We think WAI’s grantmaking criteria—such as Neglectedness, Scope, and Impact—are explicitly designed to prioritize cost-effectiveness and maximize counterfactual impact for large numbers of animals. Beyond that, their distribution may be limited by the types of projects they receive suitable applications from.

Thanks for the positive feedback! 

Shrimp Welfare Project’s ranges are narrower for a few reasons. Because SWP works directly with farmers, they can track and estimate the number of shrimp on partner farms, reducing uncertainty about the animals affected. We also either used point estimates or narrow ranges for other parameters, such as the duration of impact (based on the lifespan of electrical stunners) and the duration of improved water quality. This means the main source of uncertainty in SWP’s CEA lies in the SADs estimates, whereas other charities’ CEAs combine multiple uncertain parameters that multiply into wider ranges.

Adding uncertainty ranges to SADs would be complex, since it would involve modeling variation in welfare ranges, sentience, pain severity, and/or moral weights between pain types. We’ve chosen not to include ranges so far because of time constraints and because the final estimates are already quite broad. If we do so in the future, we’d collaborate with the organizations that produced the original SADs estimates to make sure that uncertainty is modeled appropriately.

We don’t intentionally aim to represent a broad range of approaches among our Recommended Charities. While we take steps to invite a pluralistic pool of applicants—especially from underfunded areas—those considerations don’t factor into our selection for evaluation, our assessments, or our decision making. If we thought that funding a marginal charity would have less impact than supporting the others, we wouldn’t recommend them, even if their inclusion could add more diversity of approaches to our list of Recommended Charities.

The animal advocacy movement faces deep uncertainty about which interventions will prove most effective across different regions and contexts. Supporting a mix of institutional, corporate, policy, and movement-building approaches helps generate information value, mitigates risks, and strengthens the movement’s resilience and adaptability. So while plurality isn’t a recommendation criterion, we see it as a welcome byproduct of our data and evidence-driven process.

For more background, you can see ACE’s Position on Plurality. Please note that some parts are outdated and refer to elements, such as synergy scores, that we no longer use.

Ideally, we would be fully reliant on SADs, which take into account the species' capacity to suffer as well as the intensity and duration of their suffering. However, SADs are still a new method with some speculative inputs and ongoing updates. To account for this methodological uncertainty, our CEAs show results in both SADs averted per dollar and animals helped per dollar. In our decision-making, we look at both of these metrics and more, and interpret them alongside the broader context of the intervention. 

While we have high confidence in the quality of their fellowship program (with fellows reporting high rates of improved leadership skills, increased confidence, and motivation to pursue roles to help animals), as well as in the thorough monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) that New Roots Institute conducts for their programs, we’re not sure about the extent to which fellows are significantly stronger advocates because of the fellowship, and whether they fill key talent bottlenecks. Overall, this leads us to not being convinced that their cost effectiveness is comparable to our recommended charities.

Because the outcomes and impacts of the fellowship will span decade-long careers of the fellows, it is possible that a future evaluation, when the fellows are further into their careers, will bring more insight into the cost-effectiveness of the program. Their evaluated charity review has more details and is available on our website.

Thanks for your comments and your interest in WAI’s work! 

While we agree that an established field should focus on helping the most abundant animals, we also agree with WAI’s reasoning that while building the field, having a singular focus on optimizing for the number of animals would come at the expense of other strategic field-building goals. 

We address this in WAI’s review, e.g., here: “Though 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.”

ACE’s Evaluations program has a higher bar for uncertainty than Movement Grants, given that (i) the financial and non-financial benefits we direct toward recommended charities are greater, (ii) our target audiences have different expectations, and (iii) the downside risks are higher. These aversions include, but are not limited to, a lack of track record/wins/achievements, variance in possible outcomes, low probability of very high impact, and unknown probabilities.

We thought that LIC’s cost-effectiveness analysis was very promising, but it was ultimately based on hypothetical future scenarios. Unfortunately, we can’t go into further detail because it involves confidential information that, if public, could undermine their impact.

We also want to note that our understanding of a charity’s impact includes their theory of change. In LIC’s case, we considered their current track record of legal wins to be only moderate evidence that their theory of change would play out as intended, compared to SVB, where we were more convinced.

You can find more information about our selection process here. In 2024, GFI decided to postpone re-evaluation to a future year to allow their teams more time to focus on opportunities and challenges in the alternative proteins sector. They decided not to apply to be evaluated in 2025.

Thanks, Vasco! We appreciate the feedback. For a complete view of each charity’s spending and cost-effectiveness, we encourage looking into their respective reviews, particularly the Cost-Effectiveness and Financials and Future Plans spreadsheets.

It’s correct that we maintained a 45% weight for the six academic estimates of disutility across different pain levels, and that these estimates are orders of magnitude lower than those reported in the EA and animal advocacy community surveys (which we weighted slightly higher at 55%). As you know, we’re testing alternative approaches intended to address these types of methodological concerns, including the issue that applying human trade-offs to animals may not be entirely accurate because it doesn’t fully account for their smaller welfare ranges. However, for this year, we chose to maintain the same moral weights framework to avoid large and potentially unwarranted shifts in our methods and values from one year to the next.

We also briefly looked at how these kinds of adjustments might affect our decisions. While they tend to shift prioritization toward animal groups that experience more intense forms of suffering (e.g., pigs and salmon over layer hens), we don’t think they would have changed our recommendation decisions this year. This is partly because we don’t rely solely on SADs averted per dollar when interpreting our CEAs, but also consider metrics like animals helped per dollar. We remain cautious about how precisely SADs reflect actual welfare differences, especially since results can vary substantially with small methodological changes or alternative pain classifications.

Thank you for raising questions about ACE’s values and priorities. While we understand that the original claim made in the post has since been retracted, we still wanted to take the opportunity to respond—both for transparency and trust within the community, and to engage our team in clarifying our approach. These conversations help us reflect, improve, and ultimately strengthen our work to reduce animal suffering as effectively as possible.

ACE’s mission remains squarely focused on identifying, promoting and fundraising for impactful strategies and organizations to help non-human animals at scale. At the same time, we recognize that this work does not happen in a vacuum. While not the aim of our work, we affirm in our guiding principles the importance of treating all people—regardless of gender identity, race, sexuality, or political beliefs—with empathy and respect, just as we show non-human animals compassion. We strive to ensure that our practices support high-performing, mission-driven teams and reflect our commitment to fairness and respect—without prescribing any particular ideology.

People across the political spectrum care about animals, and our goal is to welcome that broad support. As we continue to support effective animal advocacy, we remain committed to broadening the movement, welcoming counterfactual supporters, and making decisions that maximize our collective impact.