Hide table of contents

What's the state of the art in this area?

I vaguely remember that Charity Entrepreneurship was skeptical of ACE's methodologies but can't find the relevant thread. In absence of that, is there something like a consensus on which charities are most effective when it comes to helping animals?

28

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

There has historically been some overlap between the charities that Open Phil and the Animal Welfare Fund have supported, and ACE's recommendations, which suggests that there is a degree of consensus. See also the discussion here, in which some endorse the changes that ACE has made to its methodology. 

In 2018, someone expressed concerns with ACE's research (link) and ACE responded to these concerns (link). I vaguely remember they were relying too heavily on the cost-effectiveness of things like leafletting and online ads, which later turned out to be not as cost-effective as initially thought. There was also the criticism that they did not independently check the charity's claims about how successful corporate campagins are. (e.g. if corporates follow through)

ACE has a more challenging task than GiveWell regarding evidence-based charity. There has been much more research from RCTs and other studies in global health and development, than in animal welfare. However, has been a lot of progress in corporate campagns in recent years, so I guess ACE can build upon a larger evidence base now than they could back in 2018.

There was also criticism about ACE's approach to social justice. See here and please also note the edits and responses linked on the top. As always, social justice is a sensitive topics.

I personally decided to trust ACE's assessment of charities.

See also this recent comment .

My sense is that there isn't a consensus. ACE could be better, but absent a competitor which is unlikely to come into existence, looking at their top and standout charities isn't a bad starting point, or an endpoint if you don't want to do research yourself. Among these, I particularly like the Fish Welfare Initiative because I intuit that it's particularly valuable from a risk-neutral perspective. Your mileage may vary.

If you don't want to (fully) rely on ACE, you might want to look at the Animal Welfare Fund or Founder's Pledge. Also Open Philanthropy Project works on animal welfare.

Thanks!

It's a complicated question, I think in the animal movement there are a variety of different "Pathways to Victory" and ongoing debates on what the most effective solutions are.

Realistically though your donation is counterfactually going to go further in neglected geographies so it may be worth looking towards Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East.

Beyond that, you have your animal cause area (Wild, Farmed etc), intervention type (Direct help, Lobbying, Movement Building, Research, Education and so on), and stage of the organisation. Then, maybe, you're adding how talented and how much you trust the founders/staff and organisation.

So basically you're playing mix and match with the above based on what you think is effective. 

Some Ideas:

https://www.animalallianceasia.org/ - Asian capacity building, are starting a regranting program, so could see what effective orgs there are in Asia through them.

https://www.animaladvocacyafrica.org/ - African capacity building, we're looking to regrant in 2023 and have a funding gap for it, I'm a co-founder so am slightly biased! (Orgs to look at in Africa)

https://www.sinergiaanimalinternational.org/ - Doing work In Latin America and Asia (I'm least familiar with south America as a region) but could be a good touchpoint to find effective programs there.

https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare - If you don't know where to give or want to evaluate this is a great bet, they fund a lot of early work that probably wouldn't happen without them

https://animalcharityevaluators.org/donation-advice/ace-movement-grants/ - Imo they have improved their granting and evaluation criteria recently, I think now an EA is a primary evaluator (but not sure), it's not perfect but I think it's a lot better than it historically has been

https://kafessizturkiye.com/ - Turkish org doing cage-free, I've met the founder, and he is a great advocate

Just some orgs/areas I'd be looking to if I were to donate, but it strongly depends on your personal and moral thoughts on what works and what doesn't. For example, I'm more interested in meta, movement building orgs as I believe we're quite early stage to ending animal agriculture, but there are tons of other different types of organisations as well, like fish/shrimp welfare, Animal Ask, alt protein, Cage-free movements like THL and so on.

Thanks for asking this, the comments surfaced some criticisms of ACE that I wasn't aware of.

I split my 2022 animal welfare contributions between ACE and Direct Action Everywhere, with more going to ACE; I agree with a commenter below that they're the best we have. Still good to be aware of some common criticisms and concerns.

You can also publish this post as a question :)

Oops! I was under the impression that I had done that when clicking on "New question". But maybe something somewhere went wrong on my end when switching interfaces :D

Is there a way to this post-hoc, while keeping the comments in tact? Otherwise, I'd just leave it as is now that it already received answers.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal
Rasool
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
In 2023[1] GiveWell raised $355 million - $100 million from Open Philanthropy, and $255 million from other donors. In their post on 10th April 2023, GiveWell forecast the amount they expected to raise in 2023, albeit with wide confidence intervals, and stated that their 10th percentile estimate for total funds raised was $416 million, and 10th percentile estimate for funds raised outside of Open Philanthropy was $260 million.  10th percentile estimateMedian estimateAmount raisedTotal$416 million$581 million$355 millionExcluding Open Philanthropy$260 million$330 million$255 million Regarding Open Philanthropy, the April 2023 post states that they "tentatively plans to give $250 million in 2023", however Open Philanthropy gave a grant of $300 million to cover 2023-2025, to be split however GiveWell saw fit, and it used $100 million of that grant in 2023. However for other donors I'm not sure what caused the missed estimate Credit to 'Arnold' on GiveWell's December 2024 Open Thread for bringing this to my attention   1. ^ 1st February 2023 - 31st January 2024
Relevant opportunities
9
26
CEEALAR
· · 1m read