The Humane League

How The Humane League Performs on Our Criteria

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

In 2015, we predicted that THL could use up to $380,000 in increased funding, spread across basically all of their program areas.¹ We now estimate that they’ll spend almost $800,000 more in 2016 than in 2015, so we should expect to see that they have grown substantially.² This does seem to be true, with the majority of the growth coming in the corporate campaigns program, which is now their single largest program area.³ They have also significantly increased their spending on online ads and expanded their campus outreach program.⁴

The one program area which did not expand as much as we might have expected was their local grassroots offices; they have added two offices since we spoke in 2015.⁵ They also added two offices between our 2014 and 2015 reviews.⁶ In both years we predicted that with additional funding they would be able to open more than two additional offices, but they maintained their usual rate of growth in this area, with increased funding actually going to expand other programs.⁷ To some extent, this reflects funders’ preferences; THL has received considerable support from large donors interested in funding specific programs, mostly online ads and corporate campaigns.^{8, 9} But we now think that, given past events, it’s unlikely that THL will substantially increase the number of new offices they open per year in the immediate future.

We think that THL will have room to expand in most or all of their program areas in the coming year, including continuing to expand their campaign presence, and possibly their local grassroots work, internationally; expanding their campus outreach work; and opening a small number of new local offices.¹⁰ They expanded their staff considerably in 2015 and again in 2016 and seem to be doing well at incorporating new staff, maintaining morale, and addressing the problems of growth.¹¹ Even without expansion plans, they would likely need more funding in order to comply with the new Fair Labor Standards Act, since it raises the salary threshold below which U.S. employees must be paid for working overtime.¹²

This year, THL is in an unusual position with regard to room for funding. Since the Open Philanthropy Project started making grants for farmed animal welfare early in 2016, they have announced 2 grants to THL, covering a significant part of their budget for 2016 and projected budget for 2017.¹³ The first two grants aim to fill THL’s room for funding for their corporate campaigns program, and have largely fueled the expansion of that program, including additional staff positions and expansion of THL’s corporate work internationally through both their own work and the development of the Open Wing Alliance.¹⁴

If major funders want to fill all of THL’s room for funding in some or all areas of work, then the case for individual donors to fund them is not as strong. However, there are some mitigating factors: major funders could change their funding priorities in the future, may prefer to support charities which can also secure funding from other sources, and may choose only to support certain programs, which is especially important for a charity like THL with many different programs.¹⁵ THL has told us that they want to avoid being funded only by a few major donors, and we think these are all reasons which make sense and could apply to their situation.¹⁶ Additionally, if donors decide not to give to THL because of the Open Philanthropy Project grants, this could incentivize the Open Philanthropy Project to give fewer or smaller grants to THL in the future.

THL’s goal is to raise about $1.5 million more in 2017 than in 2016.¹⁷ Given the amount they expanded in 2016, it does seem reasonable that they would be able to use at least $1 million to $1.5 million more in 2017 than 2016. Given the timing of the Open Philanthropy Project grants, we estimate that they will provide about $500,000 of this, so that at least $500,000 to $1 million is left to other donors to contribute.¹⁸ Since we can’t predict exactly how any organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, this estimate is speculative, not definitive. We could imagine a group running out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or coming up with good ways to use funding beyond what we have suggested. Our estimates are indicators of the point at which we would want to check in with a group to ensure that they have used the funds they’ve received and are still able to absorb additional funding.

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

The Humane League 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. Where we give estimates as ranges, they represent our 90% subjective confidence intervals; that is, we expect the true value to be within the range given in 90% of cases.¹⁹ We think this quantitative perspective is a useful component of our overall evaluation, but the estimates of equivalent animals spared per dollar should not be taken as our overall opinion of the organization’s effectiveness, especially given that we choose not to account for some less easily quantified forms of impact in this section, leaving them for our qualitative evaluation.

Corporate Campaigns

We estimate that in 2016 THL will spend 30% of their budget, or around $483,000, on corporate campaigns.²⁰ This results in some companies adopting new policies, and these policies result in reduced suffering for animals.²¹ We estimate that THL’s corporate campaigns will help cause between 95 and 110 policy changes affecting between 200 million and 400 million laying hens and male chicks each year, accounting for the risk that some companies might not follow through with their commitments.^{22, 23} The policies include moving laying hens to cage-free systems, as well as a policy by the United Egg Producers, a large industry group, that calls for the majority of the U.S. egg production system to move to in-ovo sexing technology for egg-laying hens, which would eliminate the current system of killing male chicks shortly after hatching.^{24, 25}

Grassroots Outreach

We estimate that in 2016 THL will spend 29% of their budget, or around $477,000, on grassroots outreach.²⁶ This will include the distribution of between 1 million and 1.3 million pieces of literature,²⁷ between 1,800 and 2,400 pay-per-view video views, and between 8,000 and 10,000 students reached with humane education presentations.²⁸ We’re unsure how costs are split between these activities, but note that if the costs are all assigned to leafleting, the cost per leaflet distributed is between $0.38 and $0.50.²⁹

Online Ads

We estimate that in 2016 THL will spend 25% of their budget, or around $407,000, on online ads.³⁰ The ads are placed on Facebook, and clicks lead viewers to pro-veg and pro-animal content.³¹ We estimate that they’ll get between 18 million and 30 million clicks on their ads in 2016, making their cost per click between $0.01 and $0.023.³²

Communications and Social Media

We estimate that in 2016 THL will spend about 12% of their budget, or $194,000, on social media outreach and other communications, including their blog, Facebook page, etc.³³ We estimate that this year the videos they share will get between 2 million and 3 million unique views to 95% of the video length.³⁴ This gives us a cost of between $0.06 and $0.09 per video view to 95%.³⁵ However, we note that users also engaged with THL’s content in many other ways, such as watching parts of videos, reading text posts, and reading blog posts, so the cost per engagement is lower.

Campus Outreach

We estimate that in 2016 THL will spend 4% of their budget, or around $59,000, on campus outreach.³⁶ Their campus outreach program shares some elements with their grassroots outreach, and results of campus outreach such as leafleting and pay-per-view views are included with similar results from grassroots outreach for simplicity.³⁷ The campus outreach program will also give between 60 and 75 student campus coordinators experience in organizing for animal rights, lead to campus policy changes benefiting 1,500 to 5,000 hens (mostly by shifting from using conventional to plant-based mayonnaise),³⁸ and generate 11,000 to 14,000 individual Meatless Monday pledges.^{39, 40}

Changes Since 2015

In both 2015 and 2016, THL has produced significantly more corporate policy change than in the previous year.^{41, 42} We think the progress in corporate campaigning is in part because the commitments they and others sparked last year caused a shift in the industry attitude towards battery cages that allowed other companies to adopt cage-free policies more easily; in particular, this year THL and other groups were very successful in attempts to change grocery retailers’ policies.⁴³ We think this speaks to the difficulty in making cost-effectiveness estimates for long-term campaigns, since they can have diffuse effects years later, including effects they could have on new policies and commitments that aren’t directly attributable to the organization who ran the long-term campaign. We’re not sure whether these gains can continue, as the types of policy on which THL has been working are now widespread throughout the U.S. industry, and they will need to start a move towards some other policy to improve farmed animal welfare in order to continue reaching large numbers of animals through these techniques.⁴⁴ As of November 2016, however, THL and other charities have begun making progress in both international cage-free reforms and other areas of welfare policy like reducing the suffering of chickens raised for meat.

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 provide information about whether THL’s efforts are comparable in efficiency to other charities’.⁴⁶

We use our Online Ad and Leafleting Impact Calculator to find that THL spares between -4 and 45 animals from life on a farm per dollar spent on online ads,^{47, 48} and between 1 and 6 animals per dollar spent on grassroots outreach.⁴⁹ We use a separate impact calculator for social media to find that THL spares between 0.3 and 10 animals per dollar spent on social media programs (other than online ads).⁵⁰

We consider the number of animals affected by THL’s corporate policy victories, the extent to which THL worked with other groups to achieve those victories, and the proportion of suffering alleviated by the policy changes to estimate that THL spared an equivalent of between 300 and 6000 animals per dollar spent on corporate campaigns in 2016.⁵¹ Note that even though many of our ranges are quite wide, this one is exceptionally so. We note that a large part of both the impact and uncertainty is from the chicks affected by the United Egg Producers policy, which may be a one-time opportunity due to its unusually large reach and the fact that, unlike most corporate policies, its primary effect is to completely prevent animals from being born into industrial agriculture.⁵² These chicks live very short lives, only around one day, so many readers might want to focus on the years spared figures instead of lives spared.⁵³

We use estimates of campus dining services purchasing and estimate the average effect of Meatless Monday pledges to estimate that THL spares between 0.4 and 15 animals per dollar spent on campus outreach.⁵⁴

We weight our estimates by the proportion of funding THL spends on each activity to estimate that in the short-term, THL spares between 100 and 1700 animals per dollar spent.⁵⁵ We have also run parallel calculations to estimate that this means THL spares animals between -20 and 110 years of suffering on farms per dollar spent.^{56, 57} Because of extreme uncertainty even about the strongest parts of our calculations, there is currently limited value in further elaborating this estimate. Instead, we give weight to our other criteria. We also exclude more indirect or long-term impacts from this estimate, which could result in it being an underestimate of overall impact. Because charities have varying proportions of different types of impact, this makes our quantitative estimates particularly difficult to use to compare charities.

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

Online and Grassroots Outreach

Inspiring individual consumers to make animal-friendly changes affects animals by reducing the demand for animal products. Increasing the number of vegans and vegetarians could also lead to greater support for new animal-friendly policies, such as the institutional adoption of plant-based products. We think that outreach targeted to individual consumers might even be a necessary precursor to more institutional change.

Still, the impact of grassroots outreach seems limited relative to the impact of other interventions. Even if viewers and readers make individual changes, they might not influence many others to do the same. By comparison, a change in corporate policy or the law can influence many people’s behavior and might have a greater indirect impact on social norms and the growth of the animal protection movement. THL does plan to shift their grassroots focus towards supporting corporate campaigns in the coming months, and they plan to spend a smaller proportion of their budget on online ads in 2017.

Corporate Outreach

Corporate outreach seems to have high mission effectiveness because it involves convincing a few powerful people to make decisions that influence the lives of millions of animals. This seems likely to be easier than reaching and persuading millions of consumers in order to accomplish the same goal. However, the gains achieved through corporate outreach are often small welfare improvements. It’s not clear whether such improvements, even if easy to achieve, are highly effective in the long term. Small welfare reforms may improve conditions for animals, but they may also influence public opinion, either towards greater concern for farmed animals or towards complacency with regard to industrial agriculture. We expect the impact on public opinion to be favorable for animals, overall.⁵⁸

Studies of Advocacy Methods

Conducting research on effective advocacy can play a pivotal role in how successful an organization can be. A group might expertly carry out a particular intervention, but if that intervention isn’t effective (or if it has negative effects), then the group is not as impactful as they could be. They may even unintentionally cause net harm. By investigating the effectiveness of their persuasive material, THL may be able to increase their impact. By publishing their findings, they may also help to increase the impact of other groups.

Criterion #4: The Charity 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 charities. They actively work to evaluate the efficiency of their own programs, quantitatively when possible, in order to determine what is working best and what they need to do less of or modify.

THL is using Humane League Labs to better understand what works best through research. In the past, Humane League Labs seemed to have difficulty releasing their findings on a planned schedule,⁵⁹ and they initially did not provide the level of statistical analysis we would have liked to see.⁶⁰ However, they recently hired Harish Sethu to run Humane League Labs and are looking for another capable Researcher to work with him.⁶¹ We are encouraged that they make 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.

THL’s board and staff are committed to reducing suffering; they are not committed to any particular strategies for accomplishing their goal. They emphasize their ability to change directions as needed. By making as much as possible of what they learn public through Humane League Labs, they also work to increase the effectiveness of the animal advocacy movement as a whole.

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 at least one exception: in 2014, they told us that they would not close their local offices to focus only on online outreach and national campaigns even if that seemed to be the most cost-effective intervention, because their local offices do their own fundraising and as such do not take away from the national budget.⁶² We do not necessarily agree with this reasoning, 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.⁶³ 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.⁶⁴

In 2015, THL made some changes to internal processes. For example, in at least some offices, they have become more selective about intern recruitment, to avoid situations like interns throwing leaflets into the trash instead of distributing them.⁶⁵ Their professional recruitment has also increased its focus on attitude and personality rather than technical suitability, which has produced good results.⁶⁶

In 2016, THL has been working to expand their donor base. Currently, much of their funding comes from a small number of major donors or foundations, and having a more diversified base of support would lend THL greater stability. They are working on growing their social media reach and their mailing list and they hope that their name will become more widely known.⁶⁷

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

Have programs been well executed?

THL was founded in 2005 and has engaged in their current programs for several years. They have undergone substantial growth in recent years; their 2015 budget was almost 25 times as large as their 2009 budget.⁶⁸ They have a substantial track record of carrying out their programs, opening offices in new cities, and training new staff.⁶⁹

Perhaps their most successful campaigns in 2015 were their corporate cage-free campaigns. As a result of THL’s work, several of the largest food service companies in the world agreed to expand their animal welfare policies and transition to cage-free eggs. In the following months, THL obtained more than 60 similar commitments. In 2016, THL continued to secure cage-free commitments from more than 90 dining companies, restaurants, manufacturers, and retailers in the United States.

THL’s corporate outreach program landed another major achievement in 2016: they convinced United Egg Producers to eliminate the practice of culling male chicks. Instead of suffocating or grinding male chicks after they hatch, United Egg Producers will now use a new technology to determine the sex of chicken embryos before they hatch.⁷⁰ Note that this welfare reform could be more likely to happen without animal advocacy involvement than other reforms because it seems more likely to be a financial savings for companies who make the change.

THL continues to engage in grassroots outreach, particularly on college campuses. They conduct humane education and recruit and train student interns and campus coordinators. They also distribute leaflets, Vegetarian Starter Guides, and dining guides.

Have programs led to change for animals?

Some of THL’s programs have clearly benefitted animals, like their corporate outreach program. Their corporate campaigns have led 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.

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. They conducted many of their cage-free campaigns independently or by taking the lead, and United Egg Producers’ decision to end chick culling was made after “exclusive conversations with The Humane League.”⁷¹

Many of THL’s programs attempt to influence individual behavior, and the impact of these is substantially harder to measure.⁷² Included in this category are online ads, leafleting and other literature distribution, humane education, and most Humane League Labs studies. Research so far suggests that some of these activities have a positive effect, while others have not been formally evaluated at all.⁷³ 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 Charity Has Strong Leadership and Long-Term Strategy

Leadership

THL has solid and stable leadership, with key staff for program and organizational leadership having been with the organization for several years.⁷⁴ Executive Director David Coman-Hidy has been with the organization for over 6 years.⁷⁵ Coman-Hidy has shown capable leadership skills over the years: maintaining high staff morale and friendly relationships with other animal advocates, prioritizing high-impact projects and self-evaluation, and engaging with criticism of THL’s work in a healthy and productive manner. Most key staff at THL have served as local office Directors or co-Directors at earlier times, allowing them insight into the everyday activities of other employees.⁷⁶

The Board of Directors has also remained stable; they don’t have term limits, and most Board Members have been on the board since shortly after The Humane League adopted that name in 2008.^{77, 78} We had questions about this degree of stability in the board; a board that does not change its composition could prevent an organization from adapting, or could fail to meet the needs of the organization as it grows. For THL, however, the board organization and composition appear to be working. The board usually operates by consensus, so compromise and changing positions are regular occurrences for all Board Members and the Executive Director.⁷⁹ Additionally, when they search for new Board Members, a good fit in terms of personality is seen as an essential condition; good candidates have a willingness to learn from new evidence and adjust their beliefs.⁸⁰ Because existing Board Members have these characteristics, THL has been able to change methods and programs when opportunities arise or there is reason to believe a change will make them more effective.⁸¹

Long-Term Strategy

THL seeks to “reduce animal suffering by inspiring change at all levels.”⁸² THL takes this mission seriously in their strategic decisions, such as focusing on welfare improvements for egg-laying hens and chickens raised for meat, who endure some of the most suffering of any population of farmed animals.⁸³ They have also shown dedication to effectiveness through their research wing, Humane League Labs, and their engagement with ACE and the effective altruism community. We support THL’s choice to focus on improving farmed animal welfare and promoting plant-based diets because we consider farmed animal protection to be the most promising area for most animal advocacy, other things being equal.⁸⁴

THL is currently working on strategic planning for the next five years.⁸⁵ Because of the rapid acceleration of corporate policy progress over the past two years, in addition to the Open Philanthropy Project funding, it makes sense that they are having to reshape their plans and we expect them to do so in a reasonable way.

THL has at least three potential roles in the animal movement they can fill: First, they already are, and could become more of, a leader in corporate and potentially legal policy change. Particularly, THL uses negative campaign pressure to encourage companies to change policies, often by working with friendlier organizations who can relieve the pressure and give incentives for moving in the right direction. This role makes sense because of their strong grassroots network and relatively more radical position. Second, THL is already serving as a leader in the internationalization of animal-friendly policies. Through the Open Wing Alliance, they are helping create global cage-free egg policies, which could be quickly followed by reforms for chickens raised for meat. Third, THL is developing a large grassroots network of effectiveness-focused activists that can assist, and already have assisted, with corporate campaigning. We think each of these roles are important in the animal movement, and the grassroots network in particular seems relatively neglected within the effective animal advocacy community.

Criterion #7: The Charity Has a Healthy Culture and Sustainable Structure

THL has well-established procedures for hiring new local office staff and opening new offices, because they have grown significantly in the past few years.⁸⁶ Until 2015, many of the procedures were somewhat informal; last year they created more detailed handbooks to support new employees, particularly local office staff during their first year.⁸⁷ Local office staff operate mostly independently with help in different areas from the national grassroots Director and Director of development.⁸⁸ The campaigns department also has several members with overlapping duties.⁸⁹ We believe this structure is especially stable because many people in the organization know how to do most of the important program-related tasks.⁹⁰

THL deliberately maintains a positive and cohesive internal atmosphere.⁹¹ Staff and Board Members intentionally create community through an informal Facebook group, to help them deal with the fact that most work in cities where no other THL employee lives.⁹² In our deep review in 2015, staff, interns, and volunteers all told us that the positive and welcoming atmosphere created by others at THL was one of the strengths of the organization, especially for grassroots organizing.^{93, 94, 95} Staff also told us that open communication and the opportunity for everyone to give input on programs within the organization was a strength.⁹⁶ Leaders at THL have recently begun placing more emphasis on maintaining these positive cultural aspects, by improving communication structures and placing more emphasis on cultural fit during the hiring process for new employees.^{97, 98} THL has also shown sustained fundraising ability over the years with consistent and rapid growth.

THL is exceptionally forthcoming with the work conducted by Humane League Labs and cooperated fully with our questions during the evaluation process.⁹⁹ We find their current website somewhat less informative than the old one, which featured real-time reports on the activities of each local office.¹⁰⁰ 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.¹⁰¹

With their corporate campaigns department in particular, THL is actively collaborating with other animal charities. We are especially impressed by THL’s leadership role in the Open Wing Alliance, where they offer support and coordination to campaigning charities in other countries to push for animal-friendly policies.

Criticism/FAQ

Why does THL use local grassroots offices, when it might be that more animals can be affected on a national level?

Many animal advocacy organizations, including Mercy For Animals, which have historically engaged in grassroots activism, choose not to operate local offices.¹⁰² Typically, this is because they believe they have a larger reach and can be more effective by operating programs online or through national media than by engaging in grassroots action. Sometimes these organizations still have a volunteer base which they encourage to engage in grassroots action, but without local staff support.¹⁰³

THL believes that grassroots efforts are a crucial part of the animal advocacy movement,¹⁰⁴ and lend strength to organizations pushing for policy change.¹⁰⁵ They find that their local offices help to organize the community in the cities where they’re located, especially if there is no similar office or organization in the area. They would like to see such offices in every metropolitan area, whether they are part of THL or of another organization.¹⁰⁶

THL says that the strategy of having grassroots offices is distinct from the strategy of engaging in any of the particular activities which the grassroots offices now take part in. By having trained, dedicated staff throughout the country, they’re prepared for situations in which they find that it’s beneficial to change the specific tactics they engage in.¹⁰⁷ For instance, in the past year, grassroots offices have switched from running local cage-free campaigns to running local meat reduction campaigns because of victories of the national corporate campaigns group,¹⁰⁸ and they have also started supporting the national corporate campaigns more.¹⁰⁹

Why does a significant portion of THL’s outreach focus on dietary change, e.g. reducing meat consumption, rather than directly shifting public attitudes?

Critics argue that a strong focus on dietary change isn’t supported by historical examples or other empirical evidence.^110,111,112 Some argue that successful social movements have focused their rhetoric on the institution they opposed rather than on individual behavior supporting that institution.¹¹³ Critics also believe it is difficult to build a mass movement when the perceived criteria for acceptance in the movement is a lifestyle change, and that a consumer focus provokes less moral outrage than focusing on the institution, thus missing an important driver of activism and subsequent social change.

Some charities feel that a focus on dietary change in certain programs, such as leafleting, is more likely than other approaches to lead to immediate behavior change that directly spares animals If people simply change their attitudes with respect to farmed animals, that might not lead to actual impact for animals. After all, many people currently care about animals, but relatively few are vegetarian or vegan.¹¹⁴ It might actually be easier to change individuals’ attitudes after convincing them to change their diets, since they will no longer need to reconcile their compassion towards farmed animals with their practice of eating them.

In general, however, THL’s approach seems more focused on incremental change than on building a mass movement, which may be the real underlying difference between the two sides.

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

Critics argue that humane reforms (e.g. bans on battery cages) might lead people to think that farmed animals no longer suffer and that helping them is no longer a priority.¹¹⁵ Some cite as evidence that the animal agriculture industry markets itself as humane and ethical, which suggests this messaging actually benefits those companies.¹¹⁶ However, this may only reflect gains to individual companies from positioning themselves as the most humane option.¹¹⁷ There isn’t much evidence that this kind of marketing helps the industry as a whole, and there’s weak evidence of a negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat consumption.

Since humane reforms often involve working directly with food industry companies, this can give the public the impression that these companies treat their animals well when this is not the case, especially when animal advocates are incentivized to make the humane reforms seem like drastic improvements when animals still suffer substantially.¹¹⁸ Critics would also argue that, empirically, humane reforms such as banning battery cages reduce only a very small portion of the harm of animal agriculture, if any, so they are not the most cost-effective use of time.^{119, 120, 121}

THL has not seen evidence of increased complacency among corporations as a result of their achievements thus far, as companies have often been more willing to work with them after making progress on some issues. It’s not clear whether they would be aware of increased complacency among consumers as a result of their work.

As activists and potential activists notice THL’s progress, their grassroots network (and the animal advocacy community in general) grows and can push for better animal welfare policies in the future. Also, making institutional progress for animals could increase the credibility of the animal advocacy movement, as it becomes clear that animal advocates are not just passionate about changing their personal diets; they are also capable of making significant institutional changes.¹²²

The success of humane reforms also establishes moral discussions of animal agriculture as an important and tractable topic in the public domain, which seems important for further progress. It may even be important for facilitating the transition to vegan alternatives, like cultured meat. Consumers may support alternatives to animal agriculture more enthusiastically if they are aware of a history of other attempts to reform the system.

1. “In total, we think they could easily use another $380,000 next year, of which we estimate they would raise about half on their own (since we know some of their funding increase in the past year was due to ACE’s recommendation and we don’t expect any big changes at THL with regard to fundraising in the coming year).”—2015 ACE Review of The Humane League. 

2. Compare the total budgets used in our estimates of their cost-effectiveness in 2015 (even projected to cover the full year) and 2016. 

3. We estimate a budget of $483,000 this year, compared to around $200,000 for the full year 2015. 

4. For online ads, we estimate a budget of $407,000 this year, compared to around $275,000 for the full year 2015. When we wrote our 2015 review, they were considering hiring “a second staff member to work on college outreach;” as of November 2016, their website lists three staff members working on campus outreach and two on campus campaigns. 

5. “THL currently operates eleven offices around the country.”—2015 ACE Review of The Humane League. As of November 2016, their website lists thirteen local grassroots Directors, a position we expect to find in each local office. 

6. “Additionally, although THL opened only two new offices in 2015, they took on several more new office Directors, mostly because other staff took on more specialized leadership roles within the organization.”—2015 ACE Review of The Humane League. 

7. Our predictions from past years: “Typically, one of THL’s local offices costs around $40,000 to open and operate for the first two years. After this point, each office is expected to cover its own expenses through local fundraising events. THL currently operates nine offices around the country, and has plans to open an additional two offices in 2015. 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.”—December 2014 ACE Review of The Humane League.

   “This year, THL has room for more funding to expand their online ads program and corporate campaigns and to open offices in additional cities more quickly than they would otherwise be able to. While they didn’t have as much capacity to expand their local office program as expected last year, this year they have made improvements to the organization of materials for office Directors and begun providing them with more consistent training, which they believe will make it easier to open new offices in the future.”—2015 ACE Review of The Humane League. 

8. We believe that the funding situation for online ads is similar this year to last year. “Currently, most of the spending on ads comes from grants, which are continuing to grow because of the success of the program.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

9. These include grants from the Open Philanthropy Project to support corporate campaigns. 

10. “THL hasn’t yet finished their budget for next year, but they will likely use additional funding to further the goals mentioned above. They will expand youth training and outreach and their international work. The latter will require hiring a corporate relations person in France, where many companies are headquartered, and THL will likely expand quite a bit in the UK.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

11. “THL conducted a mandatory, anonymous internal survey and found that their employees have high morale and high job satisfaction. Even though they have expanded rapidly, they have increased their support staff and they have high team spirit and low turnover.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

12. “The effective date of this Final Rule is December 1, 2016. On that day, the new standard salary level ($913 per week or $47,476 per year) and HCE total compensation requirement ($134,004 per year) will take effect.”—Final Rule: Overtime Questions and Answers. United States Department of Labor. 

13. Grants from the Open Philanthropy Project are documented on their website. 

14. “Grants from The Open Philanthropy Project (OPP) have rapidly expanded THL’s work.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

15. “Grants from The Open Philanthropy Project (OPP) have rapidly expanded THL’s work. There is less money available to support grassroots work, although there is still room for more funding in campaigns work….Foundations might have a bias against grassroots work because its effects are difficult to measure.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

16. “Next year, they hope to diversify and invest in hiring development professionals. They are working on building their monthly donors and medium-sized donors.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

17. “They hope to continue to expand, bringing in about $3.5 million in 2016 and $5 million in 2017.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

18. The grants from the Open Philanthropy Project are all intended to cover a two-year period, with that period beginning at various points in 2016 depending on the particular grant. 

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

20. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by THL. 

21. “Groups in the United States have worked together and been very successful at getting corporations to make cage-free commitments. THL hopes to take advantage of the cage-free momentum and get all of the major global corporations to implement global cage-free policies. The alliance has already had successful meetings with companies like Sodexo and Compass Group.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

22. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using accomplishment information provided by THL. 

23. Our range here reflects adjustments to the numbers provided by THL and other organizations that include overlap between producer and retailer policies and uncertainty that companies will carry through on their policy commitments. For THL’s detailed list of accomplishments in this area see THL 2016 Updates for ACE. 

24. See THL’s list of campaign victories in THL 2016 Updates for ACE. 

25. “One of the most exciting outcomes of THL’s cage-free campaigns was the United Egg Producers’ pledge to end chick culling, which indicated the momentum started by cage-free policy changes.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

26. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by THL. 

27. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using accomplishment information provided by THL. From our five computations, the ranges were: 1,100,000 to 1,200,000, 1,100,000 to 1,300,000, 1,100,000 to 1,200,000, 1,000,000 to 1,200,000, and 1,000,000 to 1,300,000. 

28. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using accomplishment information provided by THL. 

29. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

30. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by THL. 

31. For more information, see our intervention report on online ads. 

32. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

33. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

34. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using accomplishment information provided by THL, including Facebook reports. See also our THL social media calculator. 

35. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

36. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers provided by THL. 

37. For 2016, THL reported leafleting, vegetarian starter guide distribution, and pay-per-view video results for the grassroots outreach and campus outreach programs in combined forms. Additionally, some humane education presentations are given by THL staff when visiting campuses to support campus outreach programs. 

38. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using accomplishment information provided by THL. From our five computations, the ranges were: 1600 to 4500, 1500 to 4500, 1500 to 4700, 1500 to 4600, and 1500 to 4600. 

39. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using accomplishment information provided by THL. 

40. “Spring Semester: 30 Campus Outreach Coordinators; Fall Semester: 43 Campus Outreach Coordinators; 19 new student groups formed so far.
    [….]Complete list of campuses that have switched 100% of their mayo to a vegan option:

    • Harvard (also partial cookie switch to vegan cookies)
    • University of Connecticut
    • Brown
    • Yale
    • UC Santa Cruz
    • Mt Holyoke College
    • UC Santa Barbara (student union switched, working on dining halls)
    • UC Boulder

    On an annual basis, this equates to removing 814,800 eggs from those campuses, sparing the lives of 3,126 hens Note: these estimates do not include cookies at Harvard or mayo at UCSB because I can’t estimate those as partial switches without knowing order volumes.“—THL 2016 Updates for ACE. 

41. “In the heat of the Sodexo and Aramark Campaigns, David and Aaron Ross worked on campaigns, but both had less and less time to devote to them. So, they hired Taylor Ford, who had been interning at THL, to work on the campaigns full-time. As soon as they hired him, they got much more work done and had unprecedented victories with dining companies.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

42. We estimate that policies THL influenced this year will affect 200 million to 400 million animals yearly, while last year’s policies will affect around 5 million animals yearly. 

43. This progress can be traced through press coverage, such as Kowitt, B. (January 20, 2016). Target Joins Growing List Of Food Companies Committing to Cage-Free Eggs. Fortune. and Graber, R. (April 27, 2016). INFOGRAPHIC: 103 food industry brands to pledge cage free in 2016. WATTAgNet. 

44. The view that advocates will need to move to new policy areas seems to be shared by some advocates, for instance: “There is also probably room in the movement for reducing fish consumption and implementing fish welfare policies. This will probably become one of MFA’s key focus areas in the United States and Canada, where many cage-free commitments are already in place.”—Conversation with Nick Cooney (September 2, 2016).
    THL mentioned plans to work outside the U.S. and on broiler chicken welfare: “THL hopes to take advantage of the cage-free momentum and get all of the major global corporations to implement global cage-free policies. The alliance has already had successful meetings with companies like Sodexo and Compass Group….They started using their grassroots networks in demonstrations and hope to continue to leverage their power in the fight for broiler chickens.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

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. Other estimates of the cost-effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and may therefore not be comparable to ours. 

47. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. From our five computations, the ranges were: -4.5 to 46, -3.8 to 46, -4.3 to 46, -4.2 to 44, and -4 to 45. 

48. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them, unless the range is equally large on either side of zero. 

49. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

50. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL, including Facebook reports. See also our THL social media calculator. 

51. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

52. “In June, United Egg Producers, which represents 95 percent of American egg farms, said in an announcement coordinated with the animal rights group the Humane League that it would end the culling by 2020 ‘or as soon as’ the technology is ‘commercially available and economically feasible.'”—Brulliard, K. (October 27, 2016). New Technique May Prevent The Gruesome Deaths Of Billions Of Male Chicks. The Washington Post. 

53. “Amid the recent, growing opposition to tightly caged hens, another practice in the poultry industry has drawn less notice: All male chicks born at egg farm hatcheries are slaughtered the day they hatch.”—Brulliard, K. (October 27, 2016). New Technique May Prevent The Gruesome Deaths Of Billions Of Male Chicks. The Washington Post. 

54. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. From our five computations, the ranges were: 0.41 to 15, 0.38 to 16, 0.38 to 15, 0.4 to 14, and 0.4 to 15. 

55. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. 

56. THL cost-effectiveness estimate. Our estimates in this model were calculated using preliminary budget numbers and accomplishment information provided by THL. From our five computations, the ranges were: -26 to 120, -24 to 110, -23 to 110, -24 to 110, and -21 to 120. 

57. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them, unless the range is equally large on either side of zero. 

58. 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.

    There have been at least two Mechanical Turk experiments investigating the short-term impact of viewing information about recent welfare reforms on attitudes towards animal consumption. Both studies (one by MFA and another by Jacy Reese, who was a Board Member at ACE at the time of the study) showed statistically significant positive effects of viewing the welfare reform information. 

59. They have released the results of eight studies since we spoke to David in March 2014, 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). 

60. 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. 

61. “THL had a tough time finding a Researcher to work with Harish Sethu at HLL, but they found someone for an interim position and will be looking for more staff at HLL in 2017.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

62. See our Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

63. In speaking with THL Board Members, donors, and volunteers, we found that some of the most committed travel to multiple cities for their major fundraising events (the holiday party or gala each office throws), which suggests that some would find a way to remain involved with and supportive of THL even if they did not live in a city with a local office. 

64. See our Leafleting Impact Calculator for a demonstration of how much uncertainty we have about the impacts of even relatively well-understood programs. 

65. “Rachel said that interns in the past had sometimes done poor work if they were not very committed to THL’s mission, such as throwing away stacks of leaflets instead of handing them out. Now THL is more selective about the interns that they accept, in order to avoid similar problems.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. 

66. “Finally, Andrea and David have changed the hiring process to ensure that new hires fit in with THL culture. When they are hiring people, they focus a lot more on attitude and personality, whereas previously they focused chiefly on technical suitability to the task. This has produced good results.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

67. “Their social media presence is growing quickly, but they still have a relatively small mailing list. They are actively working to improve in both these areas and have already made significant strides.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (September 16, 2016). 

68. THL’s total expenditures in 2009 were $38,883, compared to $957,810 in 2014. Tax returns for prior years are available through Guidestar and other services. 

69. Along with their budget expansion, they have expanded from one original office to eleven local offices. From The Humane League’s website in November 2015: “Originally founded in Philadelphia, The Humane League has grown to be a leading national presence for farmed animals with offices in Philadelphia, Boston, Maryland, Dallas, Charlotte, Seattle, San Francisco, Atlanta, South Florida, Denver, and San Diego.” 

70. For THL’s perspective on this success, see Ross, A. “Victory! United Egg Producers Announces Elimination of Chick Culling by 2020” (June 9, 2016). THL Blog. 

71. See Ross, A. “Victory! United Egg Producers Announces Elimination of Chick Culling by 2020” (June 9, 2016). THL Blog. 

72. 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. 

73. 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 far from conclusive (for example, many of these studies effectively lacked control groups) and in fact there is some similarly weak evidence in the other direction. For instance, there was a study from The Humane League that was designed to compare the effectiveness of various leaflets; they found that, of the nine groups compared in their study, the group which received no leaflet experienced the most dietary change. MFA recently conducted a study of online ads and found that participants in the treatment group reported consuming 3% more servings of animal products than those in the control group. This difference lacked statistical significance. 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 farm animals or on the distribution of vegetarian starter guides. 

74. “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). 

75. David Coman-Hidy joined THL as an office Director in 2010. 

76. Current staff who have previously served at THL as office Directors or co-Directors and now have other roles include David Coman-Hidy, Andrea Gunn, Aaron Ross, Rachel Atcheson, and Rachel Huff-Wagenborg. 

77. For the date of the name change, see THL’s 2007 and 2008 tax returns. 

78. “Lydia, Harish, and Denise have all been on the board of The Humane League for several years. There has been some change in Board Membership over that time, but it has been a fairly stable group of people.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. 

79. “Currently all their Board Members are very open to changing their views based on new evidence or arguments…. Especially because they do not have term limits and the board composition doesn’t change a lot, they need to be open to new ideas as individuals, because new ideas won’t come from the Board Members changing. If Board Members were dogmatically attached to particular advocacy methods, it would hamper THL’s ability to change when it needs to change.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. 

80. “Related to the stability of the board and their tendency to operate by consensus, they are very careful about the type of person they want on their board. Currently all their Board Members are very open to changing their views based on new evidence or arguments. They view this characteristic as the most important thing when looking for new Board Members.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. 

81. “If Board Members were dogmatically attached to particular advocacy methods, it would hamper THL’s ability to change when it needs to change.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. For examples of changes THL has made to programs, see Criterion 4. 

82. THL often uses this phrase to describe their mission. For example, it’s used on the “Our Story” page of their current website. 

83. More details on the numbers of individuals, suffering per individual, and mental capacities of different farmed animals are available on the “Farmed Animal Fundamentals” page by Faunalytics. 

84. For more information on our decision to prioritize helping farmed animals, see “Why Farmed Animals?” by Jon Bockman on the ACE blog and our cause prioritization pages for more detailed explanation. 

85. Private communication with THL. 

86. “For example, within the first few months [after starting to work as the National Grassroots Director] Andrea made a thorough and professional training manual, created new meeting formats for senior staff and grassroots activists, and made a new standardized training program….Opening two new offices per semester is the limit of what Andrea can do by herself in terms of training new people. THL is careful that people who start in a new semester have a lot of handholding because it’s such a big job that it takes a while to build up confidence.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

87. “For example, within the first few months [after starting to work as the National Grassroots Director] Andrea made a thorough and professional training manual, created new meeting formats for senior staff and grassroots activists, and made a new standardized training program.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

88. “Oversight of local offices involves a weekly video chat on Fridays involving most of the staff, a bi-weekly video call between the national Director and each local Director lasting roughly an hour, and a bi-weekly video call between the development Director and each local Director. Most offices are run by a single full-time staff member—the local Director—while volunteers and interns supplement a large amount of the outreach work, such as distributing leaflets and restocking news racks.”—Conversation with Andrea Gunn (July 22, 2015). 

89. “Chris Liptrot has been working under Aaron Ross. They have similar personalities and both are really good at face-to-face meetings with companies.” Other campaign staff also perform duties that have been done by Aaron or David Coman-Hidy for past campaigns: “In the heat of the Sodexo and Aramark Campaigns, David and Aaron Ross worked on campaigns, but both had less and less time to devote to them. So, they hired Taylor Ford, who had been interning at THL, to work on the campaigns full-time.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

90. In particular, all local campaigns must be run separately out of each office, so many people know how to run these programs.—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (March 20, 2014). 

91. “In the past of course they had good employee morale, but that was never talked about as a valuable thing. They’ve really worked on staff culture this year, which has increased productivity, morale and loyalty to THL among interns and staff.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

92. “The board meets once every 4 months and also stays in touch with David via email and with THL staff in general through a Facebook group which the staff and board use for casual conversation.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. 

93. “Finally, office morale and staff culture are considered strong points, which feed into effective activism among staff and volunteers.”—Conversation with Andrea Gunn (July 22, 2015). 

94. “The combination of effective activism, large and positive growth over the past few years, and a supportive and friendly social support network makes THL stand out from other animal activism organizations Clare has worked with.”—Conversation with Clare Farrow (September 4, 2015). 

95. “Throughout volunteering, she has met campaign Directors from other field officers and has become close with all of them. Everyone has a positive attitude and embodies the experience she had in her internship. Quilla has found this with all THL staff and volunteers she has met.”—Conversation with Quilla Park (September 3, 2015). 

96. “Another potential challenge for growth that the board and Rachel talked about is preserving the democratic nature that THL has now. Currently, everyone has ownership over their activities and feels heard; any staff member can suggest a change and have it be taken seriously.”—The Humane League Site Visit—Leafleting and Meeting with Board Members. 

97. “Michelle Kucerak and Rachel Huff-Wagenborg constitute the admin and development department. But it is important that the senior staff—David, Michelle, Rachel, Andrea, Aaron, and Ethan—meet each week on Friday, so that they avoid the problem of ‘silo’ departments. These meeting have helped the team to avoid drifting apart from one another….To deal with the problem of silo departments, they have had one or two campaign staff join the grassroots call each week and update the grassroots staff on meetings, campaign progress, and tactics, as well as fielding new ideas and brainstorming.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

98. “Finally, Andrea and David have changed the hiring process to ensure that new hires fit in with THL culture. When they are hiring people, they focus a lot more on attitude and personality, whereas previously they focused chiefly on technical suitability to the task.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

99. “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). 

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

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

102. MFA shifted “starting in late 2012, away from a local model of organizing and towards a more online-based model, where they found they could be more effective.”—Mercy For Animals Review. 

103. “They decided to shut down those local offices, stop paying people to do direct tabling/leafleting/etc (though they still have volunteers doing those things), and in late 2012 switched to more of an online focus.”—Conversation with Nick Cooney (March 20, 2014). 

104. “With regard to a general grassroots approach, David feels strongly that the animal rights movement should have a network of activists, and not having that would spell death for the movement.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

105. “David would like THL to be the NRA of the animal rights movement. He wants companies and lawmakers to be afraid of large groups of people that care about animals and will take time out of their day to do something about it.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

106. “Even though THL are concerned about sustainable growth, they would in principle love there to be a professional organizer doing THL-style work in every metro area.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

107. “As long as THL has good organizers on the ground, they can be nimble in what they focus their energy on. For example, one semester THL campaigned for Meatless Mondays, then they switched all volunteers and employees to leafleting. They found the same flexibility with switching people to their corporate campaigns. Interventions may change, but THL will remain a grassroots organization: that is how they win campaigns and get media coverage.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

108. “THL is no longer doing cage-free campaigns at individual colleges and universities. Almost all of these schools will stop using battery cage eggs because of their food service campaigns….They are working with individual schools on meat reduction programs, adding vegan options, and Meatless Monday programs.”—Conversation with Aaron Ross (July 23, 2015). 

109. “The first time they saw the effectiveness of the grassroots network was with the Sodexo campaign. THL knew that a vulnerability for Sodexo was their college clients. So, THL had office Directors organize on all Sodexo campuses in the area, getting signatures and taking pictures of dozens of students holding signs. These are things you cannot do without people on the ground. THL’s grassroots-based approach was very effective in this case[….]”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

110. “In any event, consumer action alone is unlikely to constitute the sole, or even the greatest, response to the animal welfare issue.”—Anderson, J. (January 1, 2011). “Protection for the Powerless: Political Economy History Lessons for the Animal Welfare Movement“. 

111. “Moreover, the movement’s focus on mass consumer dietary change has little historical or empirical basis, despite being our movement’s main strategy.”—Burns, B. “Why Beyonce Going Vegan is Bad for Animals“. 

112. “Most abolitionists did not see the free produce movement as being vital to the cause. A few dedicated proponents were able to stay completely away from slave goods but a number of other abolitionists endorsed the concept only when convenient. Many more ignored the issue altogether. The movement never grew large enough to gain the benefit of the economies of scale, and the cost of ‘free produce’ was always higher than competing goods. Though William Lloyd Garrison in Boston, founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society, initially proclaimed at a convention in 1840 that his wool suit was made without slave labor, he later examined the results of the movement and criticized it as an ineffective method to fight slavery, and as a distraction from more important work.”—Wikipedia entry on the free produce movement, a relatively well-studied historical example of a movement focused on individual changes in consumption. 

113. Jacy Reese mentions the example of the anti-slavery movement that, from its beginnings, focused on its opposition of slavery as an institution. “From its inception, however, the [anti-slavery] activists focused on a radical call for complete abolition, rather than incremental reform for slaves or individually changing the behavior of slave-owners or consumers of slave-produced goods.”—Reese, J. (July 14, 2015). Confrontation, Consumer Action, and Triggering Events. 

114. A Gallup poll conducted in the U.S. in 2015 found that 32% of respondents supported animals having the same rights as people, while an additional 62% said they should have some protection. But the best estimates for the percentage of Americans who are vegetarian are much lower, around 2%. 

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

116. “It is not just a little ironic that a representative of the Meat and Livestock Commission understands perfectly what is going on here? “Happy” meat makes “the whole thing look more acceptable.” “Happy” meat means more meat eaters and more slaughtered animals.”-Francione, G. (February 7, 2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

117. “There is a clear trend that suggests Chipotle and McDonald’s are playing something close to a zero-sum game for customers. U.S. bar and restaurant sales grew just 2.9% in 2014, according to Technomic. After inflation, restaurants are fighting for a larger slice of a fixed pie.”—Cooper, T. (March 4, 2015). Why Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Will Eat McDonald’s Corporation’s Lunch. The Motley Fool. 

118. “Animal advocates give awards to slaughterhouse designers and publicly praise supermarket chains that sell supposed “humanely” raised and slaughtered corpses and other “happy” animal products. This approach does not lead people incrementally in the right direction. Rather, it gives them a reason to justify going backwards. It focuses on animal treatment rather than animal use and deludes people into thinking that welfare regulations are actually resulting in significant protection for animals.”—Francione, G. (February 7, 2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

119. “While cage free eggs may be more humane than battery cage eggs, they are still far from ideal…Offering minor improvements for the way we treat farmed animals is a small step, however, it should not be misinterpreted as a win.”—Buff, E. (January 12, 2015). Why California’s New Animal Welfare Law is a HUGE Lesson for Animal Activists. One Green Planet. 

120. Although most advocates agree that it is less bad for an animal to be raised for food with less suffering, some believe that the act of farming animals is intrinsically harmful and even if we reduced or eliminated suffering in animal agriculture, it would still be very bad. Gary Francione has made claims that seem to suggest this view, such as: “They are angry that I am what they call an “absolutist” who maintains that we cannot justify *any* animal use. They are right. I am an absolutist in this regard—just as I am an “absolutist” with respect to rape, child molestation, and other violations of fundamental human rights. Indeed, I would not have it any other way. Absolutism is the only morally acceptable response to the violation of fundamental rights whether of humans or nonhumans.”—Francione, G. (November 4, 2015). A Lot of People Are Angry with Me—and They are Right. The Abolitionist Approach. 

121. Cage-free systems might also cause or increase some welfare issues. For instance, in cage-free systems, “hens stir up dust while walking on the floor, which contains some of the birds’ manure, elevating ammonia levels.”—Kesmodel, D. (March 18, 2015). Cage-Free Hens Study Finds Little Difference in Egg Quality. Wall Street Journal. 

122. “For example, thanks to Josh Balk’s [of Hampton Creek Foods] relationship with Compass Group, Compass Group have switched to Just Mayo for all their mayonnaise, which has removed an unbelievable number of eggs from the supply chain. Similarly, THL is campaigning for Shake Shack to sell veggie burgers at the moment. This kind of work would be very valuable: directly, for the animals involved, and indirectly, for the news coverage produced.”—Conversation with David Coman-Hidy (October 1, 2015). 

Research Documents

• 2015 Accomplishments
• 2016 Updates

• 2016 Social Media Calculator
• September 2016 Conversation with David Coman-Hidy
• 2016 Cost-Effectiveness Model
• 2015/2016 Budget