform many investigations seem to have a fairly good sense how much each will cost and to be able to control costs to some degree. However, there are still random factors, such as the length of time that investigators spend looking for work in the case of undercover investigations during which they work on the investigated farm. This variance can amount to a noticeable proportion of the budget of such investigations.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= The campaign has only one major goal or path towards success 7=The campaign has several distinct goals that could each be reached independently
Notes: Campaigns usually have 1-2 main goals, general public education and progress on some specific issue (such as a change in corporate policy, a shift away from eating a certain type of product, etc). Usually organizations have multiple media sources they can approach to cover the investigation or rescue, and they can also share the video through their own social media presences, which are becoming increasingly significant.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Partial success on any of the campaign’s goals has no clear benefits 7=Any step towards any of the campaign’s goals has proportional benefits
Notes: Spreading public awareness has benefit at any scale, although on the smallest scale, if an investigation only reaches an organization’s immediate followers, it is likely not to be doing nearly as much good as if it also reached a less-affiliated audience. Partial progress towards other goals, such as corporate or legal policy change, may be very different in character from full progress or even entirely futile.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Understood mostly on an intuitive level 7=Well understood behaviorally and on a neurological level
Notes: Most investigations target animals whose neurological abilities are well understood, since this makes their suffering more interesting and compelling to the media and a general audience. Rescues must also target animals which are easy to take care of, and this can mean smaller animals whose cognitive abilities are less well understood. (In particular, birds rather than mammals.)

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Understood mostly on an intuitive level 7=Well understood behaviorally and on a neurological level
Notes: Neither rescues nor investigations typically target animals with cognitive abilities very different from those of chickens, pigs, or cows.

Comment on the choice of target group(s) of animals by the campaign. Address how well the goals of the campaign align with the ability of the recipient animals to meaningfully benefit from those goals, based on what is known about their neurobiology.
Most groups focus investigations on farmed animals who are clearly suffering and would benefit from improved conditions or a reduction in the number of animals being farmed. Indeed, because the success of video investigations and rescues depends on the need for improvement being clear to anyone who views a video, and people tend to be overly skeptical of animals’ ability to feel pain and to benefit from improved conditions, campaigns tend to focus on animals who are not just known to be able to benefit, but who are the most clearly known to be able to benefit, and on conditions which are the most clearly unacceptable.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Understood mostly on an intuitive or theoretical level 7=Many rigorous studies show very similar responses
Notes: Some studies show that news coverage of the condition of animals tends to temporarily reduce demand for animal products (at least in the case of certain animals). However, the body of research is not large and deals only with fairly short term effects. It’s not clear to what extent video investigations and rescues produce long-term changes in thinking, or to what extent the promote welfare vs. rights frames of mind. The studies also do not deal with the ways that people interact socially around animal products, aside from purchasing decisions. There is some anecdotal evidence in this area, such as through the responses of executives or politicians to individual campaigns, the spread of petitions, etc.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Understood mostly on an intuitive or theoretical level 7=Many rigorous studies show very similar responses
Notes: Some studies show that news coverage of the condition of animals tends to temporarily reduce demand for animal products (at least in the case of certain animals). However, the body of research is not large and deals only with fairly short term effects. Some organizations also have regularly engaged with corporations about their investigations, and therefore have a body of anecdotal evidence regarding possible corporate responses.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Understood mostly on an intuitive or theoretical level 7=Many rigorous studies show very similar responses
Notes: Video investigations and rescues have minimal direct ecological effects. Rescues result in a small number of animals living longer lives in caring homes, which might use resources in a way that affects the farmland/wild balance. Indirect effects might also result from demand for animal products being reduced as a result of media coverage (less farmland used in expectation) or changes in corporate or legal policy governing farming methods (possibly farmland being used less intensively, possibly more or less farmland being used or waste products being disposed of more carefully). None of these effects have been carefully studied.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Understood mostly on an intuitive or theoretical level 7=Many rigorous studies show very similar responses
Notes: No possible ecological effects of video investigations and rescues have been carefully studied.

Comment on any perceived oversights or uncertain assumptions in the scientific, sociological, economical, and/or ecological rationale behind this campaign.
The most significant gaps in the rationale behind video investigations and rescues are in the evidence for their having the desired social and economic effects. The evidence for the social effects is particularly thin; because video investigations and rescues are meant to affect very large numbers of people through media coverage, but not expected to have an especially strong effect on most of the people they reach, it’s very hard to track their effects with certainty. As a result, organizations make decisions about video subjects, moods, and themes based mainly on anecdotal evidence or on analogies to other situations. For instance, they might choose to focus a video on an individual animal because people have been shown in other contexts to respond better to individual-focused narratives than narratives that portray suffering on a larger scale, but we don’t actually have evidence showing this applies specifically to the situations in which people encounter video from investigations and rescues. It’s also very difficult to determine what actions people really take as a result of seeing the videos, especially if they see them in mass media (where organizations are not able to track individual viewers at all). While organizations make credible claims that people change their diets, change their views, and become involved in activism as a result of seeing videos from investigations and rescues, it’s very uncertain how many people do each of these things. There is more evidence for the economic effects of the videos, because anecdotal reports of companies changing their policies represent greater fractions of the total behavior of interest. There are also a small number of studies investigating economic effects of media coverage on overall demand, which found inconclusive results. Finally, video investigations and rescues have the same scientific uncertainties with regard to the sentience of commonly farmed animals and the ecological effects of lessening animal farming (or slowing its growth) that most other interventions targeted broadly at farmed animals have. For instance, it’s possible that pigs really can’t feel pain, or that farmed animals generally have net-positive lives, though we think both these concerns are unlikely. It’s also possible that reducing the amount of animal farming will increase (or decrease) the number of wild animals living at any given time over the long run, with attendant concerns depending on whether these animals’ lives are worth living.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= None 7=Several different sources of uncertainty not addressed above
Notes: The primary other uncertainties affecting the outcome of a given video investigation/rescue are the reactions of various institutions to that campaign. These are partially (especially in the case of corporations) addressed above, but not fully. In particular, media response to an investigation or rescue often determines how many people see the video produced, and can’t be entirely predicted ahead of time. Also, the corporate response to an investigation or rescue isn’t entirely predictable ahead of time and could range from laying charges against the activists involved in producing the video (especially if they engaged in any illegal activity), to stating that their practices are not being accurately reflected by the video, to no response, to making changes in their welfare policies affecting thousands or millions of animals.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= No known uncertainties affect this campaign 7=The success of the campaign hinges upon one or more uncertain factors not explicitly addressed by the campaign itself
Notes: Media response in particular carries significant weight in determining the impact of a campaign. However, even were no media outlet to be interested in reporting on a given campaign, most organizations at this point can achieve a moderately wide distribution of materials through social media.

What outside actors and external events are expected to be able to affect this campaign’s success?
Media – What media outlets want to cover the campaign/how they cover it. Other campaigns by other groups – Similar campaigns released at similar times might make the campaign less interesting and newsworthy, or make the problems it exposes look more pervasive. Corporations – Whether e.g. grocery stores pressure suppliers to change practices as a result of the video. Farms – whether investigators are allowed on a farm, whether undercover investigators are identified Law enforcement – response can affect how the campaign is covered in the media

What unanticipated problems have befallen past campaigns? How were they handled?
One common source of problems is obtaining access to film animals. Organizations have come up with many ways of obtaining access to farms, despite that farmers would generally prefer that investigations not take place. Investigators using undercover tactics, in particular, have modified the equipment and cover stories that they use as farmers implement more barriers to filming. Organizations also encourage investigators to attempt to gain access to many farms, even if a smaller number are ideal targets, to speed up the process of gaining access to some farm. Sometimes organizations have found that the media is less interested in a particular campaign than expected. In general this seems to be solved for the particular campaign by releasing it through smaller media outlets or the organization’s own social media, leading to less progress on campaign goals, but still some progress. Organizations that encounter this problem often take steps to avoid it in future campaigns, for example, paying greater attention to spacing out campaigns focusing on a specific species or relevant to a particular area. These steps seem to be moderately effective.

List the chain of events connecting this intervention to a change in animal welfare, in as much detail as possible.
Advocates gain access to film and possibly rescue animals by: breaking into farms, usually after dark. posing as Researchers or others with an interest in filming farm activities and contacting farmers to set up farm visits. This may involve complicated steps such as producing business cards, developing a cover story, providing references, etc. seeking employment at farms. Typically an investigator applies to many farms in an industry and area and takes the first job available. Some jobs don’t actually involve contact with animals, in which case the investigator must seek a transfer or new job. Advocates film animals on a farm or in another industrial agriculture setting (e.g. transport, a slaughterhouse). This may take a single night, repeated visits, or weeks of filming secretly during work hours. Advocates may rescue a small number of the animals they see, especially if they are present on the farm without the farmer’s knowledge. Advocates may repeat the above steps for more farms in the same industry, later combining the footage in one investigation video. Advocates review the video footage. If the footage depicts crimes being committed, advocates may share their findings with local law enforcement and wait to proceed with other steps until law enforcement has taken appropriate action. In this case, law enforcement may charge individuals with animal cruelty, or in extreme cases require a facility to be closed. If individuals are convicted of cruelty, or especially if a facility is closed, economic theory predicts that the supply curve for the product(s) in question will shift, leading to slightly higher prices and lower production. Action by law enforcement may also lead to more media coverage (see below). Advocates may also approach corporations which buy products from the investigated facility. In this case, they must generally research the connections between the facility and other companies in the supply chain, since these connections are usually proprietary information. Advocates use a variety of methods to influence corporate decisions and through them animal welfare. See our evaluation of corporate outreach. If a rescue was involved, advocates provide the rescued animal(s) with veterinary care and find them a new home where they will be cared for in future. Advocates edit the video, photos, etc. produced by the investigation for the media and the public. Advocates contact the media and arrange to have the investigation/rescue released exclusively by an outlet (thus securing coverage by an outlet which would not otherwise cover the investigation). Advocates arrange for other coverage, by arranging a press conference, follow-up interviews in other media, and by releasing the investigation on their own website and through social media. People see coverage of the investigation in the media and on social media. They may spread it further through social media and discussion. People acquire an unfavorable impression of animal agriculture from the investigation. People change their animal product consumption, eating fewer animal products and/or purchasing them from higher welfare sources. Economic theory predicts that the demand curve for the (lower-welfare) products in question will shift, leading to lower prices and lower production. Images, stories, and video from the investigation or rescue may be used in educational materials after the campaign, making them more effective than if the next-best materials were used instead.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= None; the campaign helps animals directly 7=Very many; the chain is so long that it is difficult to think about in detail
Notes: The chain is quite long for the most common method of influence (public education) and rather uncertain past the point of media/social media exposure. If corporate outreach or legal action is also involved, the chain is somewhat shorter in that area. For rescues, a few animals experience a change in welfare as a very direct result of the campaign.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= None; the campaign helps animals directly. 7=Very many; the chain is so long or involves such complicated events that it is difficult to identify all actors or groups involved
Notes: Many different actors are involved, but generally all can be identified.

General Summary of Area II (Certainty of Success). Summary may include relevant comments about the following topics: what has been learned from previous campaigns; how narrow or flexible are the goals of the campaign; how clearly is the necessary scientific, sociological, economic, and ecological science upon which the campaign’s success relies understood; what is the (metaphorical) distance between the campaign and the animals it is attempting to help; and what other uncertainties should be noted.
Undercover investigations of animal agriculture offer a relatively high certainty of success for the specific goal of reaching large numbers of people with information, although this varies significantly between campaigns and organizations. Investigations often lead to corporate policy change. Both these outcomes are directly observable. We have more uncertainty about the outcome of consumer dietary change from being exposed to this information. Anecdotal evidence, such as self-reported interest in vegetarianism and veganism, is common, but there is little evidence for how many people make these changes for any given campaign. There are a small number of studies investigating the effect of animal welfare media coverage on demand for animal products, but their findings were very inconclusive. As detailed in that report, the first study looked at the association of demand for eggs with press coverage of a farmed animal welfare ballot measure. Their model suggested that the proportion of eggs sold that were organic and cage-free increased while the proportion of conventional eggs decreased. The model did not output the effect on total demand, but total demand did rise after the ballot measure was passed, so the evidence might not even indicate a reduction in total egg production. The second study looked at the association of meat demand with press coverage over a longer time scale across the US. This study did find a negative association (when there was more press coverage, there was lower demand), but this is only very weak evidence of a causal relationship. These studies might also not represent the true effects due to small sample size, issues with the data, or other reasons. Undercover investigations might also cause indirect impact by increasing public opposition to animal agriculture or certain features of it. This could facilitate the success of future animal advocacy tactics such as corporate outreach or grassroots outreach. We have substantial uncertainty regarding the presence and magnitude of these effects.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= None 7=Many unrelated and specialized skill sets
Notes: The campaign requires at minimum contact with an expert on the legal issues involved, a good video editor, and someone with the patience and professionalism to contact the media. Several other skilled positions are useful but optional.

What special skills are required in conducting this campaign?
Required: Investigators able to remain calm in upsetting and potentially dangerous situations. Legal expertise in areas related to the investigation, or legal advice from someone with such expertise. Video editing skills, to produce a short and compelling video from possibly very large amounts of footage. Communication skills for contacting and interacting with the media. Nice but not necessarily required: Investigators able to hide their emotional reactions to animal suffering/play the role of someone expected to be in the facility. Skills with undercover camera and video equipment. Still photography skills. Video recording skills, for making original footage compelling. Writing skills, for adding a narrative to final video. Voice acting skills, for recording the narrative for the final video. Research skills, for connecting the facility to major corporations. Communication and negotiation skills, for interacting with corporate executives. Web design and coding skills, for building a website to host the video. Social media skills, for promoting the video online. Animal care skills, for caring for rescued animals.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1=Very little experience or skill 7=Many years’ experience or extensive professional training and advanced degrees
Notes: Legal advice/expertise should be provided by a lawyer, ideally one with experience in the type of investigation or rescue being performed or situations with similar legal implications.

Comment on the expected ease with which qualified staff members will likely be recruited. This may involved such factors as the job market for a certain profession, the average interest in animal activism from people with certain qualifications, etc.
The many positions involved (or potentially involved) in video investigations and rescues require a variety of different characteristics from advocates. In most cases, they require the involvement of several different people. All positions but the lawyer and investigator roles seem generally appropriate to fill with smart, competent animal advocates who may not initially have the required skills but can develop them. Video investigations and rescues benefit from having competent and versatile people in these positions, who certainly could be useful on other campaigns, but organizations don’t seem to have particular trouble recruiting them. Investigators can also be any competent and professional animal advocates, in the case of open rescues and investigations and perhaps some undercover ones. But undercover investigations in the US must use investigators who are not identifiable as animal activists, because farms commonly run background checks on people applying to work with animals, in part to prevent investigations. As increasing amounts of information on people’s life histories and political views are available online, this means many animal advocates who might want to serve as investigators are unable to do so. However, organizations still seem to be successfully recruiting an adequate or above-adequate number of investigators from among people who have recently developed an interest in the treatment of farmed animals and don’t have an online record tying them to animal advocacy. Lawyers must have the most specialized training, so in some ways it seems like they would be hardest to recruit. But in fact many lawyers enter the profession in order to do good, including good for animals, and jobs with respected animal organizations are highly sought-after, at least in the US. Especially in the current job market, recruiting young lawyers is fairly easy. Lawyers with specialized experience are more difficult to find, but the ALDF provides legal advice to animal advocates, and their staff is especially knowledgeable and qualified. Getting the ideal legal advice may be difficult (and could be important, especially in the US), but getting a reasonable quality of legal advice seems fairly easy for an organization willing to explore its options.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= Light; working on the campaign involves little stress and is likely pleasant 7=Heavy; working on the campaign involves significant physical or mental labor at most times
Notes: Working on the campaign involves significant labor, especially emotional labor in confronting and working near animal cruelty, both at the farm or facility and during video editing, two of the longest phases of a normal campaign.

What challenges are involved with the daily work of the campaign?
For investigators, challenges involve bearing witness to animal suffering, making quick decisions about how to cope with challenging situations (the risk of discovery, which animals to rescue (if any)), possible hard physical labor, and possible interaction in which they cannot reveal their genuine purpose. Others involved in the campaign face more intellectual challenges, such as how to work within the local laws and how best to edit materials and compose statements presenting the campaign to law enforcement, corporations, the media, and the public. Advocates in these positions may also face emotional challenges in facing animal cruelty, especially if they are required to review significant quantities of video footage.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= 1 or fewer 7=80 or more
Notes: Because campaigns vary so much, there’s no estimate for even a single role (e.g. investigator) that would be appropriate for all campaign types. In most cases, not all participants will be actively working on the campaign at all times, but some staff member would be doing several hours of work per week (though less than 40) even when the campaign is making minimal demands. The exception may be in cases where law enforcement becomes involved; if there is a delay in the campaign schedule due to waiting for law enforcement to act, it could be the case that staff run out of work that can be done before law enforcement finish their action.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1= 1 or fewer 7=80 or more
Notes: Because campaigns vary so much, there’s no estimate for even a single role (e.g. investigator) that would be appropriate for all campaign types. In most cases, not all participants will be actively working on the campaign at all times, but some staff member will be working intensely on the investigation at certain times, such as when the investigator is on the farm filming or when it is necessary to review many hours of footage from the investigation. This could easily take 40 or more hours per week (and certainly does, in the case of investigators who secure jobs on farms and must review video they have taken daily in addition to that work).

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1=It runs automatically with at most one person supervising it 7=Over 50
Notes: For most campaigns, the time when the fewest people are involved is probably either during the research and planning stages or after the release of the video, when one or more campaign spokespeople are available to speak with the press and the campaign is being promoted on social media (possibly by the same people) but all major campaign materials have been developed and edited.

Undercover Investigations – 2016

Pessimistic	Realistic	Optimistic
0.15 lives/dollar	210 lives/dollar	820 lives/dollar


	Unit of intervention length	investigation/rescue			a1	How the length of the intervention is measured. E.g. “days”, “weeks”, “number of events”
	Estimated length of intervention, in intervention units (a1)	1			a2	Use unit defined in a1

Expenditures (Unit = US$)		Pessimistic (Highest) Estimate	Realistic Estimate	Optimistic (Lowest) Estimate
		Based on ACE’s 2014 evaluation of MFA	Based on an open rescue paying some staff	Based on an open investigation paying some staff
Cost of material resources		10,000	2,250	100	b1	Supplies, leases, consulting fees, etc.
Cost of recruitment and training		2,000	50	0	b2	Advertising, value of time spent interviewing, etc.
Personnel costs		72,911	8,500	4,750	b3	Salaries, etc.

Expenditures total		84,911	10,800	4,850	d1	=b4+c3*a2


		Pessimistic (Lowest) Estimate	Realistic Estimate	Optimistic (Highest) Estimate
		Based on economic data regarding media coverage of treatment of pigs	Based on economic data regarding media coverage of treatment of chickens	Based on treating each view as a view of an online ad
Unit of suffering		*Years of farmed captivity averted, or equivalent suffering averted*			e1	The unit by which the results of an intervention are measured. This may be “animal lives saved”, “years or year equivalents of a factory farmed hen’s life averted” (see V.2 and V.4 in evaluation guidelines), “years of farmed captivity averted”, or something different.

Direct suffering avoided per intervention unit		12,858	2,249,658	0	f1	Measured in terms of unit of e1, for all direct results of an intervention (e.g. directly negotiating for the release of an animal from a factory farm)

Indirect suffering avoided	Number of people reached by campaign per intervention unit			9,123,077	g1	A person does not have to be directly contacted by a staff member in order to be “reached”. They must merely encounter the campaign in some capacity, including living under a legal jurisdiction being targeted by a legislative campaign.
	Proportion of people contacted likely to adopt vegetarianism			.021	g2.1	The expected percentage of people reached by the campaign that adopt vegetarianism
	Proportion of people contacted likely to adopt veganism			.007	g2.2	Same as for g2.1, but for veganism
	Indirect suffering avoided per person contacted			2.07	g3	Multiply g2.1, g2.2, …, g2.n each by their respective “lifestyle multipliers” (see chart below) and then sum the resulting products

Results Total		12,858	2,249,658	3,980,769	h1	=f1+g1g3a2

Lifestyle	Mean Years of Retention (i.e. years before a person is expected to no longer follow an adopted lifestyle>	Lives Saved per Year (based on ACE evaluations)	LIFESTYLE MULTIPLIER (total units of suffering avoided)
Vegetarianism	7.03	10.35	72.74
Veganism	7.03	11.08	77.87

What are undercover investigations?

What are their strengths?

What are their weaknesses?

What about long term effects?

Possible Positive Effects

Possible Negative Effects

Conclusions

Do we recommend it? Why or why not?

What are characteristics of a strong undercover investigation?

How strong is the evidence about the efficiency of undercover investigations?

Resources

Table of Contents

Summary of the Evaluation

Area I: Type

I.1 Activism Philosophy

I.2 Activism Approach

I.3 Target Demographic

I.4 Target Animal(s)

I.5 Size of Campaign

I.6 Time Delay between Intervention and Results

I.7 Increase/Decrease in Human Suffering

I.8 Characteristics of Organization Conducting Intervention

I.9 Appeal to other Organizations

I.10 Evaluation

Area II: Certainty of Success

II.1 Precedents

II.1.a Existence of previous attempts

II.1.b Variation in efficiency of previous attempts

II.2 Flexibility of Goals

II.3 Scientific Certainty

II.3.a Nonhuman neuroscience

II.3.b Sociology, psychology, and economics

II.3.c Ecology

II.4 Other Uncertainties

II.4.a Known unknowns regarding an intervention

II.4.b Distance between intervention and improvement in animal welfare

II.5 Evaluation and Error tracking for “Certainty of Success”

Evaluation for II.1.a

Evaluation for II.1.b

Evaluation for II.2

Evaluation for II.3.a

Evaluation for II.3.b

Evaluation for II.3.c

Evaluation for II.4.a

Evaluation for II.4.b

Summary

Error Tracking

Area III: Barriers to Entry

III.1 Skill Required

III.2 Work Required

III.2.a Intensity of the work

III.2.b Hours per week

III.2.c Number of people needed

III.3 Resources Required

III.4 Evaluation and Error tracking for “Barriers to Entry”

Evaluation for III.1

Evaluation for III.2.a

Evaluation for III.2.b

Evaluation for III.2.c

Evaluation for III.3

Summary

Error Tracking

Area IV: Expected Indirect Effects

IV.1 Positive influence

IV.1.a Chain effect

IV.1.b Benevolent slippery slope

IV.1.c General education

IV.2 Negative influence

IV.2.a Alienation

IV.2.b More harm than good

IV.3 Evaluation and Error tracking for “External Influence”

Evaluation for IV.1.a

Evaluation for IV.1.b

Evaluation for IV.1.c

Evaluation for IV.2.a

Evaluation for IV.2.b

Summary

Error Tracking

Area V: Expected Direct Effects and Overall Efficiency Analysis

V.1 Expenditures