The Humane League

How The Humane League Performs on Our Criteria

Criterion #1: The Organization Has Concrete Room for More Funding and Plans for Growth

THL has room for more funding to expand their online ads program and to open offices in additional cities more quickly than they would otherwise be able to.¹ In recent years they have secured enough funding to fully fund their existing programs and to expand to new cities with their local offices,² but the constraint on further expansion of their programs has been financial.³ At the end of 2013, their assets were worth about 68% of their 2013 expenditures.⁴ This is an assets to expenditures ratio in the range we would expect from an organization that is able to spend funds as it receives them but is maintaining a responsible fiscal cushion.

Typically, one of THL’s local offices costs around $40,000 to open and operate for the first two years.⁵ After this point, each office is expected to cover its own expenses through local fundraising events.⁶ THL currently operates nine offices around the country, and has plans to open an additional two offices in 2015.⁷ They could use $40,000 or $80,000 to fill the gap between offices they have time to open and offices they have funds to open.⁸

The online ads program is a more flexible use of funding; additional funds in amounts not suitable for opening offices could go to this program.⁹ There is no increment of funding too small to increase the number of ads they’re able to buy.¹⁰ They’ve recently started placing ads to appear in other countries, and these markets are very far from saturated, so they could use a lot of funding to expand this program.¹¹ Specifically, we think they could reasonably double its size, which would use an additional $190,000 this year.

Criterion #2: A Back-of-the-Envelope Calculation Finds the Organization is Cost-Effective

THL runs several programs; we estimate cost effectiveness separately for each of their main programs and then give a composite estimate of their overall impact. Note that all estimates factor in associated supporting costs including administrative and fundraising costs.

Online Outreach

THL’s largest program in terms of budget is the online ads program.¹² In 2013 they reported over 1,000,000 clicks on their English language ads.¹³ By our estimate, setting up and paying for these online ads used about 54% of THL’s budget, or $253,882.¹⁴ This works out to an average cost of about 25 cents per click,¹⁵ close to the marginal cost of 20 cents per click that is commonly cited.¹⁶

Leafleting

Several of THL’s other programs appear to have quite similar costs, and our uncertainty about how exactly costs are allocated is significant enough that we don’t really know which receive the largest shares of THL’s resources.¹⁷ We estimate that about 15% of THL’s budget, or $69,656, went to leafleting.¹⁸ In 2013, THL reported distributing 768,665 leaflets, mostly printed by Vegan Outreach.¹⁹ This works out to an average cost to THL of about 9 cents per leaflet distributed;²⁰ they report a marginal cost of 4-6 cents per leaflet.²¹ Since Vegan Outreach (VO) covers the design, printing, and shipping costs of the leaflets, we also are considering the cost of leaflet distribution to VO.²² We estimate VO’s marginal cost per leaflet at about 11 cents based on their online order form; it may be lower for distributions to THL because shipping costs per leaflet are lower when many leaflets are shipped together.²³ Their average cost per leaflet, based on their entire budget, is around 24 cents (plus 11 cents for distribution, covered here by THL).²⁴ Thus the comprehensive average cost per leaflet is around 33 cents; the comprehensive marginal cost per leaflet is around 14 cents.²⁵

Cage-free Campaigns and Meatless Mondays

We estimate that around 12% of THL’s budget, or $56,308, went to cage-free campaigns in 2013.²⁶ In 2013, these campaigns produced commitments from 9 college campus dining services to serve only cage-free eggs.²⁷ In 2014, a portion of this went instead to Meatless Monday campaigns.²⁸ Two school districts adopted Meatless Monday policies throughout their district as a result of THL’s work, and one adopted such a policy for half the district.²⁹ THL estimates that around 3,200,000 meat-free meals will be served per year that these policies are in effect.³⁰ Ignoring the cage-free policies entirely, this works out to a cost of under 2 cents per meal affected.³¹

Humane Education

We estimate that about 8% of THL’s budget, or $35,662, went to conducting humane education lectures, mostly for high school and college students.³² In 2013, THL presented to 3753 students,³³ which works out to a cost of about $9.50 per student.³⁴

Vegetarian Starter Kits

We estimate that about 2% of THL’s budget, or $9,593, went to distributing Vegetarian Starter Kits, mainly through news racks.³⁵ In 2013, THL distributed 136,479 starter kits, mostly supplied by PETA.³⁶ This works out to an average cost per kit of about 7 cents for THL;³⁷ they reported a marginal cost of 2 cents.³⁸ We do not have detailed information about the costs to PETA of printing and shipping the starter kits; assuming these costs are similar to those for leaflets, we estimate a comprehensive average cost of 31 cents per kit and a comprehensive marginal cost of 13 cents per kit.³⁹

Corporate Campaigns

We estimate that about 1% of THL’s budget, or $5,839, went to corporate campaigns in 2013.⁴⁰ THL was solely responsible for campaigns leading Au Bon Pain and Johnsonville Sausage to pledge to reduce cruelty in their supply chains, and also took part in successful campaigns to change policies at Aramark and Sodexo.⁴¹

Studies of Advocacy Methods

Humane League Labs has a budget of $30,000 for 2013-2014.⁴² Including some administrative costs, we figure that its true cost is probably around $37,638, or 8% of THL’s total budget.⁴³ Over this two year period, they plan to carry out and publish 14 studies.⁴⁴

All Activities Combined

To combine these 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.⁴⁵ However, it will allow us to judge whether THL’s efforts are comparable in efficiency to other groups’.⁴⁶ We use our Online Ad Impact Calculator and Leafleting Impact Calculator⁴⁷ to find that THL spares about 5.5 animals from life on a factory farm per dollar spent on online ads,⁴⁸ and about 2 animals per dollar spent on leafleting (using the average costs of 25 cents per view and 33 cents per leaflet⁴⁹ ).

It is also relatively easy to see the impact of Meatless Monday campaigns in animals spared. We use our Leafleting Impact calculator (which factors in elasticity of supply and demand) to estimate that one person going vegetarian for a year would spare 10.3 animals,⁵⁰ which means serving one vegetarian meal instead of a meat-based one spares about .0094 animals.⁵¹ Then THL’s local campaigns spare about .5 animals per dollar through Meatless Monday campaigns, even assuming each policy change lasts for only one year.⁵² We also estimate that cage-free policies spare suffering equivalent to about 1,000 animal lives on factory farms over the life of the policy, or about .2 animals per dollar spent on local campaigns.⁵³ So overall THL’s cage-free and Meatless Monday campaigns spare about .7 animals per dollar, and more if the average Meatless Monday policy will last for more than one year, which we think is likely.⁵⁴

Finally, we estimate that each of the two corporate campaigns that THL conducted on their own will result in the equivalent suffering spared of 10,000 animals living on factory farms,⁵⁵ so THL’s work in that area results in about 3.4 animals spared per dollar spent.⁵⁶ We do not estimate the suffering spared by the Humane League Labs or THL’s newsracks, about 10% of their activities in total.⁵⁷ We weight our estimates by the proportion of funding THL spends on each activity to find that overall THL spares about 3.4 animals per dollar spent,⁵⁸ within the same range as other groups we have reviewed at this depth.⁵⁹ Because of extreme uncertainty even about the strongest parts of our calculations (the calculators linked above each have error bounds spanning 2-3 orders of magnitude), there is currently limited value in further elaborating this estimate.⁶⁰ Instead, we give weight to our other criteria.

Criterion #3: The Organization is Working on Things That Seem to Have High Mission Effectiveness

THL works on many programs that educate young people about the realities of factory farming and encourage them to respond by adjusting their diets and getting involved in activism.⁶¹ This is highly effective by addressing the situation of farmed animals, an exceptionally good opportunity to help animals given the present circumstances.⁶²

Online and Grassroots Outreach

Online and grassroots outreach to individuals seems highly effective because it is focused on changing the culture of animal use for food. This culture must ultimately be changed if conditions are to improve significantly for animals, as it is not possible that animal agriculture can continue to grow at its present rate in a way that is respectful of animals’ interests.⁶³ The effectiveness of this type of outreach is somewhat limited when compared to some other forms because viewers and readers are encouraged to make small-scale individual changes and may not influence others the way a change in law or corporate policy influences many people.⁶⁴

Specific Institutional Campaigns

Specific institutional campaigns undertaken by THL include cage-free campaigns and Meatless Mondays campaigns.⁶⁵ Cage-free campaigns reduce animal suffering in the short term by a somewhat uncertain degree, but THL staff conducting such campaigns recruit and train student activists to work on them, and the benefits of growing the animal advocacy movement in this way may be significant.⁶⁶ We think Meatless Monday campaigns have high potential to create a large amount of change.⁶⁷ By convincing a few decision makers, advocates can significantly reduce meat consumption by many more people.⁶⁸ The broader impact on social memes is uncertain, but likely to be positive.⁶⁹ While there is a possibility that people are eating more meat on other days of the week to make up for not having meat on Monday, we find that to be unlikely, and instead believe that the promotion of a discussion about eating choices, and thus the need or lack thereof to eat meat/eggs/dairy, will likely have a positive effect on future decisions.⁷⁰

Corporate Outreach

Corporate outreach seems to have high mission effectiveness because it involves convincing a few powerful people⁷¹ to make decisions which influence the lives of millions of animals.⁷² This seems likely to be easier than reaching and persuading millions of consumers in order to accomplish the same goal. However, corporate outreach often deals with small welfare improvements.⁷³ It’s not clear whether such improvements, even if very easy to achieve, are highly effective in the long term, since as well as changing conditions for animals, they may also influence public opinion, either towards concern for farmed animals or towards complacency with regard to industrial agriculture.⁷⁴

Studies of Advocacy Methods

Studies specifically designed to be applicable to the work of THL and other similar organizations have the possibility to increase the effectiveness of campaigns by better understanding what makes a video, leaflet, or other persuasive material more influential.⁷⁵ If some of these studies are able to improve upon the effectiveness of the materials currently being used, a group could increase not only their own effectiveness, but also that of many other organizations, by making the study results freely available.⁷⁶ Over several years, this could lead to a very high impact for a low price.⁷⁷

Criterion #4: The Organization Possesses A Robust and Agile Understanding of Success and Failure

THL has one of the best understandings of success and failure that we have seen among animal advocacy organizations. They actively work to evaluate their own programs’ efficiency, quantitatively when possible, in order to determine what is working best and what they need to do less of or modify.⁷⁸ By making as much as possible of what they learn public through Humane League Labs, they also prioritize the success of the animal advocacy movement as a whole.⁷⁹

We think that one of the strongest examples of their approach to determining which programs is successful is their recent decision to test Meatless Monday campaigns with resources they had previously used for cage-free campaigns.⁸⁰ THL local organizers have typically led campaigns to convince college dining services to switch to using cage-free eggs.⁸¹ However, after learning about good results that The Humane Society of the United States has had promoting Meatless Mondays in K-12 schools, THL decided to have some staff spend a semester working on this kind of campaign instead.⁸² Based on their findings, they have spent more time working on Meatless Mondays initiatives over the past six months with some notable successes.⁸³ They have found that Meatless Mondays campaigns take more time to prepare and carry out,⁸⁴ so while they haven’t yet completed an especially high number of campaigns in this area, they are planning on more of these in the future.

Another example is THL’s approach to online ads. They take advantage of the flexibility and responsiveness of online media to continually split-test both ads and videos as needed to improve their success rates (typically measured in clicks to download Vegetarian Starter Kits.)⁸⁵ This allows them to respond quickly to ads that don’t work or are poorly targeted, which is particularly crucial as they expand their online ads program to other countries and languages, as they likely have less prior information about what will work in these situations.⁸⁶ We do have reservations about the appropriateness of clicks to download Vegetarian Starter Kits as a metric, since since it has not been shown they are a good proxy for behavior change.⁸⁷ However, we appreciate that they are among the most logical of the metrics that are easily available for all viewers.⁸⁸

THL is relatively comfortable with and interested in explicit cost-effectiveness estimates, compared to other organizations. They use these cost-effectiveness estimates to help guide their actions, with one exception; they say that they would not close their local offices to focus only on online outreach even if that seemed to be the most cost-effective activity, because their local offices do their own fundraising and as such do not take away from the national budget.⁸⁹ We have some concerns that this may not be the correct way to consider the situation, as some donors to the local offices might still donate to the national organization or to another similar group if there were no local office.⁹⁰ However, in practice we do not feel that existing cost-effectiveness estimates are sufficiently robust to drive a dramatic shift to a single priority program, even if local offices are not viewed as self-funding.⁹¹

Finally, THL is using Humane League Labs to better understand what works best through research. Though we wish they would provide more statistical analysis of their findings, we are encouraged that their research is a concerted effort to understand impact, and believe that they will be willing to shift their focus upon learning of new or improved advocacy techniques. We have also engaged in ongoing conversation with them about ways to improve the rigor of their studies and the meaningfulness of the results they report, and believe they are improving in these areas over time.⁹² In particular, we are encouraged that they are currently planning one study to be carried out with the help of a professional research group.⁹³ We think this will both result in a strong study and in a learning experience that helps them in deciding how to implement future study designs.

Criterion #5: The Organization Possesses a Strong Track Record of Success

Successfully carrying out planned programs

THL was founded in 2005 and has engaged in its current programs for several years.⁹⁴ They have undergone substantial growth in recent years, with their 2013 budget over 10 times as large as their 2009 budget.⁹⁵ This means that they have a substantial track record both carrying out their programs and training new staff and opening offices in new cities.⁹⁶

Programs leading to change for animals

Some of THL’s programs have clear track records of success as affecting actual animals, such as the cage-free campaigns and corporate programs.⁹⁷ These programs lead to direct and measurable increases in the number of animal products being produced under higher welfare standards (and decreases in the numbers being produced under lower standards), and therefore their short term effects for animals are clearly substantial and positive.⁹⁸ While THL’s direct impact cannot be tracked in campaigns on which they have joined with other organizations, they have had enough successes attributable solely to their own impetus that we are confident they are having success in both these areas.⁹⁹

Many of THL’s programs attempt to influence individual behavior, and these are substantially harder to measure as regards ultimate impact upon animals.¹⁰⁰ Included in this category are online ads, leafleting and other literature distribution, humane education, and most Humane League Labs studies. Studies so far suggest substantial positive effects of some of these activities, while others have not been formally evaluated at all.^101,102 Even in cases where studies have been done, self-reported data is not fully reliable and the amount of available information is limited.¹⁰³ In particular with the case of Humane League Labs, THL has faced difficulties releasing their findings on their planned schedule,¹⁰⁴ and have not provided the level of statistical analysis that we would like to see.¹⁰⁵ However, we believe that changing individuals’ beliefs and behaviors is a crucial part of building a better world for animals, and we do not want to penalize groups doing this work for the inherent difficulties of measuring success.

Criterion #6: The Organization Has Strong Organizational Leadership and Structure

THL has solid and stable leadership, with key staff for program leadership having been with the organization for several years.¹⁰⁶ The Executive Director, David Coman-Hidy, has been with the organization for around 3 years.¹⁰⁷

THL has well-established procedures for hiring new local office staff and opening new offices, because it has grown significantly in the past few years.¹⁰⁸ Local office staff operate mostly independently with help in different areas from the Executive Director, Director of Campaigns, and Director of Operations.¹⁰⁹ We believe this structure is especially stable because many people in the organization know how to do most of the important program-related tasks.¹¹⁰

Criterion #7: The Organization is Transparent

THL is exceptionally forthcoming with information through Humane League Labs¹¹¹ and cooperated fully with our questions during the evaluation process. We find their new website somewhat less informative than the old one, which featured real-time reports on the activities of each local office.¹¹² However, they share information very willingly upon request, and have cooperated with us and with other advocacy groups on studies and other projects frequently in the past.¹¹³ They don’t appear to value transparency for its own sake,¹¹⁴ but do an excellent job of sharing information that they know will be useful to others.

1. “Their first goal with more funding ($10k, $50k, or $100k) would be to expand local offices to new cities, and there are a lot of cities they could expand to. The other option would be something like online ads.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

2. “Last year, THL did have as much funding as they needed for their most important projects.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

3. “If money was not a concern, finding talented staff people would be the other limiting factor, but THL could probably open about 4 offices in the next year and continue that higher rate of expansion.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

4. Private communication. Tax returns for prior years are available through Guidestar and other services. 

5. “It costs about $40,000 over two years to open an office and support it until it becomes self-sufficient[.]” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

6. “The local offices are expected to fund themselves through fundraising events within 2 years[.]” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

7. “THL has opened new offices in Miami and Atlanta, and now have offices in nine different cities. [. . .] The next locations they are considering are San Diego and Denver, and because things have been going so smoothly with their new locations, they anticipate expanding into these two cities by late spring or early summer 2015.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 11, 2014). 

8. They have the capacity to open 1-2 additional offices if they receive more funding for them, and opening each office costs about $40,000. “It costs about $40,000 over two years to open an office and support it until it becomes self-sufficient[.]” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

9. “For online ads, they could use as much funding as they could get.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

10. To advertise on a website like Facebook, an organization provides a budget for a given time period and bids on ads targeted to particular users or searches; the system automatically sells them as many ads as it can while staying within budget, usually ending within a few cents of the total budget. Specifically on Facebook, the limit on the exposure of ads is directly tied to available funding. 

11. “They also plan to continue expanding the online ads program; they’ve recently started doing overseas ads, which has an enormous amount of room for funding[.]” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

12. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

13. “Our Facebook ads reached slightly over 1 million teenage women in the United States, England, Canada, and Australia in 2013[.]” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

14. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

15. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

16. “[A] good CPC (cost per click of the ads) in the United States is in the range of 20 cents[.]” – Cooney, N. Well-Planned Facebook Ads: The Most Cost-Effective Way To Create New Vegans, Vegetarians and Meat Reducers? 

17. There is uncertainty in how much time employees spend on each activity, and in what proportion of overhead costs such as fundraising and administrative time should be attributed to each activity. 

18. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

19. “768,665 leaflets were distributed (including Warped Tour) by THL in 2013. These leaflets are a mix of Compassionate Choices (VO), Warped Tour Leaflets (VO), and Something Better (FS).” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

20. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

21. “Not including the costs of printing, it costs them 2¢ to distribute a Veg Starter Kit and 4-6¢ to distribute a leaflet.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

22. “THL partners with Vegan Outreach for leaflets. When they open an office, Vegan Outreach no longer has to send leafleteers to that area, because THL can leaflet local schools for them. Vegan Outreach provides and ships the leaflets and THL hands them out.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

23. The current price of Compassionate Choices is 11 cents. – Vegan Outreach Catalog, accessed September 12, 2014. 

24. VO cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from VO. 

25. The average cost reflects the total cost of the existing program, divided among the total units of output (leaflets, undercover investigations, viewers, etc). The marginal cost reflects the cost of producing one more unit of output. Because some costs are one-time only (for instance, the costs of designing a leaflet), marginal costs are generally lower than average costs. 

26. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

27. “The following campuses have made a 100% switch to cage-free eggs, both shell and liquid.

    • Brown University
    • Boston College
    • Smith College
    • McDaniel College
    • Community College of Baltimore County
    • Catonsville
    • Gannon University
    • Mt. Aloysius University
    • University of Illinois: Chicago”

    – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

28. “This semester, after talking with HSUS about why they’re doing a lot of Meatless Monday activities and how many meals it changes, they’re trying Meatless Monday campaigns instead of cage-free egg campaigns.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

29. “Philadelphia switched 100% of the school meals in the city. Boston has also announced that they will do a 100% switch. Half of Baltimore County, one of the largest school districts in the country, has also switched.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 11, 2014). 

30. “Altogether, the conservative estimate of their campaign success is that 3.2 million meals over the course of the year will be served as vegetarian.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 11, 2014). 

31. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

32. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

33. “Humane Education: We spoke to 3,753 high school and college students.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

34. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

35. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

36. “136,479 Veg Starter Kits distributed. These are a majority PETA VSKs, with a smaller number of MFA VSG’s mixed in.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

37. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

38. “[I]it costs them 2¢ to distribute a Veg Starter Kit[.]” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

39. That is, assuming that the average cost for PETA is 24 cents per booklet, and their marginal cost is 11 cents per booklet. We calculated these numbers for leaflets produced by Vegan Outreach, whose budget we have better insight into. – VO cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from VO. 

40. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

41. “ABP and Johnsonville were exclusively THL victories. … Of course, our history of getting dozens of campuses that contract [Aramark and Sodexo] also paved the way for the change.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

42. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

43. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

44. “As noted earlier, while we hope to secure funding for all 14 studies, we will enthusiastically carry out whatever number of studies we have funding for.” This proposal has been fully funded. – Humane League Labs Study Funding Public Proposal. 

45. In fact, there are already sources of error and imprecision in our estimates to this point, most notably in uncertainties about how much time THL 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. 

46. We use similar assumptions for each of the groups for which we perform such a calculation. (In addition to THL: Animal Equality, Mercy For Animals, HSUS Farm Animal Protection Campaign, Farm Animal Rights Movement, Vegan Outreach, Compassion Over Killing, Albert Schweitzer Foundation, and Anonymous.) This means all our results should be comparable to each other. Other estimates of the cost-effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and may therefore not be comparable to ours. 

47. The Online Ad Impact Calculator synthesizes information about the effects of online ads leading to videos about factory farming from a variety of sources, including a survey of viewers, studies on vegetarians and former vegetarians, US animal product consumption averages, and elasticity estimates for various foods. The calculator contains links to all sources used. The Leafleting Impact Calculator performs a similar function for leaflets. 

48. In the middle (best estimate) column of the calculator, 741.48/526.32 ~ 1.4 animals are spared per ad click. 4 views /dollar * 1.4 animals/view = 5.5 animals/dollar. – Online Ad Impact Calculator. 

49. In the middle (best estimate) column of the calculator, 598.98/909.09 ~ .7 animals are spared per leaflet. 3 leaflets /dollar * .7 animals/view = 2 animals/dollar. – Leafleting Impact Calculator. 

50. Using the middle (best estimate column, we multiply the number of each type of meat animal that one person consumes in a year by the cumulative elasticity factor for that animal (to account for other shifts in consumption due to price fluctuation). We then add the results.
    .11*.5 + .37 .57 + 28.5.3 + .83*.33 + 2.92*.43 = 10.3
    – Leafleting Impact Calculator. 

51. 10.3 animals spared by a year of vegetarianism / (365*3) meals per year = .0094 animals spared per meal. 

52. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

53. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. Our estimate of the equivalent number of animals spared by a typical policy is based on similar principles to those we have used in estimating the effects of corporate outreach in our evaluation of it and in our evaluations of charities, but the result is different because campus dining services are generally smaller than food corporations. 

54. For instance, if after some policies have been in place for longer, we find that they last for an average of three years, our estimate would be that these campaigns spare an average of .5 * 3 + .2 = 1.7 animals per dollar spent. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

55. This estimate is based on our corporate outreach evaluation. We use the same estimate on other reviews involving corporate outreach. 

56. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

57. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

58. THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

59. Note that these estimates contain many uncertainties, and therefore these numbers have limited value. Our rough estimates, which should not be used to give a firm ranking for the groups, are:

    • Animal Equality, 10.9 animals spared/dollar
    • Mercy For Animals, 8.8 animals spared/dollar
    • Albert Schweitzer Foundation, 1.4 animals spared/dollar
    • Farm Animal Rights Movement, 1.1 animals spared/dollar
    • HSUS Farm Animal Protection Campaign, 1.1 animals spared/dollar
    • Vegan Outreach, 1.9 animals spared/dollar
    • Anonymous for Animal Rights, 3.2 animals spared/dollar
    • Compassion over Killing, .5-2 animals spared/dollar

     

60. For error bounds on some calculations, see our Online Ad Impact Calculator and Leafleting Impact Calculator. 

61. “For intuitive reasons, they think the best target audience for outreach is young people in college or high school.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

62. Farmed animal advocacy is underfunded compared to some other animal causes, and individuals have the opportunity to affect relatively large numbers of farmed animals through their own actions. For more see our page on farmed animal advocacy. 

63. We found only one study which considered both animal welfare and global food production needs at a whole system level. It concluded that the current style of industrial agriculture is not sustainable on a global level: “Global food security for all in 2050 is not feasible with a scenario of livestock intensification and a Western-style diet for all, even with unrealistically high yield scenarios.” The study proposed dealing with this reality by encouraging humans in developed nations to eat more plant-based foods, and found no reason that producers could not better attend to animal welfare and meet production needs in such a scenario: “The additional feed required for livestock to be more active and the space needed for them to roam and perform natural behaviours is relatively small and does not affect the food security option space.” We note that there are likely additional options involving further decreases in animal and environmental welfare as technologies are developed to provide more animal-derived foods with fewer resources, and that market structures may make such unpredictable developments more likely than the outcomes proposed by the study. – Compassion in World Farming. (2012). Food Security and Farm Animal Welfare. 

64. Materials, including some distributed by THL such as Vegan Outreach’s Your Choice, call on readers to stop eating meat or all animal products, without necessarily advocating further steps that readers could take to create social change. 

65. “Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore have completed their cage-free campaigns, so this semester we are in the process of working on Meatless Mondays campaigns.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

66. “They bring in a lot of volunteers from campaigns on college campuses.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

67. In particular, we think Meatless Monday campaigns in which meat is not served at all on Mondays have the potential to significantly reduce the amount of meat consumed. We expect less change from programs which simply promote meatless options on Mondays without changing the actual menu available. 

68. “For example, if Philadelphia were to do Meatless Mondays in the public schools, they have 166,000 students, so about 90,000 animals should be spared, based on the number of meals that would be changed.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

69. Most Meatless Mondays programs do not have explicit animal advocacy components, but we think that by emphasizing the ease of eating healthy meatless meals, they reduce the extent to which meat is perceived as a necessary or desirable component of each meal. 

70. Our position is similar to that expressed by Michael Webermann: “Right now, a lot of young people believe that factory farming is bad, but equate protein with meat and know they need protein in their diet. If parents now participate in Meatless Mondays or similar programs, their children may grow up without the belief that protein needs to come from animals. Then, when they learn about the grim reality of animal farming, they will be more open to animal advocates’ messages and more likely to become vegan.”—Conversation with Michael Webermann and Alex Felsinger. 

71. “The vast majority of the victories HSUS has gotten in corporate outreach have been the results of friendly negotiation with executives, shareholder resolutions, and working with investors.” While campaigns by other organizations may involve public pressure more often than the HSUS campaigns do, they ultimately seek to persuade the same corporate decision makers. – Conversation with Josh Balk (June 24, 2014). 

72. “Our corporate outreach initiatives… have without a doubt positively impacted the lives of tens of millions of animals.”—MFA 2013 Year in Review. THL devotes considerably fewer resources to corporate outreach than MFA does, but their corporate campaigns still affect at least thousands of animals: “Johnsonville Sausage (one of the nation’s largest sausage producers) — Pledged to eliminate all gestation crates from their supply chain by 2025. In 2009, Johnsonville was slaughtering 3,250 pigs every day, more than any other company.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

73. THL’s outreach in particular often deals with transitioning to cage-free eggs and gestation-crate-free pork. For example, “Metz Management (smaller dining provider) — transitioning to 100% gestation-crate and cage-free egg purchasing.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

74. Animal welfare improvements on factory farms may, if publicized, promote a norm of caring for the welfare of animals, because people see that mainstream companies are concerned about the treatment of farmed animals. On the other hand, people who object to industrial agriculture only because of the worst abuses might become more supportive of it if the worst abuses cease, leading fewer people to be actively engaged in promoting animal welfare. 

75. For online materials this is sometimes possible to do by split-testing, but for leaflets separate studies are necessary. “They also plan to continue expanding the online ads program; they’ve recently started doing overseas ads, which has an enormous amount of room for funding and a little split-testing has really increased the efficacy of the program.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

76. Other groups have cited studies run by or with THL as influences on their programs when we have spoken to them, and THL also sees this as a significant part of their impact. “[THL] is so small that the influence they’ve had on larger groups through [Humane League Labs and split-testing videos and ads] is probably their biggest contribution so far.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

77. If the results of a study are useful, they can improve the efficiency of a program indefinitely, spreading the effects of the study over many years of advocacy while costs remain fixed. 

78. “In terms of impact, they aim for reducing suffering, and they hope that with Humane League Labs they’ll be able to better measure the outcome of [online and grassroots outreach] programs in terms of impact.” “They’re simply looking for the activity that will help the largest number of animals.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

79. “With Humane League Labs, they try to make everything extremely public. They think their strong suit is that they can put their money and numbers where their mouth is, and there really isn’t anything they think they would hold back. So far, a lot of their sharing has happened through people emailing them and asking for information, but recently they’ve started publishing the results and data from their current round of studies on the Humane League Labs site.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

80. “One recent shift from a less effective model to a more effective model was temporarily swapping cage-free campaigns for Meatless Mondays.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

81. “2013 Cage-Free Campuses: The following campuses have made a 100% switch to cage-free eggs, both shell and liquid:

    • Brown University
    • Boston College
    • Smith College
    • McDaniel College
    • Community College of Baltimore County
    • Catonsville
    • Gannon University
    • Mt. Aloysius University
    • University of Illinois: Chicago

    “– THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

82. “This semester, after talking with HSUS about why they’re doing a lot of Meatless Monday activities and how many meals it changes, they’re trying Meatless Monday campaigns instead of cage-free egg campaigns.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

83. Philadelphia switched to 100% meatless meals, and Boston has also indicated they will to 100% meatless. Half of Baltimore County has also switched, and they are in discussions with San Francisco. – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 11, 2014). 

84. “[. . .] reason for the delay is because they need to get several new volunteers in the city to help with building connections and campaign signatures” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 11, 2014). 

85. “They also plan to continue expanding the online ads program; they’ve recently started doing overseas ads, which has an enormous amount of room for funding and a little split-testing has really increased the efficacy of the program.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). See also various studies from The Humane League, including one we analyzed on our page comparing the effectiveness of different videos and ads. 

86. They are based in the United States and have more experience running programs in the United States than elsewhere. Furthermore, much (though not all) of the research available about vegetarianism and animal advocacy has been conducted in the United States. 

87. This is a convenient metric for split-testing online ads and videos with, because software is available to report click rates. 

88. Other metrics that could be easily tracked are related to viewing time, the percentage of ad views that result in clicks, and other behaviors that occur on the video page, such as liking or sharing the video. 

89. “They are almost entirely numbers driven in how they decide what to do. The exception being that they would not shift to only doing online ads, because their funding model has local offices paying for themselves; they aren’t entirely drawing from the same funding pool as online ads.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

90. We are most concerned about this for large donors; if a donor feels strongly enough about the organization to make a substantial donation, they might still do so without a local office to visit and connect with. “The holiday party is where they get more variance; in some cities these produce large personal donations that create a budget surplus for that office.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

91. For instance, see our Leafleting Impact Calculator for a demonstration of how much uncertainty we have about the impacts of even relatively well-understood programs. 

92. They have consulted us during the planning and analysis phases of some studies. In addition we conducted a conversation with several people involved in their research work as part of the review process. – Conversation with The Humane League (October 14, 2014). 

93. “They’re planning to go further in this direction with their planned study of the effectiveness of Facebook ads; they’ve been following the design .impact is developing and considering points from it and expect to partner with MFA and a donor to get their version conducted by a professional research group.” – Conversation with The Humane League (October 14, 2014). 

94. “Since our founding in 2005, The Humane League’s mission has been to save the lives of as many animals as possible and to reduce as much animal cruelty as we can.” – The Humane League website. Leafleting, online ads, and cage-free and Meatless Mondays campaigns have each been part of THL’s work for several years. For instance, see David Coman-Hidy’s leafleting history on Adopt a College, results of a survey THL distributed to viewers of their online ads in 2011, or this case study on cage-free campus campaigns, which notes that THL began campaigning for cage-free campuses in 2008. 

95. THL’s total expenditures in 2009 were $38,882,98, compared to about $468,579 in 2013.
    Tax returns for prior years are available through Guidestar and other services.THL cost effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this spreadsheet were calculated using preliminary budget numbers from THL. 

96. Along with their budget expansion, they have expanded from one original office to seven local offices: “A big part of THL’s programs involve local coordinators in various metro areas. Right now they have seven[.]” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

97. These programs prompt clear and trackable shifts in purchasing towards higher-welfare animal products from their lower-welfare equivalents. For instance, “The local cage-free egg campaigns are easier to measure for final impact, because they can learn from the dining providers how many eggs they purchase.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014).
    “THL is also working with Delaware North, a larger competitor; they’ve also committed to switching all their shell and liquid eggs to cage-free. This is the first time a dining provider in the US has committed to using all cage-free eggs (including liquid eggs), and they plan to try to leverage it in talks with other dining providers.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 11, 2014). 

98. THL’s campaigns have led businesses and colleges to switch to cage-free eggs and to stop purchasing pork produced with gestation crates. Both changes reduce suffering due to confinement. For example, “Au Bon Pain (international cafe chain with 200+ locations) — Pledged to completely eliminate gestation crates and battery cages from their supply chain by 2017.” – THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

99. In 2013, these include the following: “The following campuses have made a 100% switch to cage-free eggs, both shell and liquid: Brown University, Boston College, Smith College, McDaniel College, Community College of Baltimore County, Catonsville, Gannon University, Mt. Aloysius University, University of Illinois: Chicago and Au Bon Pain (international cafe chain with 200+ locations) — Pledged to completely eliminate gestation crates and battery cages from their supply chain by 2017. Johnsonville Sausage (one of the nation’s largest sausage producers) — Pledged to eliminate all gestation crates from their supply chain by 2025. In 2009, Johnsonville was slaughtering 3,250 pigs every day, more than any other company.” –THL Budget, Time, Accomplishments. 

100. Individuals do not follow strict purchasing policies as companies do, and advocates’ contact with each individual is limited, leading to decreased ability to detect whether changes have been made. 

101. For instance, our own study on leafleting showed some effects, as did a study carried out by The Humane League and Farm Sanctuary. The Humane League and FARM have each found some effects of showing videos. However, we emphasize that this evidence is not conclusive and in fact there is some evidence in the other direction, as with a study from The Humane League that was designed to compare the effectiveness of various leaflets and found that of the nine groups compared in their study, the group which received no leaflet experienced the most dietary change. 

102. Our study on humane education did not detect any effects of the education, and we are not aware of other studies on humane education focused on farmed animals or on the distribution of vegetarian starter guides. 

103. None of the studies cited in the previous two footnotes employed objective methods such as tracking in dining halls or offering food choices as part of the study to track animal product consumption, for example. 

104. They have released the results of four studies since we spoke to David in March, at which time he expected them to release about 12 studies in the next six months: “They also expect to finish the current set of Humane League Labs research programs; they plan to release the first results on April 1st and have about 25 studies in total, with one expected to come out every two weeks from that point on.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

105. Most importantly, we believe that reporting statistical significance or other related measures is critical in helping advocates be guided by meaningful data, rather than the random trends which can affect small samples. – Smith, A. (July 23, 2014). What Elements of a Leaflet Matter? ACE Blog.
     We have discussed these issues with THL at length, and believe they now understand the importance of such statistical tests; their most recent study report uses them alongside reporting of the raw data. – Gabriel, S., Doebel, S. and The Humane League. (September 22, 2014.) Report: Is One Message or Multiple Messages More Effective for Inspiring People to Reduce Meat Consumption? Humane League Labs. 

106. “David and Aaron (Director of Campaigns) have been involved for 3+ years each. Nick is the founder, and while still involved stopped being involved day-to-day about 2 years ago.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

107. “David and Aaron (Director of Campaigns) have been involved for 3+ years each.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

108. “David trains new people and stays with them for about a month, and Aaron helps them on a day-to-day basis. They have weekly check-ins with all offices.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

109. “A lot of the new people from last year are now becoming self-reliant.” “David trains new people and stays with them for about a month, and Aaron helps them on a day-to-day basis.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

110. In particular, all local campaigns must be run separately out of each office, so many people know how to run these programs. National campaigns and staff training are run by both David Coman-Hidy and Aaron Ross, so there is overlap there as well. – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

111. “With Humane League Labs, they try to make everything extremely public. They think their strong suit is that they can put their money and numbers where their mouth is, and there really isn’t anything they think they would hold back.” – Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

112. See the current site compared to the old site. 

113. THL participated in our studies on leafleting and humane education, and in a joint study of leafleting with Farm Sanctuary. 

114. They don’t have a transparency policy and the new version of their website is less informative on many subjects than the older version. 

Research Documents

• May 2014 Budget, Time, and Accomplishments

• 2014 Cost Effectiveness Estimate Spreadsheet
• September 2014 Conversation with David Coman-Hidy
• October 2014 Conversation with The Humane League
• March 2014 Conversation with David Coman-Hidy