Fish Welfare Initiative
Archived ReviewFish Welfare Initiative (FWI) works to improve the welfare of farmed fishes. The majority of their work takes place in India, but they also work or have worked in China and the Philippines. Their main program in India, the Alliance For Responsible Aquaculture, involves them working directly with fish farmers to implement mainly water quality improvements. FWI also heavily invests in Research and Development on the ground to identify more cost effective welfare improvements. FWI became a Recommended Charity in 2022.
| Primary area of work: | Industrial Agriculture |
| Review Published: | 2022 |
| Current Version | 2024 |
Archived Version: 2022
What does Fish Welfare Initiative do, and are their programs promising ways to advocate for animals?
Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) mainly develops their programs in India, but they conduct some work in China and the Philippines. They run the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture, which works to improve the welfare of farmed fishes by engaging farmers to commit to higher-welfare standards, following up on implementation, and organizing trainings. Additionally, they conduct research and develop capacity-building initiatives in the farmed fish welfare movement, and they have started work on corporate and government outreach. Because most of FWI’s spending on programs goes toward animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions that we consider high (or very high) priority, we assessed the expected effectiveness of FWI’s programs as very high.
Taking into account their spending, are their programs cost effective?
After analyzing the achievements and costs of FWI’s programs, we assigned each one a cost-effectiveness rating. Of all of FWI’s programs, we believe their government outreach and Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture programs in India are the most cost effective (rated very high). In contrast, we believe their capacity-building programs in China and the Philippines are comparatively less cost effective (although still rated high to very high).
Overall, we assess the cost effectiveness of FWI’s work as high to very high.
How much additional funding could they use?
We estimate that FWI has room for $325,000 in additional funding in 2023 and $250,000 in 2024, beyond their current projected revenues in those years. Therefore, we believe that they could utilize a total revenue of up to $1,126,000 in 2023 and $1,552,000 in 2024.
Do we have concerns about their leadership and culture?
We did not detect any significant concerns with FWI’s leadership and organizational culture.
Why did they receive our recommendation?
The main interventions used by FWI (producer outreach, research, and capacity building) are likely to be very effective in increasing the welfare of farmed fishes and strengthening the animal advocacy movement. Additionally, FWI’s policy work in India targets a high-priority country and is particularly cost effective. These efforts are well-aligned with ACE’s philosophical foundation and cause area priorities.
FWI performed strongly on both the Programs and Cost Effectiveness criteria compared to other charities we evaluated. Based on our assessment of their performance on our four evaluation criteria—Programs, Cost Effectiveness, Room for More Funding, and Leadership and Culture—compared to other charities we reviewed this year, we find FWI to be an excellent giving opportunity and recommend them.
Introduction
Each year, Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) compiles comprehensive reviews of all organizations that agree to participate in our evaluation process. During our evaluation period, our research team thoroughly examines publicly available information and solicits additional materials and information from participating organizations.
This review is the finished product of our evaluation of Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI), and it contains our assessment of their performance on ACE’s four charity evaluation criteria. This review includes sections that each focus on a separate criterion: (i) an assessment of the effectiveness of a charity’s programs, (ii) a cost-effectiveness analysis of their recent work, (iii) an estimate of their ability to use additional funding effectively, and (iv) an evaluation of their leadership and culture.
Programs
In this criterion, we assess the expected effectiveness of a charity’s programs without considering their particular achievements. (For more information on recent program costs and achievements, see the Cost Effectiveness criterion.) During our assessment, we analyze the groups of animals the charity’s programs affect, the countries in which they take place, the outcomes they work toward, and the interventions they use to achieve those outcomes, as well as how the charity allocates their spending toward different programs. A charity that performs well on this criterion has programs that are expected to be highly effective in reducing the suffering of animals. The key aspects that ACE considers when examining a charity’s programs are reviewed in detail below.
Method
ACE characterizes effective programs as those that (i) target high-priority animal groups, (ii) work in high-priority countries, (iii) work toward high-priority outcomes, and/or (iv) pursue interventions that are expected to be highly effective. This year, we used a scoring framework to assess the effectiveness of charities’ programs on each of these categories: animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions.
We scored the priority levels of different types of animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions (i.e., categories) using the Scale, Tractability, and Neglectedness (STN) framework; for countries, we also included an assessment of global influence. Members of ACE’s research team individually scored various types in each category using their own percentage weights for STN. We averaged these scores and percentage weights to calculate an overall priority level score for each type. For ease of interpretation, we categorized these scores into priority levels of very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.
We then used information supplied by the charity to estimate the percentage of program funding spent on different types of animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions. Using those estimates and our priority level scores, we arrived at a singular program score for each charity, representing the expected effectiveness of their collective programs.
A note about long-term impact
Each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.7 The potential number of animals affected increases over time due to an accumulation of generations. Thus, we would expect that the long-term impacts of an action would likely affect more animals than the short-term impacts of the same action. This year, we included some considerations of long-term impact in our assessment of each outcome and intervention type. Nevertheless, we are highly uncertain about the particular long-term effects of each intervention. Because of this uncertainty, our reasoning about each charity’s impact (along with our diagrams) will skew toward emphasizing short-term effects.
Information and Analysis
Cause areas and animal groups
FWI’s programs focus exclusively on helping farmed animals, which we think is a high-priority cause area.
In particular, FWI focuses on helping farmed fishes, which we consider to be a high priority animal group.
Countries
FWI has separate registered entities in the U.S. and India. They mainly develop their programs in India, but they also do some work in China and the Philippines.
| Country | Scale | Tractability | Global influence | Neglectedness | |||
| FAOI Scale data (0–100 range) | FAOI Global Ranking (100% scale) | FAOI Tractability data (36.7–84.9 range) | FAOI Global Ranking (100% tractability) | FAOI Global influence data (0.1–70.6 range) | FAOI Global Ranking (100% global influence) | Human population (in millions) per farmed animal advocacy org | |
| India | 55.5 | 2 | 46 | 57 | 7.4 | 23 | ~31 |
| China | 100 | 1 | 56 | 44 | 25.1 | 5 | ~39.2 |
| Philippines | 5.7 | 10 | 50.2 | 55 | 2.1 | 41 | ~22.2 |
For each country, we report Mercy For Animals’ FAOI data and global ranking (out of 60 countries) for scale, tractability, and global influence. We report these scores alongside the human population per farmed animal advocacy organization in the country (out of a total of 753 organizations, excluding sanctuaries, that ACE is aware of worldwide), which we used to assess neglectedness.
Most of FWI’s work targets countries that are high priority based on their FAOI data of scale (China and India) and low priority based on their FAOI data on tractability and global influence (India and the Philippines). Additionally, our assessment suggests that farmed animal advocacy in the countries where FWI works is highly neglected. Overall, we conclude that most of FWI’s work targets high-priority countries.
Description of programs
FWI pursues different outcomes to create change for animals. Their work focuses on improving welfare standards, and to a lesser extent, also aims to strengthen the animal advocacy movement.
We use theory of change diagrams to communicate our interpretation of how a charity creates change for animals. It is important to note that these diagrams are not 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.
Below, we describe each of FWI’s programs and the main interventions they use, listed in order of financial resources devoted to them in the last 18 months. Refer to FWI’s general information request and our Cost Effectiveness criterion for more detailed information.
FWI’s programs
Research for intervention effectiveness
We categorized the work FWI does into five intervention types: capacity building, research, producer outreach, corporate outreach, and legal or policy work. Below we summarize the most relevant research on the effectiveness of each of these intervention types, listed in order of financial resources devoted to them in the last 18 months (from highest to lowest).
Capacity Building
Capacity building enables organizations to develop the competencies and skills to make their team more effective and sustainable, thus increasing their potential to fulfill their mission and create change.8 ACE’s 2018 research on the allocation of movement resources suggests that capacity building is neglected relative to other interventions aimed at influencing public opinion and industry. Others have argued that many effective animal advocacy organizations could benefit from capacity-building services, specifically from career services and greater diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, especially in the longer term.9
Research
Conducting research relevant to animal advocacy is a generally promising intervention, especially when considering its potential effects in the longer term. Due to the lack of empirical evidence about the extent to which research results are used by the animal advocacy movement to prioritize and implement their work, our confidence in the short-term effects of this intervention is low. We think the impact of research has a particularly high variance; some research projects can be far more influential than others, and researchers’ rigor seems to be a key factor in their impact. Considering an overview of issues in the research system related to the choice of research questions, the quality and reproducibility of research, and the use of results may be particularly important when determining the impact of research projects.10
Producer outreach
We are not currently aware of any peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of producer outreach to improve animal welfare standards. However, a literature review suggests that increasing farmers’ knowledge of farmed animal welfare is an important factor in influencing their views about it.11 The review also suggests that the economic disadvantages of implementing farmed animal welfare standards are a highly influential factor in farmers’ views and behaviors about improving animal welfare.
Corporate outreach
There is some evidence that corporate outreach leads food companies to change their practices related to chicken welfare, and there are some cost-effectiveness estimates suggesting corporate outreach improves the welfare standards of farmed chickens.12 Cost-effectiveness estimates vary widely, and it is unclear which is the most accurate. The longer-term effects of improving welfare standards on the production and consumption of animal products are unclear.
Research suggests that the follow-through rate of cage-free corporate commitments ranges from 48%–84% and that corporate campaigns affect nine to 120 hen-years per dollar spent.13 Cage-free housing systems are believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to egg-laying hens and providing them opportunities to perform important behaviors, although mortality may increase during the transition process, and there is some risk that it may remain elevated. However, more recent research suggests that mortality and injuries are associated with operators’ lack of experience with the new system and should decline over time.14
We are not aware of any cost-effectiveness estimates on corporate campaigns for farmed fish welfare. However, we consider farmed fishes to be a high-priority animal group because of the likelihood that farmed fish suffering is large in scale, the potential tractability of interventions to improve farmed fish welfare, and the current neglectedness of the issue.15
Legal or policy work
Available evidence suggests that legal work by animal advocacy organizations can contribute to changes and modifications in the law, help ensure law enforcement, and motivate cultural shifts in societal attitudes toward animal welfare. The success of this legal work requires that such laws have a positive impact on the welfare of animals and that the work those organizations do contributes to the introduction of those laws. While legal change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we expect its effects to be particularly long-lasting.
Our Assessment
We estimate that all of FWI’s spending on programs goes toward a very high-priority animal group (farmed fishes) and high-priority outcomes (improvement of welfare standards and stronger animal advocacy movement). We also assess that most of their work uses high-priority interventions (capacity building, research, and producer outreach) and targets high-priority countries (India and China).
Overall, we assess the expected effectiveness of FWI’s programs as very high.16
Cost Effectiveness
In this criterion, we assess the effectiveness of a charity’s approaches to implementing interventions, their recent achievements, and the costs associated with those achievements. By conducting this assessment, we seek to gain insight into a charity’s overall impact on animals given the resources they used to achieve their results. A charity that performs well on this criterion likely utilizes their available resources in a cost-effective manner. The key aspects that ACE considers when examining cost effectiveness are reviewed in detail below.
Method
We conducted our analysis by comparing a charity’s reported expenditures over the past 18 months to the reported achievements of their main programs during that time.17 We estimated total program expenditures by taking the charity’s reported expenditures for each program and adding a portion of their nonprogram expenditures weighted by the program’s size. This process allowed us to incorporate general organizational running costs into our consideration of cost effectiveness. During our evaluation, we also verified a subset of the charity’s reported achievements by searching for independent sources to help us verify claims and directing follow-up questions to the charity.
We selected up to five key achievements per program to factor into our cost-effectiveness assessment.18 When selecting achievements, we prioritized those that we thought were most representative of their respective programs and that referred to completed work (rather than work in progress). For each key achievement, we identified the associated intervention type and assigned the respective intervention score. (For more details on how we calculated those scores and prioritized interventions, see the Programs criterion.) Based on the charity’s reported expenditure on each achievement, we computed how many such achievements the charity accomplished per $100,000.19
We used the number of achievements per $100k and other contextual information (e.g., the species affected) to score the cost effectiveness of each key achievement, and then used those scores to modify the average intervention type score. This modified score for each key achievement takes into account how impactful the intervention is on average and how cost-effectively it has been implemented by the charity. The final score for each program is the average of the modified intervention scores, weighted by the relative expenditure on each key achievement.
The final cost-effectiveness score is the average of the program scores, weighted by percentage of total expenditures spent on each program. This score indicates on a 1–5 scale how cost effective we believe this program has been over the last 18 months, with 1 indicating very low cost effectiveness, 2 indicating low cost effectiveness, 3 indicating moderate cost effectiveness, 4 indicating high cost effectiveness, and 5 indicating very high cost effectiveness. Please see the cost-effectiveness assessment spreadsheet for more detailed information.
Below, we report the total program expenditures, key achievements of each program, and estimated cost effectiveness of each program.
Information and Analysis
Overview of expenditures
The following chart shows FWI’s total program expenditures from January 2021 – June 2022. Please note that some program expenditures are not published here to preserve confidentiality.
Overview of programs
The following tables show FWI’s key achievements, achievement expenditures, the number of achievements per $100,000, and a program cost-effectiveness score from January 2021 – June 2022.
Room for More Funding
A recommendation from ACE could lead to a large increase in a charity’s funding. In this criterion, we investigate whether a charity would be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that a new or renewed recommendation may bring in. Our assessment of this criterion ultimately guides our recommendation decision; charities are ineligible to receive a particular recommendation status if they would be unable to absorb and effectively utilize the subsequent funding. All descriptive data and estimations for this criterion can be found in the RFMF model spreadsheet.
Method
We begin our room for more funding (RFMF) assessment by inspecting the charity’s revenue and plans for expansion through 2024, assuming that their ACE recommendation status and the amount of ACE-influenced funding they receive will stay the same. Then, we outline how the charity would likely expand if they were to receive funds beyond their predicted income and use this information to calculate their RFMF. Finally, we share our thoughts about the charity’s overall financial sustainability and revenue diversity.
Plans for Expansion
To estimate charities’ RFMF, we request their financial records from the past 30 months and ask them to predict what their revenue will be in the next 30 months. We also ask how they plan to allocate funding among their programs. We then assess our level of confidence in their projections based on factors such as past revenue, past expenditures, and nonfinancial barriers to the scalability of their programs (e.g., time or talent shortages).
Although we list the expenditures for planned nonprogram expenses, we do not assess the charity’s overhead costs in this criterion, given that there is no evidence that the total share of overhead costs negatively impacts overall effectiveness.22 However, we do consider relative overhead costs per program in our Cost Effectiveness criterion. Here, we focus on determining whether additional resources are likely to be used for effective programs or other beneficial organizational changes. The latter may include investments into infrastructure and staff retention, both of which we think are important for sustainable growth.
Unexpected Funding
We ask charities to indicate how they would spend additional, unexpected funding that an ACE recommendation may bring in. This amount varies from charity to charity, but on average is roughly $200,000 per year for Standout Charities and $1,000,000 per year for Top Charities. We also ask previously recommended charities to indicate how they would use additional funding because there is some evidence that repeatedly recommended charities are more appealing to donors; therefore, they may get more ACE-influenced funding over time. We then assess our level of confidence in the charity’s ability to carry out their plans in 2023 and 2024—i.e., how much unexpected funding we believe they could utilize for effective programs in that timeframe—to estimate their RFMF for those years. These estimates are then shared with the charity and adjusted as needed based on feedback. Our RFMF estimates are intended to identify the point at which we would want to check in with a charity to ensure that they have used their funds effectively and can still absorb additional funding.
Reserves
We may adjust RFMF based on the status of a charity’s reserves. It is common practice for charities to hold more funds than needed for their current expenses in order to be able to withstand changes in the business cycle or external shocks that may affect their incoming revenue. Such additional funds can also serve as investments in future projects. Thus, it can be effective to provide a charity with additional funding to secure the organization’s stability and/or provide funding for larger, future projects. Therefore, we increase a charity’s RFMF if they are below their targeted amount of reserves. If a target does not exist, we suggest that charities hold reserves equal to at least one year of expenditures.23
Revenue Diversity
The charities we evaluate typically receive revenue from a variety of sources, such as individual donations and grants from foundations.24 A review of the literature on nonprofit finance suggests that revenue diversity may be positively associated with revenue predictability if the sources of income are largely uncorrelated.25 However, there is evidence that revenue diversity may not always be associated with financial stability.26 Therefore, although revenue diversity does not play a direct role in our recommendation decision, we indicate charities’ major sources of income in this criterion for donors interested in financial stability.
Information and Analysis
The chart below shows FWI’s revenues, expenditures, and net assets from 2020–2021, as well as their own projections for the years 2022–2024.
Plans for Expansion
FWI plans to expand their programs, most notably with large expansions (based on percentage growth) in China and the Philippines. They are in the program development stage, developing and validating theories of change before scaling more rapidly.
Below, we share FWI’s plans for each of their programs in more detail. Projected changes in expenditure are the charity’s own estimates from August 2022. We also include a surface-level assessment of the feasibility of their plans. More details can be found in the corresponding estimation sheet and in the supplementary materials.
Based on our assessment of Cost Effectiveness, we believe that all of Fish Welfare Initiative’s programs are cost effective compared to programs at other charities that we consider to be highly impactful.
Unexpected Funding
FWI outlined that if they were to spend an additional $200,000 per year, it would be focused on recruiting key hires, especially at the mid and senior-level, which we believe is an effective and plausible use of funding. Overall, we have high confidence that FWI could effectively absorb an additional $200,000 per year beyond their plans for expansion outlined in the previous section.
FWI outlined that if they were to receive an additional $1,000,000 per year, they would be unlikely to accept it unless their current programming and planned expansions end up not being not funded. Overall, we have low confidence that FWI could effectively absorb an additional $1,000,000 per year beyond their plans for expansion outlined in the previous section.27
Reserves
With more than 100% of annual expenditures held in net assets—as reported by FWI for 2021—we believe that they hold a sufficient amount of reserves compared to their target level of 50%.
Revenue Diversity
FWI receives the majority of their income (over 99%) from grants/donations. In 2021, they received 30% of their funding from donations larger than 20% of their annual revenue. This included multiple grants from the EA Animal Welfare Fund.
Our Assessment
Based on (i) our assessment that they have sufficient reserves and (ii) our assessment that they could effectively absorb an additional $200,000, we believe that overall, FWI has room for $325,000 of additional funding in 2023 and $250,000 in 2024. These two figures represent the amount we believe they could absorb beyond their projected revenues of $801,000 in 2023 and $1,302,000 in 2024, meaning that we believe that they could utilize a total revenue of up to $1,126,000 in 2023 and $1,552,000 in 2024.28 Additionally, we believe that 100% of that funding would contribute to programs that ACE considers to be highly cost effective. See our Cost Effectiveness criterion for our assessment of the cost effectiveness of their programs.
It is possible that a charity could run out of room for more funding more quickly than we expect or that they could come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we expect. If a charity receives a recommendation as Top Charity, we check in mid-year about the funding they’ve received since the release of our recommendations, and we use the estimates presented above to indicate whether we still expect them to be able to effectively absorb additional funding at that time.
Leadership and Culture
The way an organization is led affects its organizational culture, which in turn can impact the organization’s effectiveness and stability.29 In this criterion, our main goal is to assess whether organizations seem to have leadership and culture issues that are substantial enough to affect our confidence in their effectiveness and stability. The key aspects that ACE considers when examining leadership and culture are reviewed in detail below.
Method
We review aspects of organizational leadership and culture by examining information provided by top leadership staff (as defined by each charity) and by capturing staff perspectives via our culture survey. At a charity’s request, we also distribute the survey to volunteers working at least five hours per week.
Assessing leadership
First, we consider key information about the composition of leadership staff and the board of directors. There appears to be no consensus in the literature on the specifics of the relationship between board composition and organizational performance.30 Therefore, we refrain from making judgments on board composition. However, because donors may have preferences on whether the Executive Director (ED) or other top executive staff are board members or not, we note when this is the case. For example, BoardSource recommends that, if the law permits, the ED (or equivalent) should be an “ex officio, non-voting member of the board.”31 In this way, the ED can provide input in board meeting deliberation and decision making, at the same time avoiding perceived conflicts of interest, questions concerning accountability, or blurring the line between oversight and execution.
We also consider leadership’s commitment to transparency32 by looking at available information on the charity’s website, such as key staff members and financial information. We require organizations selected for evaluation to be transparent with ACE throughout the evaluation process. Although we value transparency, we recognize that some organizations may be able to have a greater impact by keeping certain information private. For example, organizations and individuals working in some regions or on particular interventions could be harmed by publicizing certain information about their work.
In addition, our culture survey asks staff to identify the extent to which they feel that leadership competently guides the organization. We also ask leadership what strategies they use to learn about staff morale and work climate.
Organizational policies and workplace culture
We ask organizations undergoing evaluation to provide a list of their human resources policies, and we solicit the views of staff (and volunteers, if applicable) through our culture survey. Administering our culture survey to all staff members is an eligibility requirement to be recommended by ACE as a Top or Standout Charity. However, ACE does not require that all individual staff members at participating charities complete the survey. We recognize that surveying staff and/or volunteers could (i) lead to inaccuracies due to selection bias and (ii) may not reflect employees’ true opinions, as they are aware that their responses could influence ACE’s evaluation of their employer. In our experience, it’s easier to assess issues with an organization’s culture than it is to assess its strength. Therefore, we focus on determining whether there are issues in the organization’s culture that have a negative impact on staff productivity and wellbeing.
We assume that staff in the nonprofit sector often have multiple motives or incentives: They receive monetary compensation, experience social benefits from being part of a team, and take pride in their organization’s achievements for a cause.33 Because nonprofit wages are typically lower than for-profit wages, our survey asks all staff about wage satisfaction. In cases where volunteers respond to our culture survey, we typically ask organizations to provide their volunteer hours, because due to the absence of a contract and pay, volunteering may indicate special cases of uncertain work conditions. Additionally, we request the organization’s benefit policies regarding time off, health care, training, and professional development. We also consider how many of our listed policies (13 general policies and eight REI and harassment/discrimination policies) charities have in place.34 While certain policies might be deemed priorities,35 we do not assess which specific policies from our list are most important for charities to have. Additionally, we make exceptions for charities working in regions where these policies are not common practice.
To capture whether the organization also provides non-material incentives, e.g., goal-related intangible rewards, our culture survey includes the 12 questions from the Gallup Q12 employee engagement survey. We consider an average engagement score below the median value of the scale a potential concern.
ACE believes that the animal advocacy movement should be safe and inclusive for everyone. Therefore, we collect information about policies and activities regarding representation, equity, and inclusion (REI). We use the term “representation” broadly in this section to refer to the diversity of certain social identity characteristics (called “protected classes” in some countries).36 Additionally, we believe that in most countries, effective charities must have human resources policies against harassment37 and discrimination38 and that cases of harassment and discrimination in the workplace39 should be addressed appropriately.40 When cases of harassment or discrimination from the last 12 months are reported to ACE by current or former staff members or volunteers, we assess whether the charity appropriately addressed those cases. We do this by considering staff perceptions of whether the reported cases were handled appropriately. If confidentiality permits, we also ask leadership how they addressed the situation.
Information and Analysis
Leadership staff
In this section, we list each charity’s Executive Director (or equivalent) and describe the board of directors. We mention this for the purpose of transparency and to identify the relationship between the ED and the board of directors.
- Executive Director (ED): Haven King-Nobles, who co-founded the organization and has been involved with it for three years.
- Number of board members (FWI U.S.): Four members, including ED Haven King-Nobles, who is a voting board member. FWI has a policy that aims to avoid any potential conflicts of interest between the ED and the board. In particular, they have a policy that prevents any board member (ED included) from voting on a matter where they have a conflict of interest, e.g., their compensation.
- Number of board members (FWI India): Two members
Staff perception and feedback
FWI has 21 staff members (full-time, part-time, and contractors). Twenty staff members responded to our survey, yielding a response rate of 95%.
All staff respondents to our culture survey agree that FWI’s leadership team guides the organization competently. Additionally, FWI’s leadership conducts quarterly staff surveys to learn about staff morale and work climate.
Transparency
FWI has been transparent with ACE during the evaluation process and during other communications with ACE. In addition, FWI’s audited financial documents (including the most recently filed IRS form 990 for U.S. organizations) are publicly available online. A list of key staff members, a list of board members, and information about accomplishments are also available on their website. Based on the information that they make publicly available, we assess FWI’s transparency toward the public as very high.
Staff satisfaction
FWI has a partial or informal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 90% report that they are satisfied with their wage. FWI offers paid time off per year, sick days and personal leave, and partial healthcare coverage. About 95% report that they are satisfied with the benefits provided. This suggests that on average, staff exhibit a very high satisfaction with wages and benefits. Additional policies are listed in the table below.
General policies
Has policy |
Partial / informal policy |
No policy |
| A formal compensation policy to determine staff salaries | |
| Paid time off | |
| Sick days and personal leave | |
| Healthcare coverage | |
| Paid family and medical leave | |
| Clearly defined essential functions for all positions, preferably with written job descriptions | |
| Annual (or more frequent) performance evaluations | |
| Formal onboarding or orientation process | |
| Training and development opportunities for each employee | |
| Simple and transparent written procedure(s) for employees to request further training or support | |
| Flexible work hours | |
| Remote work option | |
| Paid internships (if possible and applicable) | |
Staff engagement
The average score among our engagement questions was 6.7 (on a 1–7 scale), suggesting that on average, staff exhibit a very high engagement score.
Harassment and discrimination reports
FWI has staff policies against harassment and discrimination. (See all other related policies in the table below). No staff report that they have experienced harassment or discrimination at their workplace during the last 12 months, and no staff report to have witnessed harassment or discrimination of others in that period.
Policies related to representation, equity, and inclusion (REI)
Has policy |
Partial / informal policy |
No policy |
| A clearly written workplace code of ethics/conduct | |
| A written statement that the organization does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other irrelevant characteristics | |
| A simple and transparent written procedure for filing complaints | |
| Mandatory reporting of harassment and discrimination through all levels, up to and including the board of directors | |
| Explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment or discrimination | |
| Documentation of all reported instances of harassment or discrimination, along with the outcomes of each case | |
| Regular trainings on topics such as harassment and discrimination in the workplace | |
| An anti-retaliation policy protecting whistleblowers and those who report grievances | |
Our Assessment
We did not detect any major concerns with FWI’s leadership and organizational culture. We positively note that FWI is transparent toward external stakeholders, has a large number of staff policies, staff agree that leadership guides the organization competently, staff have not experienced harassment or discrimination in the workplace in the last year, and staff are engaged and satisfied with their job.
Overall Recommendation
The main interventions used by FWI (producer outreach, research, and capacity building) are likely to be very effective in increasing the welfare of farmed fishes and strengthening the animal advocacy movement. Additionally, FWI’s policy work in India targets a high-priority country and is particularly cost effective. These efforts are well-aligned with ACE’s philosophical foundation and cause area priorities.
FWI performed strongly on both the Programs and Cost Effectiveness criteria compared to other charities we evaluated. Based on our assessment of their performance on our four evaluation criteria—Programs: very highly effective; Cost Effectiveness: very high cost effectiveness; Room for More Funding: >$200,000; Leadership and Culture: no major concerns—compared to other charities we reviewed this year, we find FWI to be an excellent giving opportunity and recommend them as a Standout Charity.
We don’t consider the number of individuals as the only relevant characteristic for scale, and we don’t necessarily believe that groups of animals or species should be prioritized solely based on scale. However, the number of animals in a group or species is one characteristic of scale that we use for prioritization.
Of the 191 billion farmed vertebrate animals killed annually for food globally, 101 billion are farmed fishes and 79 billion are farmed chickens, making these impactful groups to focus on.
We estimate there are 10 quintillion, or 1019, wild animals alive at any time, of whom we estimate at least 10 trillion are vertebrates. It’s notable that Rowe (2020) estimates that 100 trillion to 10 quadrillion (or 1014 to 1016) wild invertebrates are killed by agricultural pesticides annually.
We acknowledge that using Mercy For Animals’ FAOI scores can bias us toward their own considerations of the most important countries for them to focus on.
On average, our team considers advocating for improvements of welfare standards to be a positive and promising approach. However, there are different viewpoints within ACE’s research team on the effect of advocating for animal welfare standards on the spread of anti-speciesist values. There are concerns that arguing for welfare improvements may lead to complacency related to animal welfare and give the public an inconsistent message—e.g., see Wrenn (2012). In addition, there are concerns with the alliance between nonprofit organizations and the companies that are directly responsible for animal exploitation, as explored in Baur and Schmitz (2012).
For arguments supporting the view that the most important consideration of our present actions should be their long-term impact, see Greaves & MacAskill (2019) and Beckstead (2019).
For more detailed information, see FWI’s Programs Assessment spreadsheet.
As part of our information request to charities, we ask for a list and description of their main achievements for each of their programs. We also asked charities to report their expenditures for each program, and to estimate the percentage of program expenditures spent on each key achievement.
Assessing cost effectiveness by looking at a charity’s key achievements has limitations. It will likely bias cost-effectiveness estimates upward to some extent, as it does not consider expenditures on less impactful achievements or work that did not result in an achievement. This may affect larger programs more, as their key achievements are more likely to account for a smaller proportion of overall program costs and thus may be less reflective of the program’s overall cost effectiveness.
We standardized to achievements per $100,000 to allow for easier comparisons across achievements.
We use ratings of low, moderate, and high to help distinguish between the performance of charities that we review, and to make our numerical scores easier to interpret. These qualitative ratings are not reflective of a charity’s performance when compared to other charities that were not selected for review.
Please see FWI’s Cost-Effectiveness Assessment spreadsheet for more detailed information.
National Council of Nonprofits (n.d.); Propel Nonprofits (2022); Boland (2021)
To be selected for evaluation, we require that a charity has a budget size of at least about $100,000 and faces no country-specific regulatory barriers to receiving money from ACE.
FWI has shared that as of mid-late 2022, they don’t yet have concrete plans about how to fundraise to scale-up their programming per their plans for expansion, and ACE-influenced funding may potentially be critical to fulfilling their plans.
These numbers may be revised upwards if inflation continues at rates comparable to those seen in 2021 to 2022.
Rousseau (1990), cited in Kartolo et al. (2022)
BoardSource (2016), p. 4
Charity Navigator (n.d.-a) defines transparency as “an obligation or willingness by a charity to publish and make available critical data about the organization.”
Clark and Wilson (1961), as cited in Rollag (n.d.)
Our evaluation process for human resources policies uses an assessment system that we have adapted from Charity Navigator (n.d.-b).
Examples of such social identity characteristics include: race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender or gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy or parental status, marital status, national origin, citizenship, amnesty, veteran status, political beliefs, age, ability, and genetic information.
Harassment may occur in one incident or many, and incidents can be nonsexual or sexual in nature. ACE defines nonsexual harassment as unwelcome conduct—including physical, verbal, and nonverbal behavior—that upsets, demeans, humiliates, intimidates, or threatens an individual or group. ACE defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other physical, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors of a sexual nature when: (i) submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; (ii) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the targeted individual; or (iii) such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
ACE defines discrimination as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of or hostility toward an individual on the basis of certain social identity characteristics.
ACE defines the workplace as any place where work-related activities occur, including physical premises, meetings, conferences, training sessions, transit, social functions, and electronic communication (such as email, chat, text, phone calls, and virtual meetings).
ACE recognizes that a lack of reporting does not necessarily mean that there are no issues at an organization, and it may indicate that staff don’t feel comfortable reporting issues.
