The Humane League

How The Humane League Performs on our Criteria

Interpreting our “Overall Assessments”

We provide an overall assessment of each charity’s performance on each criterion. These assessments are expressed as two series of circles. The number of teal circles represents our assessment of a charity’s performance on a given criterion relative to the other charities we evaluated this year.

The number of gray circles indicates the strength of the evidence supporting each performance assessment and, correspondingly, our confidence in each assessment relative to the other charities we evaluated this year:

Criterion 1: Programs

When we begin our evaluation process, we consider whether each charity is working in high-impact cause areas and employing effective interventions that are likely to produce positive outcomes for animals. These outcomes tend to fall under at least one of the following categories: increased availability of animal-free products, decreased consumption of animal products, improvement of welfare standards, increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values, stronger animal advocacy movement, or direct help.

Cause Areas

The Humane League (THL) focuses exclusively on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area.

Countries of Operation

THL currently works in the U.S., Mexico, the U.K., and Japan. We believe that animal advocacy in Japan and Mexico is relatively neglected.

Interventions and Projected Outcomes

THL pursues different avenues for creating change for animals: They work to improve welfare standards, strengthen the animal advocacy movement, and decrease the consumption of animal products.

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

Below, we also describe the work that THL does.² Unless otherwise specified, we have sourced the information in this criterion from The Humane League (2020c). For each intervention, we provide an assessment of how effective we think that intervention is at achieving a given outcome (weak/moderate/high).³ These assessments are based on the available evidence and are determined through a vote and discussion among our researchers. We flag assessments in which we have particularly low confidence, i.e., if we know of little or no supporting research or expert opinions.

A note about long-term impact

Each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.⁴ The potential number of individuals affected increases over time due to population growth and an accumulation of generations of animals. Thus, we would expect that the long-term impacts of an action would be more likely to affect more animals than the short-term impacts of the same action. Nevertheless, we are highly uncertain about the particular long-term effects of each intervention. Because of this uncertainty, our reasoning about each charity’s impact (along with our diagrams) may skew toward overemphasizing short-term effects.

Improvement of welfare standards

The Humane League works to improve animal welfare standards through their corporate outreach and media outreach work. This work generally seeks to make incremental improvements to the conditions in which animals live, e.g., in factory farms. For farmed animals, welfare reforms generally only result in small improvements to their living conditions. However, this is balanced by the large numbers of animals who can be impacted, and there is some evidence to suggest that farmed animal welfare reforms are likely to be very cost effective in the short term.⁵

THL works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and ban particularly cruel farming practices. They campaign for companies to switch to higher welfare (but likely slower growing) breeds of chickens raised for meat and to commit to provisions on stocking density, lighting, and environmental enrichments. Such commitments may lead to higher welfare but also to more animal days lived in factory farms. We believe that campaigning for companies to switch to higher welfare breeds of chickens raised for meat is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

THL also campaigns for companies to make cage-free egg commitments. Cage-free egg systems are believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to hens and providing them important behavioral opportunities, although during the transition process mortality may increase, and there is some risk that it may remain elevated.⁶ We believe that campaigning for companies to make cage-free egg commitments is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

To ensure that companies follow through with their pledges, THL runs a website—Chicken Watch—that monitors companies’ progress toward their welfare commitments for egg-laying hens and chickens raised for meat. Many animal advocates are concerned that companies will fail to comply with welfare pledges;⁷ tracking companies’ compliance allows THL and other advocacy organizations to exert pressure on companies that seem likely to fail to meet their commitments. We believe that monitoring companies’ compliance with welfare standards is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

THL also engages in grassroots campaigns to support their corporate outreach work: They inspire and build grassroots actions to garner public support for their corporate and legislative welfare campaigns. We believe that developing grassroots actions in strategic support of corporate campaigns is moderately effective in improving welfare standards.

Stronger animal advocacy movement

Working to strengthen the animal advocacy movement through capacity- and alliance-building projects can have a far-reaching impact. Capacity-building projects can help animals by increasing the effectiveness of other projects and organizations, while building alliances with key influencers, institutions, or social movements can expand the audience and impact of animal advocacy organizations and projects. ACE’s 2018 research on the way that resources are allocated between different animal advocacy interventions suggests that capacity building and building alliances are currently neglected relative to other interventions aimed at influencing public opinion and industry. THL’s capacity-building work includes producing advocacy research, organizing community outreach, training advocates, hosting conferences, recruiting advocates on college campuses, and supporting animal advocacy organizations.

Through The Humane League Labs, THL conducts interdisciplinary research projects on animal advocacy interventions and strategies. Conducting research on effective advocacy can play a pivotal role in how successful the movement can be. A group might expertly carry out a particular intervention, but if that intervention is not 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. We believe that producing animal advocacy research is highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

THL shares their knowledge and experience with other groups to improve corporate outreach strategies, particularly through the Open Wing Alliance (OWA), which they founded. In addition to sharing strategy and offering training, THL also helps to fund OWA member organizations around the world through a grant program. We believe that organizing community outreach, training advocates, hosting conferences and other events, and supporting other animal advocacy organizations are all highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

THL recruits students at universities by hosting events on campuses, providing student leadership training, and organizing a coalition of U.S. animal rights clubs: the Student Alliance for Animals (similar in concept to the OWA). We believe with a low degree of confidence that advocate recruitment on college campuses is moderately effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Decreased consumption of animal products

THL influences individuals to decrease their consumption of animal products through advertising and promoting another organization’s pledge program.⁸

Generally, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the causal effects of different types of interventions on individual consumer behavior.⁹ Previous studies mostly rely on self-reported consumption data, which can be subject to misreporting and biases. There is a lack of empirical studies that measure the effect of interventions on observable dietary change, such as restaurant orders, food purchasing data, or biomarkers.¹⁰ Despite the uncertainty surrounding measuring the effectiveness of interventions on individual behavior, we think it is important for the animal advocacy movement to target at least some outreach toward individuals. We think that a shift in public consumer preferences could help drive industry changes and lead to greater support for more animal-friendly policies, and it may even be a necessary precursor to more systemic change. On the whole, however, we believe that efforts to influence public opinion are much less neglected than other types of interventions.¹¹

THL seasonally advertises and promotes Veganuary’s pledge program. Some empirical studies suggest that self-monitoring—which is part of taking a veg*n pledge—reduces meat consumption, at least in the short run.¹² Other studies that measure the impact of veg*n pledges suggest that some participants adopt a more plant-based diet for several months after engaging with a pledge.¹³ Besides dietary change, veg*n pledge programs may contribute to recruiting new people to the movement, normalizing veg*nism, and raising awareness of veg*nism and animal-related issues.

We believe that veg*n pledge programs are highly effective in decreasing consumption of animal products.

Criterion 2: Room for More Funding

We look to recommend work that is not just high-impact, but also scalable. Since a recommendation from us could lead to a large increase in a charity’s funding, we look for evidence that the charity will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. To estimate a charity’s room for more funding, we not only consider the charity’s existing programs and potential areas for growth and expansion, but also non-monetary determinants of a charity’s growth, such as time or talent shortages.

Since we can’t predict exactly how an organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, our estimate is speculative rather than definitive. This year, our estimates are especially uncertain, as we do not know the consequences of COVID-19 on financials. It’s possible that a charity could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or that they could come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we expect. At midyear, we check in with each recommended charity about the funding they’ve received since the release of our recommendations, and we use the estimates presented below to indicate whether we still expect them to be able to effectively absorb additional funding at that point.

Financial History and Financial Sustainability

An effective charity should be financially sustainable. Charities should be able to continue raising the funds needed for their basic operations. Ideally, they should receive significant funding from multiple distinct sources, including both individual donations and other types of support. Charities should also hold a sufficient amount of reserves.

The chart below shows THL’s recent revenues, assets, and expenditures.¹⁴ The financial information for 2019 and the first six months of 2020 was reported by the charities during this year’s evaluation process,¹⁵ the financial information for earlier years was acquired from various sources, and the values for 2020 are estimated based on the first six months of 2020. Note that the revenue estimates shown in the graph are based on accrual accounting, accounting for when grants are received rather than when they are disbursed. THL’s revenue has increased in the past few years. They received a large donation ($10M) that will be disbursed over four years in 2018, as well as two large donations ($2M and $1.6M) in 2019. THL has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their prior recommended charity status. From 2016 to 2019, donations reportedly influenced by ACE accounted for 17% of THL’s total revenue. We estimate that in the first half of 2020, ACE-influenced donations may account for 24% of THL’s revenue.¹⁶ With about 99% of their current expenditures held in net assets, we believe that THL holds a sufficient amount of reserves.

Planned Future Expenditures

Below we list THL’s plans for expansion for 2021.¹⁷ For each plan, we provide an estimate of the expenditure as well as a confidence level, which indicates how confident we are that the plan can be realized in 2021.¹⁸ For staff salaries, we estimated the number of staff THL could hire by considering the number of existing staff they have and the number of staff they have plans to hire in 2021. For the corresponding costs, we made salary estimates based on information about the job’s seniority, type, and location using data from current and past job postings whenever possible.¹⁹ We also factored in additional costs incurred as part of the hiring process. We estimated non-staff-related costs for each charity’s plans for expansion²⁰ based on their 2019 program expenditures;²¹ in some cases, we also considered THL’s estimations of their future expenditures²² and/or our impressions of how much the expansions would cost.²³ Additionally, we accounted for an estimate—based on a percentage of the charity’s current annual budget—of possible unforeseen expenditures.

Estimated Room for More Funding

We estimated THL’s room for more funding for 2021. For this, we relied on an estimate of their predicted revenue for 2021. THL has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their prior recommended charity status, which we subtract from past values when estimating the predicted revenue. We estimate that THL’s revenue in 2021 will be $9.3 million or within the 90% prediction interval [$6.8M, $12M].²⁸ THL’s own prediction of their 2021 revenue ($10M to $12M) lies within the predicted interval.

Using our predictions of future revenue, THL’s room for more funding was estimated via Guesstimate. Note that when ACE estimates a charity’s room for more funding, we are estimating the amount of funding that the charity could use on top of their predicted, regular funding in the coming year.

The chart shows THL’s room for more funding distributed across our three confidence levels. For donors influenced by ACE wishing to donate to THL, we estimate that THL’s room for more funding in 2021 is $0.66 million (90% prediction interval: [-$1.2M, $2.6M]) with high confidence. Overall, we have some confidence that THL has room for $1.1 million (90% prediction interval: [-$1.8M, $4.1M]) in additional funding in 2021. We believe that THL’s room for more funding relative to the size of their organization is of smaller size compared to the other charities we evaluated this year. We also believe that their absolute room for more funding is of larger size relative to the funding we influence through our recommendations. Given the impact a recommendation may have on a charity’s funding, we base our rating of performance in this criterion on the latter assessment.

Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness

A charity’s recent cost effectiveness provides an insight into how well it has made use of its available resources and is a useful component in understanding how cost effective future donations to the charity might be. In this criterion, we take a more in-depth look at the charity’s use of resources over the past 18 months and compare that to the outcomes they have achieved in each of their main programs during that time. We have used an approach in which we qualitatively analyze a charity’s expenditures and key results and compare them to other charities we are reviewing this year.

We categorized the charity’s programs into different outcomes—improvement of welfare standards, increased availability of animal-free products, decreased consumption of animal products, increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values, and stronger animal advocacy movement. Then, for a given outcome, we compared the charity’s key results and expenditures from January 2019 to June 2020 to other charities we evaluated in our 2020 and gave our assessment of how cost effective we think their work towards that outcome has been.

Improvement of Welfare Standards

THL engages in five programs that we have categorized as contributing to improving welfare standards—animal welfare campaigns in the U.S., U.K., Mexico, Japan, and with the Open Wing Alliance (OWA). As the resource usage and key results of each program are similar (yet with different regional focus), we analyze them together.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for THL’s programs focused on the improvement of welfare standards, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of each program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see The Humane League (2020c).

Table: Estimated number of animals affected³⁰ by corporate commitments, January 2019–June 2020

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

THL’s animal welfare campaigns focus on securing commitments to improve welfare standards for farmed animals. In the past 18 months, THL has reported securing 76 cage-free commitments and 95 commitments for chickens raised for meat, alone and in cooperation with other groups. After factoring in the proportional responsibility that THL has for securing these commitments, we estimate these commitments have the potential to affect 660 million to 8.5 billion animals once implemented.

A detailed analysis of these estimates can be found in this Guesstimate model. Our estimates for the effects of corporate outreach take into account the uncertainty about the rates with which companies follow through on their commitments. In the U.S., for example, companies have made commitments often with deadlines 5–10 years after the commitment, which leaves the risk that they will not be followed through on without continued campaigning.³¹ THL actively follows up on whether companies follow through on their cage-free commitment deadlines. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think that the cost effectiveness of THL’s work on their animal welfare campaigns seems much higher than the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward improving welfare standards we have evaluated this year.

THL has reported to us that in light of COVID-19, they redirected their focus toward outreach to large manufacturers in the U.S. THL Mexico had to pause their campaigns for several months.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of THL’s work toward the improvement of welfare standards seems much higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Decreased Consumption of Animal Products

THL engages in one program that we have categorized as contributing to decreased consumption of animal products—veg advocacy.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for THL’s program focused on decreasing consumption of animal products, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of each program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see The Humane League (2020c).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

THL’s veg advocacy program focuses on encouraging individuals to reduce their consumption of animal products. Of these, they are primarily focused on using online ads to engage individuals who may be responsive to animal advocacy messaging, and then providing them with advocacy literature. For one of their video series, they report particularly high engagement rates,³³ which indicates that their messaging is appealing to their audience. Given their size they are likely benefiting from some economies of scale compared to smaller programs, and after accounting for their budget, they do appear to have achieved a lot of reach with this program.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of THL’s work toward decreasing consumption of animal products seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Stronger Animal Advocacy Movement

THL engages in two programs that we have categorized as contributing to strengthening the animal advocacy movement—movement building and research. As the resource usage and key results of each program are distinct, we have kept them as separate categories in our analysis.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for THL’s programs focused on strengthening the animal advocacy movement, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of this program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see The Humane League (2020c).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Building a stronger animal advocacy movement encompasses a broad category of outcomes for animals that are typically indirect, and as such, it is difficult to make an assessment of their cost effectiveness.

THL’s movement-building program focuses on recruiting and training volunteers, and supporting other organizations through the Open Wing Alliance. In the past 18 months, THL has recruited 26 new member groups to the Open Wing Alliance, and provided training and grants to OWA groups. This strategy of sharing knowledge and distributing grants allows THL’s successful corporate campaigning model to be spread internationally without the need for their own expansion, and it seems to be particularly cost effective. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think that the cost effectiveness of THL’s work on their movement-building program seems much higher than the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward strengthening the animal advocacy movement we have evaluated this year.

As THL was one of only two evaluated charities that reported conducting a research program, we are particularly uncertain of the cost effectiveness of the implementation of this program. THL’s research program has individual outcomes, so as a measure of cost effectiveness, we can estimate the average cost of each outcome—i.e., it costs them ~$72,000 for each research project.³⁷ That said, this is a somewhat simplistic quantification of cost effectiveness, as it doesn’t take into account other factors—the quality of the research, the likelihood that the research will be used, the potential impact the research would have if it were used, etc. Most of their research is focused on farmed animals, especially chickens, which we believe to be a high priority cause area. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think that the cost effectiveness of THL’s work on their research program seems slightly lower than the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward strengthening the animal advocacy movement we have evaluated this year.

THL has reported that their volunteer network in the U.K. has been affected by COVID-19.

Overall, we think that the cost effectiveness of THL’s work toward strengthening the animal advocacy movement seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Criterion 4: Track Record

Information about a charity’s track record can help us predict the charity’s future activities and accomplishments, which is information that cannot always be incorporated into our other criteria. An organization’s track record is sometimes a pivotal factor when our analysis otherwise finds limited differences between two charities.

In this section, we evaluate each charity’s track record of success by considering some of the key results that they have accomplished prior to 2019.³⁸ For charities that operate in more than one country, we consider how they have expanded internationally.

Overview

THL was founded in 2005. They have a strong track record of success in their public awareness and animal welfare campaigns, especially with regard to achieving corporate welfare commitments for egg-laying hens and chickens raised for meat. They also have a strong track record of success in their movement-building program, especially through their campus grassroots work and the Open Wing Alliance (OWA), which they founded four years ago. THL has worked on their research program (The Humane League Labs) for seven years.

Key Results Prior to 2019³⁹

Below is a summary of THL’s programs’ key results prior to 2019. These results were reported to us by THL, and we were not able to corroborate all their reports.⁴⁰ We do not expect charities to fabricate accomplishments, but we do think it’s important to be transparent about which outcomes are reported to us and which we have corroborated or verified independently. Unless indicated otherwise, the following key results are based on information reported in The Humane League (2020c).

Note that many of these results have been achieved in collaboration with other organizations and individuals.

International Expansion

We think that expanding internationally can be a way for effective charities to increase their impact. By introducing effective programs into countries where similar work is not being done—or where similar work is being implemented relatively ineffectively—those charities can expand their audience and impact. That said, international expansion needs to be handled thoughtfully; in addition to the strategic value of expanding to a new country, charities should consider the linguistic, social, political, economic, and cultural factors that could pose challenges. We think that charities should work carefully with local activists⁵⁰ during any expansions and that organizations founded in Western countries should consider the historical effects of colonialism in their expansion to non-Western countries.

THL was founded in the U.S. in 2005. They expanded to Mexico in 2015, the U.K. in 2016, and Japan in 2017. Primarily, they do work internationally by providing grants and training to local organizations to help them carry out corporate outreach and campaigns. Their decisions to expand into specific countries themselves was based on whether they perceived there to be gaps in the work being carried out in that country that were important and would not be otherwise carried out by local organizations. For example, they expanded to Japan because they were not aware of any other organizations doing corporate outreach work there at that time.

THL reports that they have moved their subsidiaries in Mexico and the U.K. from being contractors to being independent organizations with independent boards.⁵¹ THL reports that local staff are responsible for decision-making about carrying out local programs, as well as strategy and direction of the organization in their region. Their Japan subsidiary is part of the U.S. organization, but the Regional Manager is a Japanese native and is responsible for local strategic decisions, hiring, and goal setting. THL reports they provided a workshop to all staff to expand multicultural competency during their virtual retreat in 2020, and they plan to provide additional training. Note that THL subsidiaries are not financially independent; THL U.S. makes large grants to the U.K. subsidiary and is currently the sole funder of the Mexico subsidiary.⁵²

THL formed the OWA to generate impact by partnering with locally established organizations rather than expanding THL’s operations. They encourage OWA member organizations to set their strategies and tactics in alignment with the OWA’s overall goal to end the use of battery cages. THL reports that they make efforts to understand the local context of OWA groups before developing regional training strategies, and they develop the programs of OWA summits and events based on the needs of the groups, allowing them to lead the discussions and determine the direction of the event.⁵³

Overall, we think that THL has been strategic in their international expansion and has avoided expanding too quickly to other countries. We think they have been thoughtful in their approach, considering the local context of the countries in which they operate and taking a supportive role in the movement.

Criterion 5: Leadership and Culture

Leadership directly affects an organization’s culture, performance, and effectiveness. Strongly-led charities are likely to have a healthy organizational culture that enables their core work. We collect information about each charity’s internal operations in several ways. We ask leadership to describe the culture they try to foster, as well as potential areas of improvement. We review each charity’s human resources policies and check that they include those we believe are important. We also send a culture survey to the staff of each charity.^{54, 55}

Key Leadership

In this section, we describe each charity’s key leadership and assess some of their strengths and weaknesses.

Leadership staff

• President: David Coman-Hidy, involved in the organization for 10 years
• Executive Vice President: Andrea Gunn, involved in the organization for 7 years
• Vice President, Communications: Jennifer Barckley, involved in the organization for 2 years
• Vice President, Operations: Rachel Huff-Wagenborg, involved in the organization for 6 years
• Senior Vice President, Programs and Development: Michelle Kucerak, involved in the organization for 6 years
• Vice President, Policy and Strategy: Aaron Ross, involved in the organization for 12 years
• Vice President, Legal and General Counsel: Wendy Watts, involved in the organization for 3 years
• Managing Director, U.K.: Vicky Bond, involved in the organization for 4 years
• Managing Director, Mexico: Ana Ortega, involved in the organization for 5 years
• Regional Manager, Japan: Maho Uehara, involved in the organization for 3 years

About 97% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that THL’s leadership is attentive to the organization’s strategy. In comments, respondents emphasized that decision-making is informed strongly by strategy, and leadership do a good job of communicating decisions. Most respondents agreed that their leadership promotes external transparency (91%) and internal transparency (88%). Some respondents commented that THL is transparent in its decision-making but still has room for improvement.

Recent leadership transitions

THL did not have a transition in leadership recently. Their current president, David Coman-Hidy, has been in the position since 2012.

Board of Directors

THL’s (U.S.) Board of Directors consists of seven members, none of whom are leadership staff. We consider THL’s board independence to be a strength.

Members of THL’s Board of Directors

• Mark Middleton (Board Chair): has a background in engineering and is the co-founder of a software development company
• Lydia Chaudhry (Board Secretary): has a background in volunteer management, event planning, and plant-based cooking
• Suzanne Niemoth (Board Treasurer): finance, operations, and business affairs executive
• Neysa Colizzi: Expert Principal at Bain and Company, has a background in change management and strategy execution, training and facilitation, and engineering and business consulting
• Jacob Eliosoff: cryptocurrency entrepreneur
• Alicia Rodriguez: lawyer with a background in corporate law and animal law
• Shannon Campion: director and executive for a national public education advocacy organization with a background in issue advocacy and electoral campaigns, grassroots organizing, and nonprofit fundraising

About 84% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that THL’s board supports the organization in achieving its strategic vision. In comments, respondents emphasized that staff are not aware of how involved the board is.

We believe that boards whose members represent occupational and viewpoint diversity are likely most useful to a charity since they can offer a wide range of perspectives and skills. There is some evidence suggesting that nonprofit board diversity is positively associated with better fundraising and social performance⁵⁶ and better internal and external governance practices,⁵⁷ as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision-making.⁵⁸ THL’s board is composed of individuals with diverse occupational backgrounds and experiences. We consider the board’s relative occupational diversity to be a strength.

Policies and Benefits

Here we present a list of policies that, if properly drafted and enforced, we find to be beneficial for fostering a healthy culture. A green mark indicates that THL has such a policy and a red mark indicates that they do not. A yellow mark indicates that the organization has a partial policy, an informal or unwritten policy, or a policy that is not fully or consistently implemented. We do not expect a given charity to have all of the following policies, but we believe that, generally, having more of them is better than having fewer.

Culture and Morale

A charity with a healthy culture acts responsibly toward all stakeholders: staff, volunteers, donors, beneficiaries, and others in the community. According to THL’s leadership, their organizational culture consists of a collegial and cooperative work environment that has yielded many fruitful professional relationships and lifelong friendships.

The survey we distributed supports leadership’s claim that THL’s culture is overall positive. Respondents noted in an open-response box that THL is a great place to work and has a great culture. A few common adjectives that respondents used to describe THL’s communication style were “inclusive,” “friendly,” “transparent,” “candid,” “thoughtful,” “clear,” or similar.

According to our culture survey, THL has an overall level of employee engagement higher than the average of charities under review.

THL has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 83% agree with the statement that their compensation is adequate. THL offers paid time off, paid sick days, and personal leave. All respondents agreed that these paid benefits provided are sufficient. Some respondents mentioned that salaries are comparable to average for nonprofits, and that staff could be earning more in the for-profit sector. They also mentioned that staff are particularly happy with unlimited PTO, but there is room for improvement in health insurance. THL reports that employees have clearly defined essential functions for all positions and regularly evaluate performance. However, about 33% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that the system of staff performance evaluation needs to be changed or improved upon. Some respondents indicated that the evaluation system is in the process of being improved, and others mentioned they don’t feel comfortable with 360 feedback not being anonymized.⁵⁹

THL distributes annual employee satisfaction surveys. They have identified the following areas for improvement: (i) prioritization, (ii) training, (iii) streamlining information and resources, and (iv) diversity, equity, inclusion, and cultural competency.

Overall, we think that THL’s staff satisfaction and morale are higher than the average charity we evaluated this year.

Representation/Diversity,⁶⁰ Equity, and Inclusion⁶¹

One important part of acting responsibly toward stakeholders is providing a representative/diverse,⁶² equitable, and inclusive work environment. Charities that have a healthy attitude toward representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion (R/DEI) seek and retain staff and volunteers from different backgrounds. Among other things, inclusive work environments should also provide necessary resources for employees with disabilities, protect all team members from harassment and discrimination, and require regular trainings on topics such as equity and inclusion, in conjunction with year-round efforts to address R/DEI throughout all areas of the organization.

Among the staff that participated in our culture survey, 58% agree that THL has members from diverse backgrounds. THL is making an effort to increase representation/diversity through their recruitment process by following HR best practices for recruitment. They work to minimize bias and encourage diversity through the hiring process and employee lifecycle by removing non-essential qualifications and education requirements from job descriptions and prioritizing salary transparency.

In our culture survey, some respondents mentioned that leadership could hire more racially diverse staff to be more inclusive or to better support staff who are members of marginalized groups.

THL supports R/DEI through their human resources activities. THL has a workplace code of ethics/conduct and a written statement that they do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other characteristics. THL has a written procedure for filing complaints and explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment⁶³ or discrimination.⁶⁴ In our culture survey, 97% of respondents agreed that THL protects staff, interns, and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and 96% agreed that they have someone to go to in case of harassment or other problems at work. However, our culture survey suggests that THL’s staff experienced or witnessed some harassment or discrimination in the workplace during the past year, similarly to the average charity under review. Some respondents reported gender discrimination. Since staff feels overall protected from harrassment and discrimination, and THL seems to have in place systems to prevent and handle harrassment and discrimination in the workplace, we are not highly concerned about this finding.

THL offers regular trainings on topics such as harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Additionally, in our culture survey, 96% of staff agree that they and their colleagues have been sufficiently trained in matters of R/DEI; respondents mentioned that staff take an annual training course and that leadership takes R/DEI seriously. We believe that the opportunities for the team to learn about R/DEI at THL are sufficient but could still be increased.

Overall, we believe that THL is as diverse, equitable, and inclusive as the average charity we evaluated this year.

Criterion 6: Strategy

Charities with a clear and well-developed strategy are more likely to be successful at setting and achieving their goals. In this section, we describe and assess each charity’s strategic vision and mission, plan, and planning process.

Given our commitment to finding the most effective ways to help nonhuman animals, we assess the extent to which the charity’s strategic vision is aligned with this commitment. We believe that their strategic planning should clearly connect the charity’s overall vision to their more immediate goals. Additionally, we assess the extent to which their strategic planning process incorporates the views of all their staff and board members and whether the frequency of this process is adequate, given the nature of their work. There are many different approaches to strategic planning, and often an approach that is well suited for one organization may not work well for others. Thus, in this section, we are not looking for a particular approach to strategy. Instead, we assess how well the organization’s approach to strategy works in their context.

Strategic Vision

THL’s mission: “[T]o end the abuse of animals raised for food”

Strategic Position in the Movement

We asked THL how they see their organization’s work fitting into the overall animal advocacy movement. They report that they see cooperation with other organizations as the central strategy of their organization and that the needs of the movement are an important determinant of their work. They also report that they aim to focus on programs that are relatively neglected in the countries they work in.

Strategic Plan and Planning Process

Type(s) of plan: Three-year strategic plans

Leadership staff’s role: The U.S. leadership team (representing all departments across the U.S. organization) drafts the three-year strategic plan and refines it annually at the fall Strategic Planning retreat.

Board of directors’ role: In the U.S., the board creates guidelines and assists the leadership in creating the strategic plan. Board members in other countries can give feedback on a preliminary version of the strategic plan. THL informed us that, for their international boards, they plan to implement a procedure similar to that of the U.S. headquarters.

Non-leadership staff’s role: Non-leadership staff can give feedback on a preliminary version of the strategic plan and collaboratively define team goals that contribute to the plan.

Contents of plan: THL’s strategic plan does not include any high-level strategy to analyze how their program work contributes to achieving their mission/vision. Instead, this strategy is conveyed through their Theory of Change and Strategic Principles (on page 5 of THL’s Annual Report), which are accessible to all staff. They do, however, address their internal structure—e.g., culture—in their plan.

Goal Setting and Monitoring

Using project debriefs, THL’s goals are monitored monthly for individuals and quarterly for teams and the organization as a whole. Goals are revisited mid-year in case any substantial changes need to be made to adapt to the landscape (e.g., for COVID-19). Additionally, several of THL’s teams hold retrospective meetings—i.e., postmortems—following major projects, while others organize more general project debriefs. The board conducts an annual self-assessment and an annual assessment of the President.

Our Assessment

We support THL’s choice to focus on farmed animal welfare because we consider animal agriculture to be one of the most promising areas for doing the most good for animals, other things being equal. We think that they have a clear notion of how they fit into the wider animal advocacy movement and that this is reflected particularly in their work coordinating the movement through the OWA. We think THL engages in strategic planning at appropriate intervals, is clear on who makes final decisions, and ensures participation and periodic input from all levels of staff. While their strategic plan itself is lacking in high-level strategy that connects their programs to their strategic vision, THL does include this strategy in other areas, such as their theory of change and their annual report.⁶⁵ Their goal setting appears to be carried out well and monitored frequently. Overall, we think THL’s approach to strategy is strong compared to other evaluated charities, given the context in which they operate and the type of work they do.

Criterion 7: Adaptability

A charity’s self-assessment should inform their decisions. This will aid them in retaining and strengthening successful programs and modifying or discontinuing less successful programs, and will enable them to see if or when it is necessary to change their organizational structures. When such systems of improvement work well, all stakeholders benefit: Leadership is able to refine their strategy, staff better understand the purpose of their work, and donors can be more confident in the impact of their donations.

We have identified the following examples of how THL has adapted to success and failure:

In the past, THL shifted a majority of resources away from individual outreach toward corporate outreach and campaigns, particularly corporate outreach to achieve welfare commitments for chickens raised for eggs and meat.⁶⁶ They argue that this was due to their outreach efforts having been successful, as well as their corporate outreach having a more clear and measurable impact on animals than individual outreach. They report that they observed that the environmental movement in the U.K. has been successful in persuading investors to invest in their cause area. For that reason, THL U.K. is directing some of their corporate outreach and campaign efforts toward financial institutions.

In reaction to the protests for racial justice in the U.S. in 2020, THL reports that they increased their efforts toward R/DEI.⁶⁷ While their executive team already received a first phase of training from Encompass, an organization that supports animal advocacy organizations in achieving racial diversity and inclusivity, they chose to also hold an organization-wide day for racial justice.

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected THL by pushing them to shift their focus within their corporate campaigns and adapt their outreach to supporters and the media.⁶⁸ THL reports that they shifted some of their chicken welfare campaigning away from restaurants and toward large manufacturers. THL Mexico had to pause their campaigns from the beginning of the pandemic to mid-July 2020. Online resources for supporters have been increased by THL, while media outreach has focused on the connection between disease risk and the animal food industry. THL also reports that they chose to freeze hiring, with the exception of critical positions, and are reevaluating this decision on a monthly basis. THL reported on how they have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a piece published on ACE’s blog.

Overall, we believe that THL is just as able as the average charity evaluated this year to adequately respond to success and failure.

---

1. Note that we are never 100% confident in the effectiveness of a particular charity or intervention, so three gray circles do not necessarily imply that we are as confident as we could possibly be. 

2. We acknowledge that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has impacted each charity’s programs in various ways. This impact is addressed in Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness. 

3. We consider an intervention to be weakly effective if we believe it is unlikely to have a positive impact on the relevant outcome. We consider an intervention to be moderately effective if we believe it has some positive impact on the relevant outcome, though relatively less than other interventions. We consider an intervention to be highly effective if we believe it has a clear positive impact on the relevant outcome. 

4. For arguments supporting the view that the most important consideration of our present actions should be their impact in the long term, see Greaves & MacAskill (2019) and Beckstead (2019). 

5. Šimčikas (2019a); Capriati (2018) 

6. Cotra (2017)  

7. Šimčikas (2019b) 

8. D. Coman-Hidy reported in a personal communication on November 9, 2020 that THL’s work to decrease individuals’ consumption of animal products is focused on seasonal advertising and promotion of Veganuary’s pledge program. 

9. See Bianchi et al. (2018) for a review of the literature. 

10. See Peacock (2018) for more information on the topic. 

11. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018b) 

12. See the review of two such studies in Bianchi et al. (2018). 

13. Faunalytics (2019); Grassian (2019); Moleman (2018) 

14. THL was founded in 2005. We show data for the last five years.  

15. The Humane League (2020a) 

16. For further details, see our 2017 Giving Metrics Report, 2018 Giving Metrics Report, and 2019 Giving Metrics Report. At the time of writing this review, our 2020 Giving Metrics Report is not yet published.  

17. We do not list any expansions beyond what the charity itself plans to implement. We acknowledge that charities may differ in how ambitious their reported plans are independent of what they can realize. Such a difference in reporting could bias our estimates of the room for more funding. To counteract such a bias, we first ask all charities not only for the expansions they already planned for 2021, but also which expansions they would plan if their budget would increase by 50%—they report these responses in The Humane League (2020a). Second, we indicate our confidence in whether the charities’ expansion plans could actually be realized. We refer to our evaluation of the effectiveness of THL’s programs for an assessment of the effectiveness of their planned expansions. 

18. For staff expenditure and any non-staff expenditure that is scalable with staff, we estimate confidence levels based on our researchers’ joint assessment of how feasible it is to hire a certain number of staff dependent on the organization’s current size. 

19. For estimating the salary of a given role, we used the following sources of information in order of priority: current and past job postings by that charity, current and past job postings by similar charities, seniority and type of job, and average wages in the country of hire. 

20. The Humane League (2020a) 

21. The Humane League (2020c) 

22. The Humane League (2020a) 

23. Note that our cost estimates for non-staff expansions account for the partial correlation between costs for new staff and non-staff costs that involve staff.  

24. The column shows 90% confidence intervals assuming normal distributions for all variables, except for potential additional expenditure, for which we assume a log-normal distribution.  

25. For staff expenditure and any non-staff expenditure that is scalable with staff, we indicate the proportion of the charity’s expansion plans that we are highly confident they’ll be able to achieve, the proportion we are moderately confident they’ll be able to achieve, and the proportion we have low confidence in. We generally have high confidence that reserves can be replenished if funds are available, and low confidence in the amount of unexpected expenditures the charity may have. 

26. Locations were not specified. 

27. This is an estimate to account for additional expenditures beyond what has been specifically outlined in this model. This parameter reflects our uncertainty as to whether the model is comprehensive and constitutes a range from 1%–20% of the charity’s total projected 2020 expenditures. 

28. We assume a linear trend in revenue. The estimates are based on a linear regression using THL’s revenue data from 2016 to 2020. The revenue time series was smoothed out to account for large grants in the year they are disbursed rather than in the year they are received. In particular, we spread two two-year grants of $1M each received in 2016 equally over the years 2016 and 2017; we spread one two-year grant of $2M received in 2017 equally over 2016 and 2017; we spread one four-year grant received in 2018 over 2018 ($1M), 2019 ($3M), and 2020 ($3M); we spread a two-year grant of $1.6M received in 2019 equally over 2019 and 2020; and we spread a grant of $2M received in December of 2019 over 2019 and 2020. Moreover, this yields a revenue of about $8.8M in 2020, which we use in the Guesstimate model. 

29. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

30. We provide these estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals. For more information, see this explainer page. 

31. For more information, see Šimčikas (2019a) and Open Philanthropy (2019). 

32. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

33. The engagement rates reported were 3.9% for Facebook and 12% for Instagram. 

34. THL reports 88 volunteer leaders, 2,667 volunteers, and 11,717 Fast Action Network participants in the U.S., as well as 153 national volunteers, 17 city reps, and 4,760 Fast Action Network participants in the U.K.  

35. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

36. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

37. D. Coman-Hidy reported in a personal communication on November 12, 2020 that while publicly available research studies are the primary output of THL Labs, THL Labs staff also engage in research to support THL’s initiatives and programs, and regularly support external researchers and organizations in their research. 

38. For more recent achievements (2019–2020), see Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness. 

39. For more recent achievements (2019–2020), see Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness. 

40. While we are able to verify some types of claims (e.g., those about public events that appear in the news), others are harder to corroborate. For instance, it is often difficult for us to verify whether a charity worked behind the scenes to obtain a corporate commitment, or the extent to which that charity was responsible for obtaining the commitment. 

41. THL reports that in 2018 they inspired 31,247,645 visits to web pages with factory farm cruelty footage and 1,382,880 online Veg Starter Guides/Cookbooks to be distributed online. 

42. THL reports that they inspired more than 650,000 grassroot actions in 2018. 

43. THL reports that they were featured in 425 publications in 2018. 

44. THL reports that in 2018 they organized a Campus Outreach Conference, monthly student leadership training sessions, five national webinars, three top volunteer calls, and a number of in-person training events in their grassroots cities. 

45. In The Humane League (2020c), THL reports that in 2018 they had 9,704 Fast Action Network members in the U.S. and 917 in Mexico. 

46. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018d) 

47. For reports on this, see Bollard (2017) and Capriati (2018). For the list of commitments, see the THL-designed and coalition-shared website Chicken Watch. 

48. For the list of commitments, see the THL-designed and coalition-shared website Chicken Watch. 

49. For the list of commitments, see the THL-designed and coalition-shared website Chicken Watch. 

50. We recommend that charities refrain from taking a leading role in the countries they expand to and instead take on a more supportive role of the local movement, e.g., by sharing skills and providing funding to local groups. 

51. The Humane League (2020b) 

52. The Humane League (2020b) 

53. The Humane League (2020b) 

54. We distributed our culture survey to THL’s 94 team members and 77 responded, yielding a response rate of 82%. 

55. We recognize at least two major limitations of our culture survey. First, because participation was not mandatory, the results could be affected by selection bias. Second, because respondents knew that their answers could influence ACE’s evaluation of their employer, they may have felt an incentive to emphasize their employers’ strengths and minimize their weaknesses. 

56. Siciliano (1996) 

57. Buse, Bernstein, & Bilimoria (2016) 

58. Brown (2003) 

59. A. Gunn reported in a personal communication on November 16, 2020 that THL changed their review process in late July 2020; all peer feedback in the 360 review is now anonymous. Gunn also reported that THL has been investing in developing a culture of stronger and better peer-to-peer feedback. 

60. ACE uses the term “representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion (R/DEI)” in place of the more commonly used “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” While we acknowledge that the terms “diversity” and “DEI” are in the public lexicon, as the concepts have become popularized, “diversity” has lost the impact of its original meaning. The term is often conflated with “cosmetic diversity,” or diversity for the sake of public appearances. We believe that “representation” better expresses the commitment to accurately reflect—or represent—society’s demographics at large.  

61. Our goal in this section is to evaluate whether each charity has a healthy attitude toward representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion. We do not directly evaluate the demographic characteristics of their employees.  

62. We use the terms “representation” and “diversity” broadly in this section to refer to the diversity of certain social identity characteristics (called “protected classes” in some countries), such as race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender or gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy or parental status, marital status, national origin, citizenship, amnesty, veteran status, political beliefs, age, ability, or genetic information. 

63. In the culture survey we included the following definition of harassment: “Harassment can be non-sexual or sexual in nature. Non-sexual harassment refers to unwelcome conduct—including physical, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors—that upsets, demeans, humiliates, intimidates, or threatens an individual or group. Harassment may occur in one incident or many. Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other physical, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors of a sexual nature when (i) submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; (ii) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the targeted individual; or (iii) such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” 

64. In the culture survey we included the following definition of discrimination: “Discrimination is the differential treatment of or hostility toward an individual on the basis of certain characteristics (called “protected classes” in some countries), such as race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender or gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy or parental status, marital status, national origin, citizenship, amnesty, veteran status, age, ability, genetic information, or any other factor that is legislatively protected in the country in which the individual works. ACE extends its definition of discrimination to include the differential treatment of or hostility toward anyone based on any characteristics outside of one’s professional qualifications—such as socioeconomic status, body size, dietary preferences, political views or affiliation, or other belief- or identity-based expression.” 

65. THL requested that we share their Theory of Change, as well as their strategic principles, which can be found on page 5 of their Annual Report. 

66. The Humane League (2020b) 

67. The Humane League (2020c) 

68. The Humane League (2020c) 

Research Documents

• THL's Reporting of Programs (2020)
• THL's Reporting of Financials (2020)
• THL's Reporting of Leadership, Strategy, and Culture (2020)
• THL's Theory of Change
• THL's Annual Report
• Reference List

• RFMF Model