Compassion In World Farming USA

How Compassion in World Farming USA Performs on our Criteria

Criterion 1: The charity has room for more funding and concrete plans for growth.

Before we can recommend a charity, we need to assess the extent to which they will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. Firstly, we look at existing programs that have need for additional funding to fulfill their existing purpose; secondly, we look at potential areas for growth and expansion. It is important to determine whether the barriers limiting progress in these areas are solely monetary, or whether there are other factors such as time or talent shortages. Since we can’t predict exactly how any organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, this estimate is speculative, not definitive. It’s possible that a group could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we have suggested. Our estimates are indicators of the point at which we would want to check in with a group to ensure that they have used the funds they’ve received and are still able to absorb additional funding.

Recent Financial History

Prior to the 2015/2016 financial year,¹ Compassion USA was supported by the CIWF headquarters, based in the U.K. This support ended as Compassion USA transitioned to being more self-sufficient, raising the majority of their funds through a December appeal.² Their budget for 2016/2017 totaled $571,112 and this is projected to increase in 2017/2018 to $677,127.³ In 2016 they received a grant from The Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil) for $550,000 spread across two years, for general expansion. So far they have used this additional funding to hire four staff members, increasing their team to seven people.⁴ In 2017 Open Phil issued another grant of $30,000 specifically for researching an expansion into Latin America.⁵

Planned Future Expenses

Compassion USA’s work mainly centers around corporate outreach; they are currently working to get broiler welfare commitments from the entire restaurant sector by the end of the year, after which they will begin targeting grocers.⁶ While we think it likely they will achieve this, they believe that they could use at least one additional staff member, whose role would be to follow up with companies who have made commitments in the past, in order to check whether they are adhering to those commitments.⁷ We think that this is a crucial aspect of the work they are doing and that funding this expansion would be very beneficial.

Given further additional funding, they would invest more in their expansion into Latin America.⁸ The Open Phil grant has allowed them to get a basic understanding of how to direct their expansion, and they believe that there is a gap for broiler welfare work both in Brazil and in Mexico.⁹ They believe work in those countries would also strengthen their work in the U.S., as a large proportion of U.S. meat is exported to these regions.¹⁰ We think it is likely that they will need to hire staff to become established in these regions, however it is unclear how much of this would be achieved over the next year, if the funding is available.

Compassion USA is hoping to increase their budget to $1 million, as this is the amount they currently feel they could effectively put into use.¹¹ To this end they are hoping for another substantial grant from Open Phil, although we are unsure that this will happen; while Open Phil often issues repeated grants to charities,¹² they currently provide a significant amount of funding to Compassion USA to a point where we find it likely that they may be reluctant to give more. In addition to this, while Compassion USA is not currently receiving financial support from CIWF, they are hoping to obtain funding from them to hire a dedicated fundraiser.¹³ In the unlikely event that CIWF were not to provide this funding, the cost of hiring a fundraiser would represent an additional funding gap for the next year.

Conclusion

Overall we think that Compassion USA could use approximately $330,000–$1,000,000 in additional funding over the next year.^{14, 15, 16} We think there is a small possibility that Open Phil will make up some of this funding, so the actual gap needed from other sources may be smaller.

Criterion 2: The charity engages in programs that seem likely to be highly impactful.

Before investigating the way a charity’s programs are implemented or the outcomes they’ve achieved, we consider the charity’s overall approach to animal advocacy. We expect effective charities to pursue approaches that seem likely to produce significant positive change for animals, though we note that there is significant uncertainty regarding the long-term effects of many interventions.

Compassion USA focuses exclusively on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area. While most of Compassion USA’s work is designed to influence the animal agriculture industry, they also pursue other avenues for creating change for animals: they work to influence public opinion, build the capacity of the movement, build alliances, and influence policy and law. Pursuing more than one avenue for change seems to be a good idea because if one proves to be ineffective, Compassion USA still might be impactful. However, we don’t think that charities that pursue multiple avenues for change are necessarily more impactful than charities that focus on one.

To communicate the process by which we believe a charity creates change for animals, we use theory of change diagrams. It is important to note that these diagrams are not necessarily complete representations of real-world mechanisms of change. Rather, they are simplified models that ACE uses to represent our beliefs about mechanisms of change. For the sake of simplicity, some diagrams may not include relatively small or uncertain effects.

Influencing Public Opinion

Compassion USA works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes and behaviors. We think that the impact of such work may be relatively limited compared to the impact of efforts to influence industry or law. However, we still think it’s important for the animal movement to target some outreach toward individuals, as a shift in public attitudes could lead to greater support for new animal-friendly policies. Public outreach might even be a necessary precursor to achieving more institutional change.

The primary way that Compassion USA works to reach individuals is through online outreach, including producing and posting videos. There is little evidence available about the impact of online outreach.

Capacity Building

Working to build the capacity of the animal advocacy movement can have a far-reaching impact. While capacity-building projects may not always help animals directly, they can help animals indirectly by increasing the effectiveness of other projects.

Compassion USA has conducted animal welfare research, especially on broiler hen welfare. As part of their research, they produced cost-effectiveness estimates for corporate pledges, as well as a statement of transparency. This type of research can help to inform the corporate outreach strategy used by CIWF as well as other organizations.

Influencing Industry

Working to influence the food industry can help animals by leading to welfare reforms or, less directly, by creating a climate in which it is easier for individuals to reduce their use of animal products. In the long term, putting pressure on the animal agriculture industry and paving the way for companies that produce alternatives to animal products could weaken the animal agriculture industry through the pressures of the marketplace, perhaps even without the presence of advocacy messages. Weakening the animal agriculture industry may also enable stricter regulation of animal welfare.

Compassion USA works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and ban particularly cruel practices in the animal agriculture industry. Compassion USA plays a different role in corporate campaigns than many of the other charities we evaluate. Rather than running negative campaigns against corporations, Compassion USA maintains friendly working relationships with corporations, helping them to write and implement more animal-friendly policies. Recently, they have been asking corporations to breed broiler chickens that have acceptable welfare outcomes, according to a forthcoming GAP-funded study at the University of Guelph. Through their EggTrack initiative, Compassion USA tracks corporations’ progress towards their cage-free commitments and holds them accountable. We find that working with corporations can be highly impactful when done thoughtfully.

Influencing Policy and Law

We think that encoding protections for animals into the law is a key component in creating a society that is just and caring towards animals. While legal change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we suspect its effects to be particularly long-lasting.

Compassion USA was a member of the Citizens for Farm Animal Protection coalition, which conducted a grassroots campaign in support of Massachusetts Ballot Question 3. We think that grassroots political campaigning can be highly impactful, though it’s our understanding that Compassion USA played a relatively small role in the campaign for Question 3.

Criterion 3: The charity operates cost-effectively, according to our best estimates.

Compassion USA runs several programs; we would generally estimate cost-effectiveness separately for a number of their programs, and then combine our estimates to give a composite estimate of Compassion USA’s cost effectiveness, however, in this case we could only make a sufficient estimate for one of their programs. Note that all the estimates factor in associated supporting costs, including administrative and fundraising costs.¹⁷ We generally present our estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals (SCIs).^{18, 19} We think this quantitative perspective is a useful component of our overall evaluation because quantitative estimates of cost effectiveness can be:

• Helpful in our mission to identify highly effective ways of helping animals,²⁰
• Useful in making direct comparisons between different charities or different interventions,²¹ and
• Helpful for increasing our transparency.²²

However, the estimates of equivalent animals spared per dollar should not be taken as our overall opinion of the charity’s effectiveness, especially given that we choose not to account for some less easily quantified kinds of impact in this section, leaving them for our qualitative evaluation. Furthermore, our cost-effectiveness estimates are highly uncertain approximations of some of the short-term costs and short to medium-term benefits associated with Compassion USA’s programs. As we have excluded more indirect or long-term impacts, the overall impact may be an underestimate. There is a very limited amount of evidence pertaining to the effects of many common animal advocacy interventions, which means that in some cases we have mainly used our judgement to assign quantitative values to parameters. Because charities have varying proportions of different types of impact, this makes our quantitative estimates particularly difficult to use to compare charities with a higher proportion of long-term impact to charities with a higher proportion of short-term impact.

We are concerned that readers may think that we have a higher degree of confidence in this cost-effectiveness estimate than we actually do. To be clear, this is a very tentative cost-effectiveness estimate and it plays only a limited role in our overall opinions of which charities and interventions are most effective.²³

Food Business

Based on the figures that Compassion USA reported to us for their fiscal year of 2017,²⁴ we estimate they will spend about 57% of their budget, or $390,000, on Food Business.^{25, 26} This includes awards for policies or commitments to supply higher welfare products and partnerships seeking to raise farmed animal welfare standards.²⁷ Compassion USA reports that the purpose of their Food Business program is to push companies to adopt higher welfare policies and that if their Food Business program fails to cause companies to do this, Compassion USA will then turn to their Public Engagement program to attempt to cause this corporate change.²⁸

We don’t have a good understanding of the proportion of Compassion USA’s impact on corporate policy that is due to their Food Business program and the proportion of impact on corporate policy that is due to their Public Engagement program. For that reason, we estimate some important quantitative results as significantly attributable to at least one of these programs in the concluding section of this criterion, which covers the outcomes of all of Compassion USA’s activities combined.

Public Engagement

Based on the figures that Compassion USA reported to us for their fiscal year of 2017,²⁹ we estimate that in that fiscal year Compassion USA will spend about 43% of their budget, or $290,000, on corporate campaigns and public engagement.^{30, 31} Compassion USA’s corporate campaigns and public engagement seem to be fairly directly associated with some large companies adopting new policies. If they are implemented, our belief is that these policies will likely reduce net suffering in expectation for a large number of farmed birds.

Compassion USA’s public engagement highlights reportedly included producing a video that had reached millions,³² a campaign that involved thousands of people petitioning or viewing a key video,³³ and significant media coverage of their work with Perdue Farms that attempted to improve chicken welfare.³⁴

We don’t have a good understanding of the proportion of Compassion USA’s impact on corporate policy that is due to their Food Business program and the proportion of impact on corporate policy that is due to their Public Engagement program. For that reason, we estimate some important quantitative results significantly attributable to at least one of these programs in the concluding section of this criterion, which covers the outcomes of all of Compassion USA’s activities combined.

Communications and Social Media

We estimate that in 2017 the videos that Compassion USA share via Facebook will receive between 1,800 and 3,000 unique views to 95% of the video length.^{35, 36, 37} However, we note that users also engage with Compassion USA’s content in many other ways, such as watching parts of videos, reading text posts, and reading blog posts.

Changes Since Their 2016 Fiscal Year

Compassion USA reported that they allocated the same amount of money in both the 2016 fiscal year and the 2017 fiscal year for each of their two major program areas—Food Business and Public Engagement.³⁸ Compassion USA’s budget increased by approximately 19% from their fiscal year of 2016 to their fiscal year of 2017.³⁹

All Activities Combined

To combine our estimates into one overall cost-effectiveness estimate, we need to translate them into comparable units. This will introduce several sources for errors and imprecision, so the resulting estimate should not be taken literally—it is a rough estimate and not a precise calculation of cost effectiveness.⁴⁰ However, it will provide some information about whether Compassion USA’s efforts are comparable in efficiency to other charities’.⁴¹

We estimate that if they go into effect, the changes associated with either one of, or some combination of, Compassion USA’s programs will affect between 600,000 and 10 million laying hens annually^{42, 43, 44} as well as between 200 million and 1 billion broiler chickens annually.^{45, 46, 47} If successful, these changes will move large numbers of laying hens to cage-free systems and cause welfare improvements for large numbers of broiler chickens. These changes would affect slaughter conditions, access to sunlight and perches, and possibly introduce the use of chickens who are less prone to health problems.

We are very unsure how farmed animals were affected by Compassion USA’s public engagement, beyond the animals who were affected by the corporate policy changes that Compassion USA were reportedly involved in. It also seems that even if we were to add these public engagement effects to our model, the quantitative estimate of Compassion USA’s overall cost-effectiveness would be dominated by our estimate of Compassion USA’s effects on policy changes. For these reasons, we decided not to offer quantitative estimates of the benefits of these other public engagement outcomes.

We consider multiple factors⁴⁸ to roughly estimate that overall, in the short term after excluding some of the effects of their programs, Compassion USA spares between -200 and 1000 farmed animals per dollar spent.^{49, 50, 51} This equates to between -30 and 100 years of farmed animal life averted per dollar spent.^{52, 53, 54} Because of extreme uncertainty about even the strongest parts of our calculations, we feel that there is currently limited value in further discussing these estimates. Instead, we give weight to our other criteria.

Criterion 4: The charity possesses a strong track record of success.

Have programs been well executed?

Compassion USA is primarily focused on their corporate outreach campaign, which has targeted cage-free egg commitments and improved broiler welfare commitments over the last two years. They have contributed to 11 corporations adopting cage-free policies⁵⁵ and 16 corporations making improved broiler welfare commitments.⁵⁶ While most of these successes were achieved in collaboration with seven other animal advocacy groups,⁵⁷ Compassion USA has told us they were solely responsible for the first of the broiler chicken welfare commitments made by Whole Foods in 2016. We are somewhat skeptical of this claim, as Whole Foods founded the Global Animal Partnership (GAP)—the group responsible for establishing the broiler chicken welfare standards that Whole Foods recently adopted—and the President of Whole Foods currently holds a position on the GAP board. We think it’s likely that Whole Foods would have made this commitment themselves. Also, as Compassion USA is one of three animal advocacy groups represented on the GAP board, any influence on Whole Foods is not likely to be solely attributable to them.

Compassion USA achieves successes in their corporate outreach work through two main programs—Food Business and Public Engagement. In their Food Business program, they seek to build relationships with companies in all food industry sectors—retailers, producers, manufacturers, and foodservice companies—in order to encourage the use of higher welfare sourcing. To this end, they offer companies advice on farmed animal welfare, with a particular focus on raising the baseline standard of welfare. They strategically target companies that other groups are campaigning against and work with them to develop policies that they believe the companies are likely to implement.⁵⁸) They also reward these commitments with an award scheme for companies that make certain commitments to higher welfare. Since 2016, they have also organized an annual event called the Better Chicken Leadership Forum; the event brings together groups from companies in all the aforementioned sectors to align them with the common goal of improving the welfare of broiler chickens.⁵⁹ We think that their approach to corporate outreach complements the work of groups who campaign more aggressively, such as The Humane League, and has likely had a large impact in securing the welfare commitments they have been involved with.

Their Public Engagement program utilizes pressure from the public to obtain improved welfare commitments from companies who are less responsive to their Food Business work. They have publicly handed corporations petitions with over 100,000 signatures, which has attracted media attention.⁶⁰ They produced a video that exposed white striping in chicken meat which has reportedly attracted nearly 200 million views globally.⁶¹ They also launched EggTrack, a progress tracker to follow the cage-free commitments of corporations. This could help Compassion USA bring public attention to corporations’ failures to meet their commitments.

Have programs led to change for animals?

The commitments made due to Compassion USA’s corporate outreach work will likely affect a large number of animals once they have been implemented. As these commitments are not legally binding, it will be important to follow up with companies to ensure they are adhered to; for instance, there have already been concerns raised over Whole Foods’ broiler chicken sourcing.⁶² Compassion USA is one of the only organizations that seems to have outlined significant plans to ensure these commitments are adhered to, and they see this as the ‘second phase’ of their corporate outreach program.⁶³ If these pledges are implemented, their corporate campaigns will have led to direct and measurable increases in the number of animals being raised under higher welfare standards. They estimate that the cage-free and broiler commitments they have achieved in 2016 and 2017 will affect over 60 million egg-laying hens and over 700 million broiler chickens annually.⁶⁴ (Most of these pledges commit to fully enacting cage-free policies by 2024.)

The main way in which their public engagement program leads to change for animals is through the support it provides for their corporate outreach campaigns. For example, they have had two successes in using petitions with over 100,000 signatures in their campaigns against Publix and Trader Joe’s.⁶⁵ They also worked with two of Pilgrim’s Pride’s contract farmers to expose the poor conditions on their farms.⁶⁶ Another way in which the program leads to change is through the media attention and online views that all these activities achieve, which, while harder to relate to direct impact for animals, will likely have an effect on changing individuals’ beliefs and behaviors. Compassion USA reports that the Pilgrim’s Pride work received media coverage that reached a total of 9 million readers.⁶⁷

Criterion 5: The charity identifies areas of success and failure and responds appropriately.

Compassion USA appears to take an active approach towards evaluating and responding to success and failure. They consider meaningful concrete targets and have demonstrated some willingness to change course in response to evidence regarding their programs’ effectiveness. They measure the results of their corporate outreach programs in part by tracking the extent to which companies have adhered to their pledges, an important consideration that few of our reviewed charities currently consider. They also use cost-effectiveness estimates to measure their outcomes, reflecting an interest in measuring their programs’ effectiveness at helping animals, although we believe that these estimates could be improved.

Compassion USA appears to set mission-relevant short-term goals that help them identify success and failure in their programs.⁶⁸ They set these goals annually and hold quarterly meetings to discuss their progress.⁶⁹ These goals often involve specific, measurable results like achieving pledges from a particular number of target companies within a given sector, or achieving pledges from companies representing a particular total number of chickens.⁷⁰ Our impression is that Compassion USA generally set targets which are achievable, in some cases easily so, but do have at least some short-term goals which are not trivial to meet. They report having already exceeded two of their recent major targets (on broiler chicken policy pledges and cage-free commitment tracking), but have also told us that they recently failed to meet their target for tracking broader adherence to farmed animal welfare policies.

Compassion USA has also begun gathering information on the success and failure of the corporate pledges they campaign for. Their recent EggTrack program aims to provide annual updates on companies’ extent of adherence to cage-free pledges, and they plan to enact similar programs to track adherence to broiler reform pledges.⁷¹ As large portions of relevant industries pledge to change their supply chains, Compassion USA plans to put more emphasis on ensuring these pledges are carried out—work which we see as a crucial part of corporate outreach.⁷²

Compassion USA seems particularly interested in assessing their programs’ cost-effectiveness, relative to other charities we have evaluated. They have demonstrated some willingness to change course based on effectiveness estimates in the past, for example by dropping their Pastured Poultry Week program after determining the same resources could be better spent on corporate engagement.⁷³ This program involved encouraging farm-to-table restaurants to change their sourcing from factory farmed chickens to chickens raised on pastures.⁷⁴ After conducting a survey to estimate the number of animals affected, Compassion USA concluded that it would be more effective to reach out to larger companies, even if it involved asking for smaller welfare benefits per chicken.⁷⁵

Compassion USA has also changed their stance on broiler chicken breed requirements, allowing for faster-growing breeds if they can be shown to plausibly have high welfare.⁷⁶ They recognize that fast-growth breeds offer the benefit of spending less time suffering, although these birds’ suffering per minute is likely more acute due to a higher susceptibility to many conditions associated with poor physical health.^{77, 78} Compassion USA has told us that this broiler chicken position was developed in communication with organizations like Mercy For Animals, The Humane League, and the Humane Society of the United States as a part of a joint broiler chicken ask.^{79, 80} Rather than requiring slow-growing breeds in pledges, Compassion USA is now asking companies to raise breeds deemed to have acceptable welfare outcomes by a forthcoming GAP-funded study.⁸¹ The study will track outcomes for broiler chickens related to their behavior, growth, and health.⁸² In Compassion USA’s opinion, it is likely that only slower-growing breeds will meet the standards for high welfare.⁸³

While it is difficult to weigh the benefits of reducing different forms of suffering, or to compare any of these with increasing or reducing lifespan, studying these questions can cause farmed animal advocates to be more effective by helping them prioritize changes that are likely to benefit animals the most. Compassion USA’s choice to consider high-welfare but fast-growing breeds, as well as their decision to use study results to determine which breeds qualify, are likely to lead to better policies. However, these decisions’ effects depend in large part on the methods of the GAP-funded study, which we currently do not have much information about. Compassion USA has also noted that the change in their broiler chicken ask has made their outreach work more difficult in some respects, as it is more complicated to secure corporate commitments to policies that have not been finalized. We approve of Compassion USA’s focus on welfare as well as their commitment to using evidence to inform their ask. However, we are somewhat concerned by their willingness to adopt a measure which they believe is not meaningful and which will make it somewhat more difficult for them and others to succeed in their corporate outreach campaigns.

Compassion USA releases a yearly estimate of the number of years of animal suffering reduced by their programs and their cost effectiveness as an organization, as well as a transparency statement explaining how these estimates were reached.⁸⁴ We think it is important that charities be willing to make such estimates, to discuss the reasoning behind them, and to acknowledge their limitations, and Compassion USA has demonstrated a rare willingness to do all three. In addition, Compassion USA has taken care to correct for many considerations, such as the contributions of other charities that joined them in coalitions and the fraction of time chickens spend suffering, and they have generally used plausible or conservative-leaning estimates of these factors.⁸⁵ However, we believe their estimates have some limitations which they do not fully take into account. In particular, their model estimates more impact for a pledge the further in the future it takes effect.⁸⁶ We believe that this aspect of the model also leads them to systematically overestimate the effect of pledges in general, at least compared to ACE and the Open Philanthropy Project’s models.⁸⁷ While cost-effectiveness analyses must generally make simplifying assumptions, we believe this issue is significant enough that it may misguide Compassion USA in their self-assessment, and hence is worth addressing on their part. They could, for example, evaluate pledges’ effects up to a fixed time horizon; as they note, this would instead estimate higher impact for more immediate changes.^{88, 89} Given their willingness to acknowledge their model’s other limitations, as well as to change their programs in response to evidence, we hope to see their estimates improve in the future.

Criterion 6: The charity has strong leadership and a well-developed strategic vision.

Compassion USA has a stated commitment to ending factory farming, and their actions provide some evidence for their commitment to do so effectively.⁹⁰ They also conduct some work that can help support the animal advocacy movement. Their corporate outreach work complements that of other organizations, and their projects to track corporate compliance can provide useful information regarding the efficacy of corporate outreach.⁹¹ They are currently conducting research to determine the viability of pursuing neglected corporate outreach work by expanding their operations to several Latin American countries.⁹²

Compassion USA’s annual goal-setting process involves all of their staff members, and does not appear to involve their board.⁹³ However, Compassion USA’s governance and planning overall appear to be strongly influenced by their parent organization, CIWF. Compassion USA does not create formal strategic plans; they are guided by CIWF’s five-year plans.⁹⁴ They view their strategy as feeding into CIWF’s global strategy, and have told us that CIWF leadership’s heavy presence on their board is to ensure cohesion with this international strategy.⁹⁵) We are concerned by the resultant lack of viewpoint diversity on Compassion USA’s board. In addition, while Compassion USA’s leadership has input on the global planning process, we are uncertain as to what degree their non-leadership staff are involved; we think this process is likely still being developed as the organization grows.

The charity’s mission emphasizes effectively reducing suffering/helping animals.

As mentioned above, Compassion USA’s thinking appears to draw from that of its parent organization, CIWF. They have told us that they share CIWF’s mission of ending factory farming.⁹⁶ CIWF’s forthcoming 2018–2022 strategic plan describes a focus on impact and a grounding in evidence as two of their core values.⁹⁷ Like CIWF’s publicly available 2013–2017 strategic plan, this plan describes CIWF’s “essence” as the belief “that farm animals should not and need not suffer.”⁹⁸

CIWF and Compassion USA’s prior work also demonstrate some willingness to be guided by impact. As mentioned in Criterion 5, Compassion USA takes a fairly active approach to self-evaluation, and is one of only a few organizations we have reviewed to conduct cost-effectiveness estimates of their campaigns. Given their mission and their history of conducting evidence-supported interventions, we expect Compassion USA to remain committed to effectively helping animals.

The strategy of the charity supports the growth of the animal advocacy movement as a whole.

Compassion USA plays a role in corporate outreach that we believe complements the work of other organizations, providing a more collaborative approach that may appeal to companies targeted by more aggressive charities such as The Humane League.⁹⁹ They also publicly follow up on corporations’ policy commitments with projects like their EggTrack initiative, which can provide useful information about corporate compliance to other animal advocacy organizations.¹⁰⁰ In addition, Compassion USA is considering expanding their work to Latin American countries with relatively little organized anti-factory-farming presence, including sizeable countries like Mexico and Brazil.¹⁰¹ They are particularly interested in conducting broiler welfare campaigns in these two countries, which have large poultry industries.¹⁰² This would put them in a position to help develop farmed animal advocacy in these countries. While Compassion USA does not support the broader animal advocacy movement as actively as some of our other reviewed charities, we believe their projects can complement and inform other organizations’ work.

The board of the charity includes members with diverse occupational backgrounds and experiences.

Compassion USA’s five-person board includes three members of CIWF leadership, namely CIWF CEO Philip Lymbery, Director of Operations Kathryn Flanagan, and Director of Communications Richard Brooks. It also includes Lyn Devon, a fashion designer, and Brooke Schooley, an opera singer with a background in finance.¹⁰³

According to U.S. best practices, nonprofit boards should be comprised of at least five people who have little overlap with an organization’s staff or other related parties.¹⁰⁴ However, there is only weak evidence that following these best practices is correlated with success, and if they are correlated, that may be because more competent organizations are more likely to both follow best practices and to succeed—rather than because following best practices leads to success. As such, the fact that Compassion USA’s five-person board includes three members of their parent organization provides a small amount of evidence against the organization’s effectiveness.

The evidence for the importance of board diversity is somewhat stronger than the evidence recommending board sizes of five or greater, in large part because there is a significant body of literature indicating that team diversity generally improves performance. However, the evidence we are aware of for the importance of board diversity on organizational performance specifically is less strong.¹⁰⁵ We are concerned that Compassion USA’s Board Members are leadership staff from the same external organization, and from its parent organization in particular. This seems to indicate that CIWF has significant influence over Compassion USA even several years after the latter was founded. Further, it indicates a potentially troubling lack of viewpoint diversity, since Lymbery, Flanagan, and Brooks constitute more than half the board and are likely to have similar opinions about what decisions Compassion USA should make.

The board of the charity participates regularly in formal strategic planning on behalf of the charity, and involves other stakeholders in that process.

Based on our conversation with Compassion USA, our understanding is that their board participates in the planning process primarily by reviewing the organization’s annual goals each year.¹⁰⁶ Compassion USA says that the board asks questions but rarely requests changes.^{107, 108} The organization’s planning appears to be carried out largely by Compassion USA’s staff, which proposes these goals each October and meets quarterly to discuss their progress.¹⁰⁹ Given that the team is relatively small, we believe it is not unreasonable for them to take the reins when it comes to setting goals, rather than focusing on their own particular tasks and delegating more decision making to the board (as might happen in a larger organization with more division of labor).

The broader CIWF organization also conducts its own planning, including by creating five-year strategic plans. Compassion USA has told us that, as a branch of CIWF, their planning is guided by and aligned with CIWF’s planning, but claim that Compassion USA has the final say in how they will operate, and has provided a lot of input for CIWF global planning.^{110, 111} They have shared with us the forthcoming 2018–2022 CIWF strategic plan, which describes actions aimed at an international agreement to ban factory farming. They have told us that they will continue their focus on corporate and public outreach, because this plan’s proposed focus on legislation and the U.N. is primarily intended for other CIWF branches.¹¹² We are uncertain how much opportunity Compassion USA’s non-leadership staff members have to give input into CIWF’s overall plan; since the organization has only recently grown beyond three staff members,¹¹³ this process is likely still evolving.

Criterion 7: The charity has a healthy culture and a sustainable structure.

Overall, Compassion USA seems to have a healthy culture. They prioritize setting up good management systems to support their growing team, including anonymous surveys regarding work climate, support for professional development, and a healthy work-life balance for staff.¹¹⁴ We are somewhat more concerned about Compassion USA’s financial stability, due to their relatively heavy reliance on a single large funding source, though we note that they also appear to be aware of this as a risk to be managed.^{115, 116}

The charity receives support from multiple and varied funding sources.

Compassion USA is a branch of Compassion In World Farming, and until 2016 received some funding from CIWF’s U.K. headquarters.^{117, 118} As of 2017 they are fundraising on their own.¹¹⁹ However, they may still look to U.K. headquarters for some specifically targeted funding; we expect that Compassion USA might be able to rely on CIWF headquarters to bridge temporary funding shortages or help them regain a stable financial footing if needed.¹²⁰

Currently 35–50% of Compassion USA’s funding appears to come from a single two-year grant from the Open Philanthropy Project.¹²¹ That grant was announced in 2016.¹²² Compassion USA hopes that it will be renewed, but acknowledges that if it were not renewed, the impact on their budget and plans would be significant.¹²³ We consider this a fairly heavy reliance on a single funding source, and would like to see Compassion USA succeed in attempts to grow their donor base, as they seem interested in doing.¹²⁴ Most of the rest of Compassion USA’s support comes from other foundations, leaving them with an especially heavy reliance on foundation support.¹²⁵

The charity provides staff and volunteers with opportunities for training and skill development, helping them grow as advocates.

Compassion USA seems to be especially committed to staff development, providing each member of their small staff with $2,000 per year to invest in training and professional development.^{126, 127} Our inquiries with staff have also indicated that they feel well supported in taking on tasks that allow them to expand their skills and responsibilities at work.^{128, 129}

The charity has staff from diverse backgrounds and with diverse personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age), and views diversity as a resource that can improve its performance.

Compassion USA staff are diverse in terms of gender and parental status, but less diverse in terms of race.¹³⁰ Unlike many other organizations, leadership roles—including that of the Executive Director—are also occupied mostly by women.^{131, 132} Compassion USA is also interested in finding ways to promote more diversity both within their organization and in the animal advocacy movement as a whole, with Executive Director Leah Garces serving on the advisory council of Encompass, an organization dedicated to increasing diversity in animal advocacy.¹³³

Compassion USA does have a good record of using staff’s personal experiences to inform their work, particularly where they differ from those at other animal advocacy organizations.^{134, 135} For example, more Compassion USA staff are women and parents than at many comparable charities, which they think has helped them create videos targeted at parents, children, and families.¹³⁶ Another example is their work on expansion to Latin America, for which they have the advantage of Garces’ relatively strong understanding of Latin American culture, since she is half Colombian.^{137, 138}

The charity works to protect employees from harassment and discrimination.

Compassion USA has policies to protect staff from harassment and discrimination, which they inherited from CIWF.¹³⁹ They are looking into creating their own, U.S.-specific policies.¹⁴⁰ We have spoken with two non-leadership staff members at Compassion USA and performed some additional due diligence searches, and are not aware of any reports of harassment or discrimination at Compassion USA.¹⁴¹

Questions for Further Consideration

There are many more farmed fish than other species of farmed animals. Has Compassion USA considered allocating more of its resources towards farmed fish advocacy?

Each year, an estimated 37 billion–120 billion finned fish are slaughtered in the animal agriculture system, compared to roughly 60–80 billion land animals.^{142, 143, 144} While many organizations aim to maximize their impact by advocating for chickens, some argue that those organizations should instead focus more on farmed fish advocacy, as there are even more farmed fish than farmed chickens and the field is currently relatively unexplored.¹⁴⁵ We agree that helping fish is a valuable area that could potentially use much more work, though we think organizations might be understandably wary of the potential difficulty of campaigning for animals who people may be less likely to be concerned about, as well as the greater uncertainty regarding which changes should be prioritized.^{146, 147} Recently, several charities have entered this arena; Mercy For Animals has conducted a study on how messaging affects behavior and attitudes regarding fish, while the Albert Schweitzer Foundation conducts farmed fish advocacy programs informed by research on fish welfare.^{148, 149}

CIWF’s global headquarters has received a grant to study possible legislative and corporate avenues for farmed fish advocacy, which Compassion USA will have input on.¹⁵⁰ Depending on the results and their own funding situation, Compassion USA hopes to begin working with fish in the coming years.¹⁵¹ They are also looking into salmon standards in particular, as Global Animal Partnership has received a grant to work on salmon standards.¹⁵² Because of the number of animals involved (roughly 200 million), as well as their estimate of the odds of success, Compassion USA would likely begin a farmed fish program by campaigning for salmon.¹⁵³

Does Compassion USA worry that focusing on banning some of the most extreme confinement practices could lead to complacency with other forms of suffering farmed animals endure or with meat consumption?

Since pushing for welfare reforms often involves working directly with food industry companies, this work can give the public the impression that these companies treat their animals well when this is not the case, especially when animal advocates are incentivized to make the reforms seem like drastic improvements when animals still suffer substantially.¹⁵⁴ Critics would also argue that, empirically, welfare reforms such as banning battery cages reduce only a very small portion of the harm of animal agriculture—if any—so they are not the most cost-effective use of time.^{155, 156, 157}

In addition, some argue that welfare reforms (e.g., bans on battery cages) might lead consumers to think that farmed animals no longer suffer and that helping them is no longer a priority.¹⁵⁸ They cite as evidence that some corporations market themselves as “humane” and “ethical,” which suggests that appearing to support animal welfare does benefit those companies.¹⁵⁹ However, this may only reflect gains to individual companies from positioning themselves as the most humane option.¹⁶⁰ There isn’t much evidence that this kind of marketing increases animal product consumption on the whole, and there is some evidence of a negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat consumption.¹⁶¹

On the other hand, some advocates argue that this work could increase the credibility of the animal advocacy movement by showing that it can make progress for animals on an institutional scale, not just an individual one.¹⁶² Single campaigns may not eliminate all suffering in a specific area, but they can provide useful information and momentum for future campaigns. The success of welfare reforms also establishes the moral aspects of animal agriculture as a topic in the public domain, which seems important for further progress.

Compassion USA has not seen evidence of increased complacency among corporations as a result of their achievements thus far.¹⁶³ They feel that their work helps make animal welfare part of companies’ cultures and brand identities.¹⁶⁴ They also believe that by drawing public attention to animal welfare issues and convincing companies to commit to better treatment, they make companies accountable for how they treat these animals in a way they otherwise would not be.¹⁶⁵ It’s not clear whether Compassion USA would be aware of increased complacency among consumers as a result of their work.

The charity also agrees with some critics’ concerns that welfare improvements alone may not be enough to reduce overall suffering of farmed animals, given the steady increase in meat consumption over time.¹⁶⁶ They plan to supplement their existing programs with a project to promote “protein diversification”—convincing companies to shift some of their protein sourcing from animal- to plant-based products—which they hope will ultimately reduce animal product consumption.¹⁶⁷

Some would argue that working for welfare reforms is an implicit endorsement of the use of animals. How does Compassion USA respond to this concern?

Most welfare reforms address only a portion of the suffering animals endure on factory farms. While such reforms can still reduce suffering significantly in the short term, critics argue that in the long term they may lead to complacency regarding further welfare improvements, and may encourage people to consume animal products they otherwise would not.^{168, 169} Some critics also feel that recommending one form of animal agriculture over another is an implicit endorsement of the use of animals, and are concerned that such behavior is wrong in all circumstances.¹⁷⁰

On the other hand, charities may seek improvements within an unjust system because they believe it is the best way to help the victims, rather than because they want to support the system itself. If helping animals is the ultimate aim of the animal advocacy movement, that aim may be served by lending support to imperfect systems, if doing so will ultimately improve farmed animals’ lives.

Compassion USA believes that it is a strength of theirs to be an animal advocacy organization that does not specifically condemn the use of animals.¹⁷¹ Instead, they emphasize that when animals are used, they must be treated in a way that meets their needs.¹⁷² They believe that working within this niche allows them to make progress by finding points of agreement with relevant parties and achieving steps that measurably reduce suffering.¹⁷³

What does Compassion USA do to highlight the problems with using animals for food? What does Compassion USA do to fight speciesism?

Some argue that the animal advocacy movement can only get so far by focusing on certain individual behaviors (e.g., eating meat) or certain corporate practices (e.g., using cages). Even if we succeed in changing some specific behaviors, people will continue to treat animals badly as long as speciesist assumptions go unchallenged.¹⁷⁴ It seems important, then, for animal advocacy organizations to not only combat the individual behaviors and corporate practices that cause animal suffering, but fight the cultural norms and attitudes that facilitate those behaviors and practices.¹⁷⁵

Compassion USA believes that all of their work is focused on bringing to mind the inherent problems with using animals for food.¹⁷⁶ They ask companies and consumers to recognize farmed animals as sentient beings and act accordingly.¹⁷⁷ When reaching out to companies, they often highlight the physiological similarities between cats or dogs and farmed mammals like cows and pigs.¹⁷⁸ They feel that this encourages thinking about the lived experience of farmed animals and can prompt the recognition that these animals are treated unjustly.¹⁷⁹

What is Compassion USA doing to ensure that the introduction of slow-growth broiler chickens happens in a way that is net positive for animals?

When organizations campaign for animal agriculture reforms, it is crucial that the standards they use are carefully chosen to improve animals’ well-being. This is often far from straightforward. One recent example is cage-free reforms for layer hens; while battery cage systems lead to obvious health issues for laying hens, the alternatives increase the rates of other problems, and the relative welfare impacts are a point of contention among animal welfare specialists. Determining proper genetic welfare standards for broiler chickens requires the same kind of careful consideration. It is possible that (i) slow-growth broiler chickens will lead to more birds being farmed and/or birds spending longer lives in factory farms to satisfy the same demand for meat, and (ii) this greater quantity of time spent by birds in factory farms will outweigh the reduced suffering due to improved health such that, overall, the introduction of slow-growth broiler chickens is net negative in expectation.

Compassion USA has played a role in shaping the broiler welfare standards now called for by many major animal advocacy organizations in the U.S., in part through their involvement with GAP.¹⁸⁰ Some critics have been concerned to see that these standards include a “genetic health” component that is likely to lead to a requirement for slower-growing broiler breeds.¹⁸¹ While using these breeds avoids some of the health problems seen in faster-growing breeds, it also requires either more chickens or more growth time to provide the same amount of meat.^{182, 183} It is possible that the extra time broiler chickens spend suffering in factory farms could outweigh the lower suffering-per-minute they enjoy due to welfare reforms, leading to greater suffering overall.¹⁸⁴

Compassion USA tells us they have considered this question in detail, for example by using data on illness rates to calculate the change in time spent suffering from various diseases as a result of switching to slower-growing but healthier broiler breeds.¹⁸⁵ They also discussed these concerns with other groups (including Mercy For Animals, The Humane League, and the Humane Society of the United States) for several months before they jointly agreed to a broiler ask.¹⁸⁶ Compassion USA has told us the resulting standards’ breed requirements are focused on improving welfare, rather than on slower growth in particular.¹⁸⁷ They believe that it is unlikely that faster-growing breeds will meet these standards because of their lower welfare, but they are willing to leave the door open to that possibility.¹⁸⁸

---

1. As Compassion USA is part of the international CIWF organization that has its headquarters in the U.K., they follow the U.K. financial year of April–March when tracking their financials. 

2. “Compassion USA was, before last year, receiving funding from the U.K. headquarters—but from that point on they raised the funds to support themselves, primarily through their December appeal.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

3. See Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018). 

4. “[…] Compassion USA’s team has grown since the previous ACE review in 2014. They are now up to seven full-time employees and one consultant, largely due to funding from the Open Philanthropy Project.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

5. It is possible that additional funding will come from other major donors—we focus on Open Phil in particular because they are one of the most significant grantmakers in effective animal advocacy, they are transparent with their donations, and they have often made recurring donations to organizations. All of these factors give us a better idea of where they may donate money in the future compared to other sources. 

6. “Garces sees the goals of Compassion USA as changing each year. They clearly set out which companies they wish to engage in broiler policies each year; their current goal is to get commitments from the entire restaurant sector before the end of the year. Then they will move onto grocers.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

7. “[Garces] would especially like to hire someone to follow up on commitments that companies have already made regarding other species, especially with regard to sow stalls.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

8. “Compassion USA is also seeking to expand their work into Latin America, which further funding could help with.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

9. “[Garces] notes that although Brazil is one of the largest chicken producers in the world, no one is doing work on improving broiler welfare there. Compassion USA has been told that they would be welcomed there. Similarly, no one is working towards broiler welfare in Mexico at present.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

10. “Mexico receives one-quarter of U.S. chicken leg exports. Garces therefore hopes that Mexican companies will make broiler sourcing commitments similar to those that CIWF has pushed for in the U.S., since they represent a nontrivial fraction of demand for U.S. broilers.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

11. “Compassion USA’s budget is currently $647,000 but Garces is aiming for $1 million. This extra money could primarily be used for two goals.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

12. Mercy For Animals (MFA) and The Humane League (THL) have both received four grants from Open Phil since the beginning of 2016. 

13. “[Garces] would also like to receive funding from the U.K. headquarters to hire a staff member dedicated to fundraising for Compassion USA.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

14. This estimate is based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

15. This range is a subjective confidence interval (SCI). An SCI is a range of values that communicates a subjective estimate of an unknown quantity at a particular confidence level (expressed as a percentage). We generally use 90% SCIs, which we construct such that we believe the unknown quantity is 90% likely to be within the given interval and equally likely to be above or below the given interval. 

16. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

17. We assume that these costs are evenly allocated across the interventions, and distribute them as such. 

18. An SCI is a range of values that communicates a subjective estimate of an unknown quantity at a particular confidence level (expressed as a percentage). We generally use 90% SCIs, which we construct such that we believe the unknown quantity is 90% likely to be within the given interval and equally likely to be above or below the given interval. 

19. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

20. Because we are committed to the principles of effective altruism, one of our primary goals is to identify the most effective ways to help animals, given limited resources. We consider all seven of our evaluation criteria to be indicators of cost effectiveness. If we were able to model charities’ actual cost effectiveness with very high confidence, we would make our recommendations based heavily on our cost-effectiveness estimates (CEEs). The most cost-effective charities are, after all, the ones that allow donors to have the greatest positive impact with their donations. Even given the risks and uncertainties described above, directly estimating cost effectiveness is one of the best ways we know of to identify highly cost-effective programs. 

21. Cost-effectiveness estimates are sometimes useful for comparing different charities or interventions to one another. We develop CEEs using consistent methodology and data so that our CEEs for similar charities are meaningfully comparable. Though there are many sources of error that might influence our estimates of the effects of a given charity or intervention, some sources of error may be unlikely to influence our CEEs of charities relative to one another. Suppose, for example, that Charities A and B both spend 100% of their funds on leafleting, but we estimate that Charity A spares 1–3 animals per dollar and Charity B spares 8–10 animals per dollar. Our estimate of the effectiveness of distributing leaflets might be too high or too low, but it would appear that Charity B is more cost-effective than Charity A, regardless. They might be distributing more leaflets than Charity A at the same cost. It’s also possible that, in some cases, our use of CEEs skews our comparison between charities. We are not able to make CEEs for every charity we evaluate. We do not attempt to estimate the cost effectiveness of charities that have mostly long-term or indirect outcomes. It’s not always clear how we should think about the effectiveness of these charities relative to the effectiveness of charities for which we’ve made CEEs. 

22. We find that, in some ways, the quantitative components of our evaluations are easier for our readers to interpret than the qualitative components. Assigning numbers to uncertain values allows us to be clear about the effects we expect an intervention to have. It allows our readers to identify specific points on which they may disagree. If our evaluations were entirely qualitative in nature, it might be harder for people who disagree with us about the effectiveness of a program to pinpoint the source of their disagreement, since our qualitative statements are more open to interpretation than our quantitative ones. 

23. Further information about our use of cost-effectiveness estimates is available here. 

24. Compassion USA’s fiscal year is from April 1st to March 31st.  

25. Compassion USA reports that for April 1st, 2017 to March 31st, 2018 they would spend $82,500 on Food Business. For more information see Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018). 

26. In our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Compassion USA’s spending for 2017 will match their predicted spending for April 1st, 2017 to March 31st, 2018. We account for non-direct costs of programs, such as staff and operations, by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs, and distributing them as such. 

27. This information is from Compassion USA’s Food Business web page. 

28. Private communication with Compassion USA, 2017 

29. Compassion USA’s fiscal year is from April 1st to March 31st.  

30. Compassion USA reports that for April 1st, 2017 to March 31st, 2018 they would spend $61,500 on Corporate Campaigns and Public Engagement. For more information see Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018). 

31. In our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Compassion USA’s spending for 2017 will match their predicted spending for April 1st, 2017 to March 31st, 2018. We account for non-direct costs of programs, such as staff and operations, by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs, and distributing them as such. 

32. Compassion USA reported producing a video highlighting white striping in chicken meat that resulted in news stories that reached nearly 200 million people worldwide. For more information see Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017).
    Additionally:

    • “‘White striping’ is characterized by white striation parallel to the direction of muscle fibers in broiler breasts.
    • It comes in varying degrees of severity.

    The degree of white striping is associated with higher fat content.” —Kuttappan, V.A. et al. (2013). Pathological changes associated with white striping in broiler breast muscles. Poultry Science, 92(2), 331–338. 

33. “Our most recent petition to Moe’s Southwestern Grill (Focus Brands) had 7,181 signatures when they announced their new broiler policy. We created a timely “Wonder Woman” spoof with our league of “Mighty Moms” demanding better from Moe’s, reaching over 28,000 views.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

34. “Our work with Perdue Farms on their most recent chicken welfare improvement announcement garnered significant media coverage with the opportunity to reach (OTS) over 77.5 million viewers in outlets such as NPR, The Washington Post, Food and Wine Magazine, and the Associated Press […] OTS is the metric we use to measure media reach based on what each outlet publically discloses as their circulation reach, as reported by the media monitoring service Meltwater.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

35. From the Facebook data that Compassion USA provided, we estimated that in the previous 90 days they had had approximately 600 unique video views to 95% of the length of the video. 

36. In our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate we extrapolate from our estimate of the number of views in the previous 90 days to make an estimate for the entire year of 2017. 

37. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 1800 to 3000, 1800 to 3000, 1800 to 3000, 1800 to 3000, and 1800 to 3000 unique video views to 95% of the video’s length. 

38. Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018) 

39. Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018) 

40. In fact, there are already sources of error and imprecision in our estimates to this point, most notably in uncertainties about how much time Compassion USA employees spend on each activity we have described and about how administrative and fundraising costs should be assigned to the various areas. However, the amount of error in our following estimates can be expected to be considerably greater. 

41. We use similar assumptions for each of the groups for which we perform such a calculation. Other estimates of the cost effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and may therefore not be comparable to ours. 

42. In September, Compassion USA reported that “So far in 2017, CIWF was directly involved in negotiating Aramark’s global cage-free egg policy. This commitment affects 276 million eggs or approximately one million laying hens.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

43. In our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate we extrapolate from the reported number of laying hens affected in the first seven months of 2017 to make an estimate for the entire year of 2017. 

44. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 570,000 to 13 million, 570,000 to 12 million, 560,000 to 11 million, 580,000 to 12 million, and 600,000 to 12 million layer hens affected annually. 

45. Compassion USA reports that they are still working to obtain and/or estimate the number of broiler chickens affected by the 2017 commitments. Given the corporate commitments so far, they note that they anticipate that their broiler impact numbers for 2017 will surpass those from 2016. For 2016 Compassion USA reports that they worked alone to convince Whole Foods to make the first ever GAP-certified corporate broiler commitment in the United States. That commitment affected the lives of 245 million broiler chickens and began a trend of change in corporate welfare policies for broiler chickens now reaching more than 40 major food corporations. Following the Whole Foods announcement, Compassion USA was directly involved in negotiating broiler commitments with Compass Group, Aramark, Sodexo and Panera whose supply chains totaled 117 million broiler chickens. Their estimate of the total number of broiler chickens affected was 362 million. This information can be found in Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

46. In our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate we use the information about the commitments Compassion USA had achieved in the first eight months of 2017 to estimate the number of broiler chickens affected by the commitments made in the the entire year of 2017. 

47. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 170 million to 1.1 billion, 160 million to 1 billion, 160 million to 1.1 billion, 160 million to 1 billion, and 170 million to 1.1 billion broiler chickens affected annually. 

48. These factors include the number of animals affected by corporate policy changes associated with Compassion USA, the extent to which Compassion USA worked with other groups to achieve those victories, the extent to which these policy changes are accelerated as a result, and the proportion of suffering alleviated by those policy changes. 

49. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

50. This information can be found in our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Compassion USA’s reported budget for fiscal year 2017 and their reported achievements for 2017. 

51. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -210 to 750, -180 to 810, -220 to 720, -200 to 780, and -190 to 730 farmed animals spared per dollar Compassion USA spent. 

52. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. 

53. This information can be found in our 2017 Compassion USA cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Compassion USA’s reported budget for fiscal year 2017 and their reported achievements for 2017. 

54. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -27 to 91, -23 to 100, -27 to 87, -24 to 96, and -23 to 90 farmed animal years averted per dollar Compassion USA spent. 

55. “CIWF negotiated directly with 10 corporations leading them to adopt cage-free egg policies, including Wal-Mart, Costco and Kroger.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

56. “CIWF directly negotiated a change in broiler welfare policies at 11 corporations including Subway, the world’s largest fast food chain.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

57. See the joint broiler ask, cosigned by seven groups. 

58. Private communication with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming (2017 

59. In 2016 nineteen groups attended the forum, and in 2017 twenty-nine groups attended. 

60. “Our petition to the USDA garnered 100,748 signatures, asking to not allow the factory farm industry to define animal welfare claims, and demanding transparent package labels. CIWF was also quoted in The Huffington Post on the subject.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

61. “CIWF produced a video exposing white striping in chicken meat that went viral around the world reaching nearly 200 million people.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

62. “[Direct Action Everywhere] accused Pitman Family Farms, the maker of Mary’s Free Range Chicken and a supplier to Whole Foods in six Western states, of breaking its promises of free-range environments for its birds.” —Dayen, D. (2016). “Whole Foods ‘Free-Range’ Chicken Supplier Said to Actually Run Factory Farm,” The Intercept. 

63. “While the first phase was to secure commitments from companies, Compassion USA is turning towards its second phase—which is tracking and holding companies to their commitments, including providing them with any tools or insights that they need in order to do this (be it pressure, guidelines, or workshops).” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

64. Compassion USA estimates that their 2016 campaigns affected approximately 64 million laying hens and 362 million broiler chickens. They estimate that their 2017 campaigns have so far affected approximately one million laying hens and will affect at least as many broiler chickens as their 2016 campaigns. For more information see Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

65. “Two petitions targeted retailers to adopt cage-free egg policies.
    Publix: 117,059 signatures
    Trader Joe’s: 102,948 signatures” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

66. “We also partnered with two Pilgrim’s Pride chicken contract farmers who wanted to show the detrimental consequences of factory farming for animals, the public, and farmers.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

67. “The resulting video achieved international media coverage in Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times column, The Daily Mail, and more, reaching over 9 million readers in total. In addition to his article, Kristof did a Facebook live event and tweeted his article. With 660,000 Facebook subscribers and 2.1 million Twitter followers, this provided significant exposure for our work. It also resulted in three engaging and active Reddit threads, including reaching the front page for our “Ask Me Anything” thread with over 600 comments.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

68. When considering how well charities assess success and failure, one useful consideration is whether their goals are SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Specific, well-defined goals help guide an organization’s actions and can help them determine which areas or programs have succeeded and failed. Setting a measurable target allows organizations to determine to what extent they’ve met their goals. It is also important that goals be plausibly achievable; goals that are predictably over- or undershot tell an organization little about how well their programs have done. Goals should be relevant to the organization’s longer-term mission, both to guide their actions and to help them evaluate success. Finally, including time limits is especially important, as it keeps a charity accountable to their expectations of success. 

69. “Compassion USA meets as a team in October to set their own goals, then meets quarterly to review their goals and progress.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

70. For example, their broiler program’s annual goal for this year was “to secure policies that affect 120 million birds.” This goal is reasonably specific, since Compassion USA seeks broiler pledges that include four specific changes: “(1) a change in breed of chicken, (2) more space for the chickens, (3) a better environment for the chickens with changed lighting and enrichments, and (4) controlled atmosphere stunning.” It is measurable, and it refers to a metric that is clearly relevant to effectively helping farmed animals. It is empirically achievable, since Compassion USA has already met it. And as a goal for the year, it is time-bound as well. This information can be found in our Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017). 

71. “Compassion USA is launching ‘EggTrack,’ the first report of which will be publicized in September [2017]. This will track companies against their cage-free commitments.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

72. “While the first phase was to secure commitments from companies, Compassion USA is turning towards its second phase—which is tracking and holding companies to their commitments, including providing them with any tools or insights that they need in order to do this[.]” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

73. “They used to run a program called Pastured Poultry Week to encourage farm-to-table restaurants to switch from factory farmed chickens to “pastured poultry” chicken. Through doing a survey to calculate how many animals were impacted, they decided that this intervention took too much effort and money compared to the impact Compassion USA could have by focusing on larger companies. They decided that a smaller welfare improvement for a much larger number of animals was preferable.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

74. “They used to run a program called Pastured Poultry Week to encourage farm-to-table restaurants to switch from factory farmed chickens to ‘pastured poultry’ chicken.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

75. “Through doing a survey to calculate how many animals were impacted, they decided that this intervention took too much effort and money compared to the impact Compassion USA could have by focusing on larger companies. They decided that a smaller welfare improvement for a much larger number of animals was preferable.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

76. “After considering things through the lens of effective altruism, Compassion USA has changed their “ask” to companies by removing their strict maximum growth rate of 50g per day for broiler chickens; they believe that concrete welfare outcomes are more important because a faster growth rate might actually lead to fewer days of life and suffering for each animal. They are now asking specifically for better welfare outcomes, rather than slower growth rates.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

77. “Genetic selection for high growth rates and breast meat has increased the risk of physiological imbalance, resulting in heart and circulation failures such as ascites and Heart Failure Syndrome. Fast-growing, heavy birds need more specific optimum conditions to be specified. Problems arise when housing and management conditions are further away from optimum. In sub-optimal conditions it may be better to grow birds with lower growth potential to prevent welfare from becoming a serious issue. A broiler with a genetically lower growth potential may in fact contribute to improved welfare in commercial operations” —van Middelkoop, K., van Harn, J., Wiers, W. J., & van Horne, P. (2002). Slower growing broilers pose lower welfare risks. World Poultry, 18(8), 20-21. 

78. “Selection for fast early growth rate and feeding and management procedures which support growth have lead [sic] to various welfare problems in modern broiler strains. Problems which are directly linked to growth rate are metabolic disorders causing mortality by the Sudden Death Syndrome and ascites. Fast growth rate is generally accompanied by decreased locomotor activity and extended time spent sitting or lying. The lack of exercise is considered a main cause of leg weakness, and extreme durations of sitting on poor quality litter produces skin lesions at the breast and the legs. Management factors which slow down early growth alleviate many welfare problems. Alternatively it may be considered to use slow growing strains which do not have the above mentioned welfare problems.” —Bessei, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62(3), 455-466. 

79. When asked about concerns that adopting slow-growing breeds could lead to more suffering overall, Compassion USA replied that “[w]e have certainly shared that concern. As such, we have done extensive calculations to look at this problem, and it is one we have been concerned about. […] We worked with other organizations like Mercy For Animals, The Humane League and HSUS to understand this in detail over many months before we jointly agreed an ask to companies. The conclusion was that we should not focus on slower growth, but rather better welfare outcomes.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

80. “Compassion USA collaborated with 7 other organizations to agree on a joint ‘ask’ to companies for broiler chickens. This collaboration was public and made clear to the companies, after the companies noted that they were hearing different nuances of the ‘asks’ from different groups.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

81. “It also made the negotiations with corporations a bit more complicated, because instead of asking for the concrete 50g per day limit, they have been asking companies to wait for the outcomes of a study at the University of Guelph, which will determine a list of breeds that have acceptable welfare outcomes.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

82. “This study will help create a way to objectively evaluate different genetic strains using a comprehensive list of parameters related to behavior, growth, health and production with the end goal of improving chicken welfare and specifically address the many issues resulting from fast-growing breeds.” —Business wire. (2017). GAP Provides Funding for University of Guelph Study in Support of Better Chicken Welfare Initiative. Business Wire. 

83. “Garces is not sure whether the final outcome will be different, because she expects that it will be the slower-growth breeds that have better welfare outcomes, but it is a shift in their thinking.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

84. Note that these estimates refer to the amount of time spent suffering by animals whose suffering will be reduced by pledges Compassion USA has contributed to, without reference to the amount of suffering reduced. This differs from the ‘years of suffering averted’ estimated in ACE models, which weight different forms of suffering based on Researchers’ estimates of their intensity. Because these calculations are “complicated and controversial,” Compassion USA currently does not perform them, which we believe is a reasonable choice. For further information see Compassion USA’s Cost Effectiveness Estimate Statement of Transparency. 

85. As detailed in their Statement of Transparency explaining these estimates, Compassion USA’s cost-effectiveness estimates share impact evenly across all member organizations in a coalition, only count time during which a chicken was awake (and above a certain age, for broiler chickens), and account for the fraction of a company’s layer hens known to already be cage-free. When supply-chain data is not available, they either make estimates based on pertinent information such as industry analyses or market share, make range estimates, or simply do not incorporate a pledge into their cost-effectiveness estimate. They also include all Compassion USA expenses when calculating the costs associated with their results. 

86. If a company with a million layer hens pledged in 2017 to adopt cage-free practices by, say, 2025, Compassion USA would estimate this pledge to affect a million hens per year in 2025 and the following years. However, they also assume that the pledge will lead the company to transition ⅛ of its total chickens over to the pledged system each year, so that the pledge causes ⅛ of a million chickens to have improved welfare conditions in year one, ¼ to have these conditions year two, ⅜ in year three, and so on. Based on this method, gradual welfare reform adoption corresponds to an effective 4.5 million years of chicken life improved. If the pledge was to adopt the same practices by 2027, the effect of partial adoption would correspond instead to 5.5 million years of life improved. Our understanding is that Compassion USA’s cost-effectiveness estimations take this “implementation impact” effect, as well as the effect of five years of full implementation, as the basis for the impact of a given campaign, and that they assign credit for half of the “implementation impact,” but not the five years of full impact, to the year the pledge was achieved. (See page 9 of Compassion USA’s Statement of Transparency regarding their 2016 cost-effectiveness estimates.)

    Of course, this system is meant to provide rough approximations of charities’ outcomes, and it makes some simplifying assumptions to do so. However, we think the way the implementation effect is calculated can unduly reward Compassion USA for making pledges with long-term payoffs, and does not accurately represent the effect charities have on company policy. In particular, it is possible that the targeted company would transition to new policies later if not campaigned against now, and that this hypothetical process would involve a similar duration of implementation—if so, the implementation impact would overestimate the pledge’s effects. 

87. ACE’s models of corporate outreach tend to assume that pledges lead to an average effect of policies being enacted about 5.5 years earlier. This includes any effect from corporations adopting new policies for an increasing fraction of the animals they raise over time. Compassion USA aims to follow ACE and the Open Philanthropy Project‘s models by assuming that campaigns cause policies to be adopted five years earlier, but adds an effect from the estimated partial adoption of the new policy over time. In addition to estimating a larger effect for pledges the longer-term they are, this adjustment makes Compassion USA’s estimates of years of suffering averted considerably larger than ACE’s; for a pledge with a 10-year time to implementation, Compassion USA would estimate a corresponding to speeding up the adoption of these policies by 10.5 years, where ACE would estimate 5.5 years on average.

    Further, this implementation effect may not accurately reflect a counterfactual result of the pledge; if a company would have later decided to roll out the same policy over a similar length of time, the main effect of a corporate outreach campaign would be to speed up the overall process. 

88. See Compassion USA’s Statement of Transparency regarding their 2016 cost-effectiveness estimates. 

89. Of course, this is also likely to be inaccurate in some respects, particularly with regard to counterfactual effects. A shorter time horizon of policy change may be due to a company that was relatively willing to make the change or that was already considering doing so, rather than a particularly effective campaign. It is difficult to evaluate such concerns, and Compassion USA does not aim to do so in their CEEs. We still believe the proposed change would likely improve the guidance Compassion USA receives from these estimates. 

90. “Yes, our mission is the same for all of Compassion In World Farming, to end factory farming.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

91. “Garces sees Compassion USA’s role to primarily be that of the “good cop” in corporate engagement. They’re the ones who negotiate with companies, and the ones who delve into whether companies are really adhering to their commitments. However, even if they don’t use the same tactics as other organizations, they’re aligned in terms of their goals—and that alignment makes it easier to secure commitments from companies.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

92. “Secondly, Compassion USA is also seeking to expand their work into Latin America, which further funding could help with. They are currently doing a piece of research in Brazil, Mexico, and three other countries.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

93. “Compassion USA meets as a team in October to set their own goals, then meets quarterly to review their goals and progress.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

94. When asked whether they had a strategic plan, Compassion USA responded as follows: “Compassion USA is connected to the larger, international CIWF organization, headquartered in the U.K., which has offices and representatives in 12 countries. To provide greater context to Compassion USA, attached is the CIWF international strategic plan. However, it is important to note that Compassion USA will continue its focus on corporate policy change and public engagement.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

95. Private communication with Leah Garces of Compassion USA (November 2017 

96. “Yes, our mission is the same for all of Compassion In World Farming, to end factory farming.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

97. This document was shared with ACE by Compassion USA. The mention of impact as a value appears to be new to the 2018–2022 plan, though the mention of scientific evidence as a value is not. 

98. This document was shared with ACE by Compassion USA. 

99. “Garces notes that these other organizations [who participated in shaping the broiler ask] have very different tactics and roles (for example, Compassion USA doesn’t do investigations, while others do). Garces sees Compassion USA’s role to primarily be that of the “good cop” in corporate engagement. They’re the ones who negotiate with companies, and the ones who delve into whether companies are really adhering to their commitments.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

100. “Compassion USA is launching ‘EggTrack,’ the first report of which will be publicized in September. This will track companies against their cage-free commitments.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

101. “Secondly, Compassion USA is also seeking to expand their work into Latin America, which further funding could help with. They are currently doing a piece of research in Brazil, Mexico, and three other countries. Garces feels that this is important to consolidate successes in the U.S., because of the trading relationships these countries have with American companies […] She also notes that although Brazil is one of the largest chicken producers in the world, no one is doing work on improving broiler welfare there. Compassion USA has been told that they would be welcomed there. Similarly, no one is working towards broiler welfare in Mexico at present.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

102. “Secondly, Compassion USA is also seeking to expand their work into Latin America, which further funding could help with. They are currently doing a piece of research in Brazil, Mexico, and three other countries. […] Garces therefore hopes that Mexican companies will make broiler sourcing commitments similar to those that CIWF has pushed for in the U.S., since they represent a nontrivial fraction of demand for U.S. broilers. She also notes that although Brazil is one of the largest chicken producers in the world, no one is doing work on improving broiler welfare there.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

103. These Board Members and their backgrounds are listed in the Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017). 

104. See these three standards for nonprofits in the U.S. suggesting between five and seven Board Members as a minimum. 

105. We’re aware of two studies of nonprofit board diversity that found that diverse boards are associated with better fundraising and social performance, as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision making. 

106. “Compassion USA meets as a team in October to set their own goals, then meets quarterly to review their goals and progress. […] The board approves the goals annually; they ask questions but rarely change the goals.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

107. “The board approves the goals annually; they ask questions but rarely change the goals.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

108. This may be in part because Compassion USA aims to set goals that they know the board will approve of. 

109. “Compassion USA meets as a team in October to set their own goals, then meets quarterly to review their goals and progress.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

110. “We have a collaborative relationship with CIWF in that we communicate with them about our goals and initiatives and receive feedback from them given their experience. Our long term planning is informed by and aligned with the international strategy. However, at the end of the day, Compassion USA makes the final call on what we will do and how it will be done in the U.S.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

111. In a private communication with ACE during November 2017, Leah Garces of Compassion USA informed us that as a branch of CIWF, their strategy feeds into CIWF’s global strategy—so they are guided by CIWF’s global strategic plan. She told us that she has spent a lot of time providing input to this plan. 

112. “[I]t is important to note that Compassion USA will continue its focus on corporate policy change and public engagement. The international focus on advocating for better legislation or engaging the United Nations is primarily the work of the other countries where CIWF has a presence. […] In the U.S., influencing political policy is far more difficult than, say, our Compassion office in Belgium or Poland. So, within that international strategy, our focus is changing corporate policy and growing the social movement.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

113. “We received a two-year expansion grant from the Open Philanthropy Project in 2016 that expanded the CIWF staff from three people to seven people.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018)

     That grant was for $550,000 over two years, while Compassion USA budgeted to spend $571,112 in total during the first year of the grant and $677,127 during the second year. Budget figures are from Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018). 

114. “Each staff member has $2,000 annually to invest as they choose in their own professional development and staff needs. […] Compassion USA has begun surveying staff about staff morale and work climate […] She believes that half of the staff are raising children, and that Compassion USA has a very good maternity policy and support for families and a balanced worklife.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

115. “We received a two-year expansion grant from the Open Philanthropy Project in 2016 that expanded the CIWF staff from three people to seven people.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018)

     That grant was for $550,000 over two years, while Compassion USA budgeted to spend $571,112 in total during the first year of the grant. This level of reliance on a single funder is among the highest we’ve seen from our comprehensively reviewed organizations. Budget figure is from Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018). 

116. “Garces hopes that the Open Philanthropy Project will re-invest the same amount again, but thinks that if this does not happen it will change Compassion USA’s funding situation significantly. She would also like to receive funding from the U.K. headquarters to hire a staff member dedicated to fundraising for Compassion USA.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

117. “Compassion USA is connected to the larger, international CIWF organization, headquartered in the U.K., which has offices and representatives in 12 countries.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

118. “Compassion USA was, before last year, receiving funding from the U.K. headquarters—but from that point on they raised the funds to support themselves, primarily through their December appeal.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

119. “Compassion USA was, before last year, receiving funding from the U.K. headquarters—but from that point on they raised the funds to support themselves, primarily through their December appeal.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

120. “She would also like to receive funding from the U.K. headquarters to hire a staff member dedicated to fundraising for Compassion USA.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

121. “We received a two-year expansion grant from the Open Philanthropy Project in 2016 that expanded the CIWF staff from three people to seven people.” —Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018)

     That grant was for $550,000 over two years, while Compassion USA budgeted to spend $571,112 in total during the first year of the grant and $677,127 during the second year. Budget figures are from Compassion in World Farming USA’s Budget (2016–2018). 

122. Further information about this grant can be found here. 

123. “Garces hopes that the Open Philanthropy Project will re-invest the same amount again, but thinks that if this does not happen it will change Compassion USA’s funding situation significantly.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

124. “She would also like to receive funding from the U.K. headquarters to hire a staff member dedicated to fundraising for Compassion USA.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

125. “At this time, excluding Open Philanthropy Project grants, our giving is roughly 75% foundations and 25% individuals.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

126. “Each staff member has $2,000 annually to invest as they choose in their own professional development and staff needs. The use of this money varies; some use this for workshops and training, others for trips on which they feel they will learn something.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

127. Private communication with an employee of Compassion in World Farming USA, 2017 

128. This year we attempted to speak confidentially with two non-leadership staff members from each comprehensively evaluated charity. To protect their confidentiality, what we learned in these conversations is paraphrased in the review, and references to these conversations are identified only as “Private communication with an employee of [Charity], 2017.” For more information, see our blog post discussing this change. 

129. Private communication with an employee of Compassion in World Farming USA, 2017 

130. “Garces notes that Compassion USA currently has more women, including in leadership positions, than is typical for the movement. She believes that half of the staff are raising children, and that Compassion USA has a very good maternity policy and support for families and a balanced worklife. […] However, in terms of people of color, she doesn’t think they’re doing as well.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

131. “Garces notes that Compassion USA currently has more women, including in leadership positions, than is typical for the movement.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

132. “Even though the majority of animal advocates are women, our Top Charities and many of our Standout Charities―and ACE itself―are led by Executive Directors who are white men.” —Adleberg, T. (2017). How Can We Integrate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion into the Animal Advocacy Movement? Animal Charity Evaluators.  

133. “Garces is on the board of a new organization called Encompass, the purpose of which is to increase diversity within the animal advocacy movement. She hopes that this involvement will give her some new ideas about how to encourage diversity in the future.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

134. “She believes that half of the staff are raising children, and that Compassion USA has a very good maternity policy and support for families and a balanced worklife. She sees this as unusual among animal advocacy groups and suggests that this may have affected their tactics—including creating videos aimed at families, parents, or children, such as a “Wonder Woman” parody to target Moe’s.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

135. Private communication with an employee of Compassion in World Farming USA, 2017 

136. “She believes that half of the staff are raising children, and that Compassion USA has a very good maternity policy and support for families and a balanced worklife. She sees this as unusual among animal advocacy groups and suggests that this may have affected their tactics—including creating videos aimed at families, parents, or children, such as a “Wonder Woman” parody to target Moe’s.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

137. “Secondly, Compassion USA is also seeking to expand their work into Latin America, which further funding could help with. […] She notes that she herself is half-Colombian, and one other staff member is Costa Rican, and that this Hispanic background might influence Compassion USA’s perspective.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

138. Private communication with an employee of Compassion in World Farming USA, 2017 

139. “CIWF (HQ) has a general policy book, which covers procedures including those for dealing with workplace harassment.” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

140. “She says that they are working on creating a U.S. handbook based on the global policy book, which will include ‘U.S.-specific processes.'” —Conversation with Leah Garces of Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

141. During our review process we performed Google searches wherein we paired the terms “harassment,” “discrimination,” and “lawsuit” with the names of senior members of each organization’s leadership. 

142. This does not include the number of wild fish caught and processed into food for farmed fish. It is likely that many fish are killed this way; we estimated ten for every farmed fish consumed in the U.S. However, empirical data is scarce and ethical opinions differ when it comes to helping wild fish. We believe it is highly unclear whether fishing leads to overall worse outcomes for fish, given that the alternative may be a similar or worse death later on, and the additional lifespan won may be net negative for the fish. However, some argue that our obligation is to reduce the harm caused by humans to animals, rather than the overall suffering they experience. Given the high uncertainty involved in attempting to help wild fish, we focused on asking charities about improving the well-being of farmed fish. 

143. The estimate of 37 billion–120 billion fish is based on 2010 data. The Open Philanthropy Project has adjusted this estimate for growth since 2010 and estimates that now 50 billion–170 billion fish are farmed annually. However, the methodology they’ve used for this adjustment is not public. 

144. The number of land animals comes from the FAO’s 2014 data, accessed here. They provide estimates of 326,294,875 animals slaughtered for beef and buffalo meat, 66,234,895,000 animals slaughtered for poultry meat, and 989,247,558 animals slaughtered for sheep and goat meat, as well as 7,253,785,000 active laying hens and 765,916,303 active milk animals.

     The number of land animals does not include farmed insects, which may also add up to the billions—and are also not a major target of campaigns at present. 

145. “So far, effective altruists concerned with animal suffering have seen these criteria as supporting interventions that improve the lives of layer hens, and they now seem to think that these criteria support directing efforts toward broilers. In this paper, however, we argue that the effective altruist framework commits animal advocates to focus at least much attention—if not more—on fish.” —Elder, M., & Fischer, B. (2017). Focus on Fish: A Call to Effective Altruists. Essays in Philosophy, 18(1), 7. 

146. We think advocates’ views on which animals the public is likely to be concerned about are likely primarily influenced by intuition and experience, though MFA has conducted a survey that provided some evidence suggesting that the people tend to find fish less intelligent and less able to feel than other common animals used for food. 

147. For example, in our 2016 review of the Albert Schweitzer Foundation, we noted that they had developed a program for improving trout welfare, and they were considering developing programs for other species—but they expected that this would need to be a separate project, meaning that affecting the aquaculture industry as a whole might be a deceptively large project. 

148. The Mercy For Animals study is presented in two parts, one section on neutral messaging and one on activist messaging. 

149. For more on the Albert Schweitzer Foundation’s programs, see our 2016 review. 

150. “CIWF HQ received a grant this year to conduct research into farmed fish and analyze both what legislation and corporate policy approaches are feasible. We are inputting into this.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

151. “Depending on the outcomes and recommendations, and hopefully with increased income, we plan to work on fish in the coming years.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

152. “Also, GAP received a grant to work on salmon standards, which we are also looking into. We believe that in terms of number of animals and likelihood of success, salmon would be the likely area of focus for our USA office.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

153. “Also, GAP received a grant to work on salmon standards, which we are also looking into. We believe that in terms of number of animals and likelihood of success, salmon would be the likely area of focus for our USA office.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

154. “Animal advocates give awards to slaughterhouse designers and publicly praise supermarket chains that sell supposed “humanely” raised and slaughtered corpses and other “happy” animal products. This approach does not lead people incrementally in the right direction. Rather, it gives them a reason to justify going backwards. It focuses on animal treatment rather than animal use and deludes people into thinking that welfare regulations are actually resulting in significant protection for animals.” —Francione, G. (2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

155. “While cage free eggs may be more humane than battery cage eggs, they are still far from ideal. […] Offering minor improvements for the way we treat farmed animals is a small step, however, it should not be misinterpreted as a win.” —Buff, E. (2015). Why California’s New Animal Welfare Law is a HUGE Lesson for Animal Activists. One Green Planet. 

156. Although most advocates agree that it is less bad for an animal to be raised for food with less suffering, some believe that the act of farming animals is intrinsically harmful and even if we reduced or eliminated suffering in animal agriculture, it would still be very bad. Gary Francione has made claims that seem to suggest this view, such as: “They are angry that I am what they call an “absolutist” who maintains that we cannot justify *any* animal use. They are right. I am an absolutist in this regard—just as I am an “absolutist” with respect to rape, child molestation, and other violations of fundamental human rights. Indeed, I would not have it any other way. Absolutism is the only morally acceptable response to the violation of fundamental rights whether of humans or nonhumans.” —Francione, G. (2015). A Lot Of People are Angry with Me—and they are Right. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

157. Cage-free systems might also cause or increase some welfare issues. For instance, in cage-free systems, “hens stir up dust while walking on the floor, which contains some of the birds’ manure, elevating ammonia levels.” —Kesmodel, D. (2015). Cage-Free Hens Study Finds Little Difference in Egg Quality. Wall Street Journal. 

158. We ourselves have expressed this concern, such as in our report on corporate outreach, even though we believe overall that humane reform has a net benefit on the likelihood of further improvements for animals. 

159. “Is it not just a little ironic that a representative of the Meat and Livestock Commission understands perfectly what is going on here? “Happy” meat makes “the whole thing look more acceptable.” “Happy” meat means more meat eaters and more slaughtered animals.” —Francione, G. (2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

160. “There is a clear trend that suggests Chipotle and McDonald’s are playing something close to a zero-sum game for customers. U.S. bar and restaurant sales grew just 2.9% in 2014, according to Technomic. After inflation, restaurants are fighting for a larger slice of a fixed pie.” —Cooper, T. (2015). Why Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Will Eat McDonald’s Corporation’s Lunch. The Motley Fool. 

161. See, for example:
     Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). “Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products.” Animal Charity Evaluators.
     Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). “Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
     Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). “Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
     Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). “Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

162. “For example, thanks to Josh Balk’s [of Hampton Creek Foods] relationship with Compass Group, Compass Group has switched to Just Mayo for all their mayonnaise, which has removed an unbelievable number of eggs from the supply chain. Similarly, THL is campaigning for Shake Shack to sell veggie burgers at the moment. This kind of work would be very valuable: directly, for the animals involved, and indirectly, for the news coverage produced.” —Conversation with David Coman-Hidy of The Humane League (2015) 

163. “We don’t have any evidence to date that companies have become more complacent regarding suffering of farmed animals due to their commitments to ban the most extreme confinement practices.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

164. “In fact, we feel the institutional partnerships put animal welfare more at the center of the public eye and at the center of companies’ brands. It makes animal welfare more central to company identity and core to their culture.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

165. “It also requires companies to be more accountable. Without these public commitments, farmed animal issues could remain in the shadows and companies could exist without any accountability at all to the farmed animals.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

166. “The first question is does the improvement quantifiably reduce suffering? But we know that alone is not enough, as every year more and more animals are being consumed despite the improvements. Total suffering in this way could continue to increase if we don’t tackle overall ever increasing meat consumption.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

167. “As such, we have a new project where we will be recommending ‘protein diversification’ to food companies, in which we will ask companies to reduce protein purchases from animals, and increase protein purchase from plant based sources.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

168. “[A]nimal welfare measures make the public feel better about animal exploitation and this encourages continued animal use. Indeed, it is clear that people who have avoided animal foods because of concerns about animal treatment are returning to eating them after being told by animal welfare organizations that animals are being treated more ‘humanely.'” —Francione, G. (2007). The Four Problems of Animal Welfare: In A Nutshell. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

169. Similar sentiments have been voiced by animal advocacy organization Direct Action Everywhere: “[C]orporations like Whole Foods have manipulated our concern for animals, creating a massive industry fueled by ideas like compassionate captivity and humane slaughter.” —It’s Not Food, It’s Violence. Direct Action Everywhere. 

170. Although most advocates agree that it is less bad for an animal to be raised for food with less suffering, some believe that the act of farming animals is intrinsically harmful and even if we reduced or eliminated suffering in animal agriculture, it would still be very bad. Gary Francione has made claims that seem to suggest this view, such as: “They are angry that I am what they call an “absolutist” who maintains that we cannot justify *any* animal use. They are right. I am an absolutist in this regard—just as I am an “absolutist” with respect to rape, child molestation, and other violations of fundamental human rights. Indeed, I would not have it any other way. Absolutism is the only morally acceptable response to the violation of fundamental rights whether of humans or nonhumans.” —Francione, G. (2015). A Lot Of People are Angry with Me—and they are Right. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

171. “The strength of our organization, an animal welfare organization, in the ecology of organizations pushing for change is that we specifically do not say if animals should or should not be used.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

172. “We do say that when they are used, they must be treated in a way that meets their needs and wants.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

173. “With this position we are able to reach across a broad spectrum of stakeholders and make progress. We find the place everyone can agree, and start making progress from there, one step at a time, measurably reducing suffering.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

174. For example, animal advocacy organization Direct Action Everywhere describes “inherent violence” as a key flaw in welfare-based approaches, stating that “[a]s long as animals are considered property, objects, commodities, there will be exploitation and there will be violence. […] The idea that we can exploit others because they are of another species must end.” —It’s Not Food, It’s Violence. Direct Action Everywhere. 

175. “Focusing our advocacy on antispeciesism may be our best bet. In short, antispeciesist advocacy looks very promising because it encompasses all nonhuman animals and implies great obligations toward them, and also because people may be especially receptive to such advocacy. More than that, antispeciesism is also likely to remain relevant for a long time, which makes it seem uniquely robust when we consider things from a very long-term perspective. […] Antispeciesism addresses all the ways in which we discriminate against nonhuman animals, not just select sites of that discrimination, like circuses or food farms. Unlike more common approaches to animal advocacy, it demands that we take all forms of suffering endured by nonhuman animals into consideration.” —Vinding, M. (2016). Animal advocates should focus on antispeciesism, not veganism. Sentience Politics archive. 

176. “I think all of our work is focused on bringing front of mind the inherent problems with using animals for food.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

177. “We ask companies and consumers alike to recognize farmed animals as sentient beings and act accordingly.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

178. “In many of our approaches to companies we explicitly discuss how the physiology of a dog/cat is not different that a cow/pig.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

179. “It’s one of our best ways to reach people and get them to really think through the life of farmed animals carefully, and recognize that how we treat these animals is fundamentally an injustice.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

180. In addition to Compassion USA being one of eight signatory organizations who negotiated the ask, each of the three forms of the ask make reference to GAP standards. Compassion USA’s Executive Director Leah Garces is on the board of GAP, and our impression is that Compassion USA has played a significant role in shaping these standards. 

181. “[…T]he most troubling thing about this [broiler breed] campaign is the direct harm it may cause. According to an industry document, the meat yield of slower growing breeds may be about 15% lower than the conventional ones. This is not an exact figure, because different breeds and practices will produce different results, but if it’s even in the ballpark, it means that hundreds of millions of additional birds would be farmed to produce the same amount of marketable body parts.” —Nathan, Harrison. (2017). The Problems with Animal Charity Evaluators, in Brief. Medium. 

182. “Genetic selection for high growth rates and breast meat has increased the risk of physiological imbalance, resulting in heart and circulation failures such as ascites and Heart Failure Syndrome. Fast-growing, heavy birds need more specific optimum conditions to be specified. Problems arise when housing and management conditions are further away from optimum. In sub optimal conditions it may be better to grow birds with lower growth potential to prevent welfare from becoming a serious issue. A broiler with a genetically lower growth potential may in fact contribute to improved welfare in commercial operations” —van Middelkoop, K., Van Harn, J., Wiers, W. J., & Van Horne, P. (2002). Slower growing broilers pose lower welfare risks. World Poultry, 18(8), 20-21. 

183. “Selection for fast early growth rate and feeding and management procedures which support growth have lead [sic] to various welfare problems in modern broiler strains. Problems which are directly linked to growth rate are metabolic disorders causing mortality by the Sudden Death Syndrome and ascites. Fast growth rate is generally accompanied by decreased locomotor activity and extended time spent sitting or lying. The lack of exercise is considered a main cause of leg weakness, and extreme durations of sitting on poor quality litter produces skin lesions at the breast and the legs. Management factors which slow down early growth alleviate many welfare problems. Alternatively it may be considered to use slow growing strains which do not have the above mentioned welfare problems.” —Bessei, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62(3), 455-466. 

184. Based on our own analysis, ACE believes that these broiler reforms do run a significant risk of causing more suffering for broiler chickens overall, but that they will most likely lead to a decrease in total broiler suffering. 

185. “We have certainly shared that concern. As such, we have done extensive calculations to look at this problem, and it is one we have been concerned about. I am happy to share graphs and calculations (one example attached) that considered what extending the number of days might mean for total days of suffering.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

186. “We worked with other organizations like Mercy For Animals, The Humane League and HSUS to understand this in details over many months before we jointly agreed an ask to companies.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

187. “The conclusion was that we should not focus on slower growth, but rather better welfare outcomes. As such we no longer ask companies for slower growth or a specific growth rate, but rather better welfare outcomes.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017) 

188. “These leaves the door open to breeders that if they can grow the birds faster and still meet improved welfare outcomes, we would support that, not least because it would mean putting fewer animals through the system. We do feel it is unlikely though that breeders can overcome the welfare outcomes associated with fast growth, as all scientific evidence to date suggests it is directly related to the fast growth.” —Follow-Up Questions for Compassion in World Farming USA (2017)