Wild Animal Initiative

WAI’s key paths to impact

Figure 1: Simplified diagrammatic representation of how Wild Animal Initiative creates change for animals. Note: The key paths discussed below correspond to the numbered paths in the diagram above.

Key paths 1 and 3—Research grants to fill key knowledge gaps and develop welfare metrics

WAI provides grants to fund wild animal welfare research with the aim of building core knowledge for the field. They intend for these efforts to grow the evidence base for effective wild animal welfare interventions faster than it would organically, eventually enabling the development and implementation of tractable interventions that improve wild animals’ lives.

Overall assessment

The experts we consulted agreed that gaps in foundational knowledge and a lack of welfare assessment methods for wildlife are crucial bottlenecks to developing effective interventions. The logic of Key Paths 1 and 3 is sound and compelling, and the track record of the program shows that grantees are consistently producing research that builds foundational knowledge and they have also validated a few welfare metrics. Additionally, we expect that the relevant evidence will be built over time. However, since WAI’s theory of change is particularly long term, we have less evidence for the medium-term and final outcomes and impact, such as relevant knowledge gaps being filled and welfare metrics being widely used in the community.

Most importantly, given the vast knowledge gaps in this field, significant progress would be highly challenging if it were limited to WAI’s resources alone. We therefore think that WAI’s impact may come primarily from their efforts to help the field of wild animal welfare science gain traction and credibility, rather than from the knowledge directly gained from WAI-funded research. WAI’s strategic grantmaking likely contributes to this field-building strategy (see Key Path 2) and it may also be a useful way to steer the emerging field in an impact-focused direction.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that providing research grants can reliably lead to tractable interventions for animals in the future by filling important knowledge gaps now. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to a lack of evidence for later stages in the path and some disagreement between the sources and external experts we consulted.

Key path 2—Providing research grants to increase the traction and credibility of the field

Another intended outcome of WAI’s grantmaking is to increase the traction and credibility of the field of wild animal welfare science. They aim to help the field attract significant mainstream funding, enabling larger-scale research and action to develop and implement interventions that improve wild animals’ lives.

Overall assessment

There is some proxy evidence of early-stage field building for wild animal welfare science, such as the increase in academic publications with a welfare focus. It’s plausible that this trend will continue. What is more uncertain is whether WAI’s Grants program itself is a large contributor to growing the traction and credibility of the wild animal welfare science field, but given the size of the field prior to WAI’s interventions, and the absence of significant other funding opportunities, the logic model of their counterfactual role is strong. Wild Animal Initiative also provided data indicating that their grant program successfully attracts academics who previously did not focus their research on animal welfare.

There is also some early evidence of mainstream funders becoming interested in wild animal welfare science, at least when instrumentally framed: WAI provided the compelling example of New York University successfully securing mainstream funding by framing a project to emphasize its environmental and One Health² co-benefits, and gave WAI direct credit for making that possible.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that providing research grants can reliably lead to successful interventions for animals by building traction and credibility for the field of wild animal welfare science. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to a lack of evidence for the later stages of their theory of change and the fact that we only have emerging evidence for the earlier stages. Precisely gauging WAI’s counterfactual impact on the early field-building developments is also challenging.

Key path 4—Conducting in-house studies to develop welfare metrics

In their in-house Research program, WAI focuses on neglected areas to shape the field of wild animal welfare science, guide future advancements, and encourage external scientists to engage. They also develop and validate new welfare metrics so the field learns how to measure and model wild animal welfare, leading to the development and implementation of effective interventions for wild animals.

Overall assessment

It is logical for WAI to use their in-house Research program to develop new welfare metrics; experts largely agree that this is a key bottleneck for the field. The research is leading to a steady stream of peer-reviewed publications that are being cited by the scientific community—promising evidence that this path is progressing. They have successfully validated two welfare metrics, and have nearly completed a third.³

Overall, the Research program is making some measurable progress in the early, foundational stages of this path. However, WAI’s team has limited capacity, and the tangible output of new, field-ready empirical tools remains low to date. The program’s main successes in this area have been conceptual and review based, which are crucial foundational steps, but are distinct from creating new, field-ready measurement tools. There is currently also limited evidence of WAI’s tools being adopted by the research community or practitioners.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that conducting in-house research projects can reliably lead to tractable interventions for animals by developing welfare metrics and measuring tools. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to a lack of evidence for the later stages of their theory of change, and uncertainty around the research community adopting the tools that are developed. Due to capacity constraints, we also weren’t able to look into WAI’s in-house research portfolio in depth, or to assess evidence of successful relationships with adjacent fields, which is likely necessary to build credibility for WAI’s research and tools.

Key path 5—Hosting events and networking platforms to foster collaboration

As part of their Outreach program, WAI hosts meetings, discussions, and a networking platform (i.e., their Research Community) to provide opportunities for researchers to present their work and connect with others working to improve our understanding of wild animals’ welfare. WAI intends for these collaborations to eventually formalize and develop into independent research hubs.

Overall assessment

Creating independent research institutions is crucial to reaching a self-sustaining field with sufficient capacity, and their outreach work is a logical approach. However, there is currently no concrete evidence that the later stages of this path are bearing out, i.e., that the outreach activities encourage independent collaborations among researchers. Understandably, this type of field-building work will take time, but the lack of data is in part also due to a lack of systematic tracking of collaborations that don’t directly involve WAI. WAI provided anecdotal evidence of new collaborations emerging from their events, and there are some promising early developments on establishing research hubs at a number of universities.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that hosting events and networking platforms can reliably lead to independent research hubs by fostering collaboration in the field. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to a lack of data on most of the expected outcomes of this activity. With more time, we would have consulted more individuals who are familiar with their Research Community.

Additional considerations

Key overarching assumptions and risks

• A cross-cutting key assumption behind WAI’s theory of change is that stakeholders, such as wildlife managers and conservation groups, will eventually implement interventions that help wild animals effectively. We are moderately convinced this assumption holds, because the path to implementation faces external hurdles that WAI has limited influence over. We think implementation is most tractable in areas with clear co-benefits for human goals, and will depend on parallel advocacy and policy work. While scientific progress is not sufficient by itself, we see it as a necessary condition for the implementation of large-scale effective interventions for wild animals in the future.
• Another key assumption is that building a new academic field is a better use of resources than funding the few currently-available interventions. We are overall convinced this is a reasonable long-term strategy because it offers a leveraged approach to creating a self-sustaining field that can help normalize the cause with limited funding.

Risk assessment strategy

We have no concerns about WAI’s risk management, and we find their approach to be robust and proactive. They identify critical long-term risks—such as reputational harm and creating an ineffective field—and integrate mitigation directly into their core strategy. This is evident in everything from their high research standards to their specific grantmaking priorities.

Use of empirical evidence in decision making

WAI’s approach to using evidence is strong, as shown by the strategic feedback loop between their Grantmaking and in-house Research programs. They use data from the grant proposals they receive to direct their in-house research toward the most neglected questions. In turn, the findings from that research are used to resolve strategic uncertainties and guide future grantmaking. This allows them to build a solid empirical foundation for the field while continuously optimizing how they direct their limited funds.

Use of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) data to inform decisions

WAI’s approach to MEL involves a central data hub to systematically track program outputs, such as grantee publications and conference participation, as well as the overall “state of the field.” We think this approach is systematic and strategic. However, a key limitation is that their data currently focuses on early-stage outputs, with more limited evidence to confirm they are advancing desired later-stage outcomes like increased collaboration within the field. This is largely inherent to the long-term nature of their theory of change, but we do think that for their Outreach program, WAI should try to collect more systematic data to confirm whether these activities are successfully fostering new collaborations or bringing new researchers into the field.

Strategic selection of programs to complement and support each other

We find that WAI’s strategy of integrating their three core programs is logical and sound. The programs are designed as a reinforcing feedback loop: the Research program prioritizes key topics, the Grants program kickstarts the field by funding external researchers based on those priorities, and the Outreach program sustains the resulting community.

Contribution of programs to the wider animal advocacy movement

WAI’s primary contribution to the advocacy movement is to establish wild animal welfare as a legitimate academic field. This strategy aims to provide advocates with a credible scientific foundation, moving the issue from the realm of personal ethics to objective science, and giving them evidence to support their campaigns. We assess this focus on legitimacy as a key strength, but an immediate challenge is that the wild animal advocacy movement is very small, so additional movement-building work is likely necessary to build the capacity to use the scientific findings in practice.

See WAI’s cost-effectiveness spreadsheet for a detailed account of the data and calculations that went into our cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

• We included all three of WAI’s programs in our analysis: (i) Grants, (ii) Outreach, and (iii) Research. For this analysis, we were unable to model the ultimate impact on animals and instead estimated the cost efficiency of each program. This measures the cost of producing key outputs (e.g., a published paper or a training resource), rather than the cost effectiveness of achieving ultimate outcomes (e.g., suffering reduced). Since a deep analysis of one program’s final impact was not feasible, we opted for this broader approach to provide a more comprehensive view of how efficiently each of WAI’s core programs operates.
• Program 1: Grants
  • We estimate that for each $1 million spent, the Grants program is able to produce all of the following results:
    • 8 completed grantee research projects
    • 7 peer-reviewed papers published
    • 1 new welfare metric validated
  • See here for qualitative information on the impact these might have.
  • Limitations:
    • We were unable to reach an estimate of Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar. This is due to the indirect, long-term, and speculative nature of WAI’s work. Most of their activities focus on foundational field building, and attributing specific, large-scale future welfare improvements solely to this early-stage work is extremely challenging.
    • We are also somewhat uncertain about the operational costs of this program. WAI’s reported operational costs are much lower than our estimated costs based on a proportional distribution of overall overhead across WAI’s programs. We went for the latter because the overhead would otherwise be disproportionately added to the other two programs.
    • Several inputs to our cost-effectiveness analysis are based on WAI’s own estimates.
• Program 2: Outreach
  • We estimate that for each $1 million spent, the Outreach program is able to produce all of the following results:
    • 214 new research community members
    • 780 event participants
    • 119 individuals trained in methods and concepts of wild animal welfare
    • 20 new educational resources
    • 515 individuals reached through educational resources
    • 6 meetings with university staff
    • 1 university course or module newly including wild animal welfare science
    • 4 university conferences newly including wild animal welfare science
  • See here for qualitative information on the impact these might have.
  • Limitations:
    • As above, we were unable to reach an estimate of SADs.
    • We also had to estimate the number of event participants based on event type and size due to a lack of accurate data.
• Program 3: Research
  • We estimate that for each $1 million spent, the Research program is able to produce all of the following results:
    • 10 research projects completed
    • 8 peer-reviewed papers published
    • 290 views on research reports (over 2.5 years)
  • See here for qualitative information on the impact these might have.
  • Limitations:
    • As above, we were unable to reach an estimate of SADs.
    • A number of inputs to our cost-effectiveness analysis are based on WAI’s own estimates.
    • We had less time to spend qualitatively analyzing the potential impact of the research outputs compared to those of the other two programs.

We view these results not as final outcomes, but as key indicators that WAI’s long-term strategy is progressing. Our process for gauging their potential impact began with a qualitative review of each output type to understand its potential role in the wider field.

For instance, when considering peer-reviewed papers, we looked at their strategic focus (e.g., foundational sentience research or developing a specific methodology) and publication venue (e.g., top-tier general science journals or specialist publications). For research grants, we estimated the potential scope of their applications by considering the abundance of the animals studied and the severity of the suffering addressed. This allowed us to differentiate between outputs with a potentially vast, long-term impact—like a new welfare metric for trillions of insects—and those with a more limited or uncertain scope.

This qualitative review was crucial for the next step: making a series of speculative assumptions for our quantitative model. The insights from the qualitative review informed the range of values we assigned to variables, such as how much a single high-impact paper might accelerate the growth of the field. Because these factors are highly uncertain, we ran the model through many iterations, using a range of assumptions from conservative to more optimistic. We found that even when using what we consider to be reasonable and conservative assumptions, the projected long-term impact of WAI’s work is plausibly competitive with the more immediate impacts of our other Recommended Charities.

However, due to this particularly high level of speculation, we gave limited weight to this cost-effectiveness analysis in our overall assessment of WAI.

Future plans

If WAI were to receive additional revenue to expand the organization, they would prioritize using the money to diversify funding sources by hiring a Foundation Relations Manager. Their second priority would be to partner with Conservation X Labs to accelerate rodent contraception research and development by running a workshop and offering a research prize. After that, WAI would invest in their program staff to strengthen their services and fund research fellows and university research hubs. We rated 70% of their projected spending plans as highly effective. Their most promising plans include:

• Expanding fundraising capacity and diversifying funding
• Partnering with Conservation X Labs to accelerate rodent contraception research and development
• Funding up to four research fellows for one year
• Funding research hubs at up to five universities

We rated a few of their plans as moderately effective or below: We were unsure about the added value of general software upgrades or additional staff retreats. We were also uncertain how tractable it would be to partner with two more wildlife groups, and whether WAI would have the capacity and quality of applicants to fund four additional research fellows.

Funding capacity

Based on our assessment of WAI’s future plans, we are confident that they could effectively spend up to a total annual revenue of $6.915 million, which we refer to as their funding capacity.

The chart below shows WAI’s revenues from 2022–2025 and their funding capacity for 2026 and 2027.

WAI Revenue (2022–2025) and Funding Capacity (2026/2027)

Strategic prioritization

Based on how WAI decides which programs to start, stop, scale up, or scale down, we have no concerns about their strategic decision making and believe that they will continue to make cost-effective decisions.

WAI’s high-level strategy is guided by a five-year plan with data-driven annual reviews to assess performance. When allocating funds or scaling programs, decisions are based on maximizing the ‘comparative value of a given dollar,’ ensuring resources flow to the initiatives with the highest potential impact. In their grantmaking, WAI explicitly prioritize projects based on scope (the number of animals affected) and impact (the magnitude of the welfare concern). To ensure a high counterfactual value, they also focus on projects neglected by other funders and use cost effectiveness as a key tie-breaking criterion for equally promising proposals.

Although not all grants funded have a very high scope, this aligns with WAI’s long-term strategy that balances maximizing immediate impact with building a diverse and engaged scientific field. This dual strategy is based on sound reasoning and endorsed by several experts we spoke to.

WAI’s priorities for additional funding appear sensible and strategic, focusing first on ensuring their own long-term stability and second on a tractable, high-scale intervention (rodent fertility control) that is endorsed by experts.

People, policies, and processes

The policies that WAI reported having in place are listed in the table below—policies in bold are those that Scarlet Spark⁵ recommend as highest priority.

Has policy

Partial / informal policy

No policy

COMPENSATION
Paid time off
Paid sick days
Paid medical leave
Paid family and caregiver leave
Compensation strategy (i.e., a policy detailing how an organization determines staff’s pay and benefits in a standardized manner)
WORKPLACE SAFETY
A simple and transparent written procedure for filing complaints
An anti-retaliation policy protecting whistleblowers and those who report grievances
A clearly written workplace code of ethics or conduct
A written statement that the organization does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other irrelevant characteristics
Mandatory reporting of harassment and discrimination through all levels, up to and including the board of directors
Explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment or discrimination
Documentation of all reported instances of harassment or discrimination, along with the outcomes of each case
Conflict of interest policy
Training on topics of harassment and discrimination in the workplace
CLARITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND BIAS MITIGATION
Clearly defined responsibilities for all positions, preferably with written job descriptions
Clear organizational goals and/or priorities communicated to all employees
New hire onboarding or orientation process
Structured hiring, assessing all candidates using the same process
Standardized process for employment termination decisions
Process to evaluate leadership performance
Performance evaluation process based on predefined objectives and expectations
Two or more decision-makers for all hiring, promotion, and termination decisions
Process to attract a diverse candidate pool
ORGANIZATIONAL STABILITY AND PROGRESS
Documentation of all key knowledge and information necessary to fulfill the needs of the organization
Board meeting minutes
Records retention and destruction policy
Systems in place for continuously learning from the past (e.g., feedback norms, retrospectives)
Recurring (e.g., weekly or every two weeks) 1-on-1s focused on alignment and development
ASSESSMENTS
Annual (or more frequent) performance evaluations for all roles
Annual (or more frequent) process to measure employee engagement or satisfaction
A process in place to support performance improvement in instances of underperformance

Transparency

All of the information we required for our evaluation—list of board members; list of key staff members; information about the organization’s key accomplishments; the organization’s mission, vision, and/or theory of change; a privacy policy disclosing how the organization collects, uses, and shares third-party information; an IRS Form 990 tax form; and financial statements—is made available on the charity’s website. WAI also publishes board meeting minutes on their website.

WAI is transparent with their own staff and shares all policies with them.

Leadership and board governance

• Executive Director (ED): Cameron Meyer Shorb, involved in the organization for six years
• Number of board members: Four. Additionally, Wild Animal Initiative has a conflict of interest policy that aims to avoid any potential conflict of interest between the ED and the board.

We found that the charity’s board fully aligned with our understanding of best practice.

About 89% of staff respondents to our engagement survey indicated that they have confidence in WAI’s leadership.

Financial health

Reserves

With over 230% of annual expenditures held in net assets (as reported by WAI for 2024), we believe that they hold a sufficient amount of reserves. They currently exceed their 12-month reserves target.

Recurring revenue

Around 50% of WAI’s revenue is recurring (e.g., from recurring donors or ongoing long-term grant commitments). Based on an external consultation with Scarlet Spark, we find this to be a high proportion of recurring revenue (the ideal being 25% or higher); however, the 25% target is dependent on the context for each charity, so while we have noted this information here, it did not influence our recommendation decision.

Liabilities-to-assets ratio

WAI’s liabilities-to-assets ratio does not exceed 50%.

Staff engagement and satisfaction

WAI has 20 staff members (full time, part time, and contractors). Nineteen of them responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 100%—we did not have their Executive Director take the survey.

WAI has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff who responded to our survey, 89% reported that they are satisfied with their wage. WAI offers a paid-time-off policy, annual sick leave, and family and caregiver leave. About 95% of staff who responded to our engagement survey reported that they are satisfied with the benefits provided.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.66 (on a 1–5 scale), suggesting that, on average, staff exhibit very high engagement.

Harassment and discrimination

ACE has a separate process for receiving serious claims about harassment and discrimination, and all WAI staff were made aware of this option. If staff or any party external to the organization have claims of this nature, we encourage them to read ACE’s Third-Party Whistleblower Policy and fill out our claimant form. We received one form submission during our evaluation period. While we take all claims related to organizational health seriously, the details shared with us did not have a meaningful impact on our evaluation of WAI.