Should we launch the “Animal Advocacy Corps”? Seeking Feedback and a Founder
Summary
This post considers the idea of an Animal Advocacy Corps, which would be modeled after the US Peace Corps program and involve recent graduates spending a year working in-person at various pro-animal organizations/companies.
The main goal of this project, were it to happen, would be to a) increase the number of young people engaged in animal advocacy in some capacity, and b) increase the level of in-person organization in the movement*.
How you can help: I’m not going to start this idea myself (right now at least). Here, I’m just interested in hearing input on whether this idea warrants proceeding with. If so, I’d also love to hear from people potentially interested in working on it.
*Note that when I refer to the “movement” throughout, I’m talking about the animal advocacy movement. Though perhaps some of these ideas apply to other social change movements as well.
Context
This idea came out of the discussions at the recent Animal Advocacy Strategy Forum, hosted by Rethink Priorities in May. As a side note, I found it pretty useful (and meaningful) to be in-person with so many different advocates. I’d love to see our movement shift back to existing more in-person, which is part of the motivation behind this idea.
The Problem
Amongst the many bottlenecks our movement faces, the following are amongst those I think most significant:
Lack of people at all engagement levels: If our movement is to fully succeed, I believe we are going to need dramatically more people engaged at every level. This includes more paid professional staffers, even though I imagine we have far more people employed full time in animal advocacy than we’ve ever had before in the history of our species. We will also need more donors, more people changing their diets, more street activists, more pro-animal voters, more researchers and economists, etc. Right now, on some level, our cause does enjoy broad public support (e.g. we tend to win ballot referendums like Prop 12), but I believe we suffer from a) a lack of people willing to take more meaningful actions, and b) not enough “easy” actions like voting that normal people can take to support our cause and build their own pro-animal identity.
Lack of effective funnels for students to adult life: I have the impression (though would love to see data one way or the other on this!) that there’s probably a steep dropoff, at least in the West, of people willing to take action for animals immediately following their graduation from university. Perhaps this is partly because adults lose some of their youthful radicalism, but I think it’s more because there aren’t as obvious, fun, and accessible advocacy opportunities once people graduate out of their local animal rights student groups. In this way we are currently losing a vast amount of potential staffers, donors, activists, etc.
Lack of in-person collaboration: The animal movement to me feels extremely online nowadays. For instance, if I had to say one place where the movement is centered today, my first thought is not London or New York, but the Hive Slack group (of course much love to Hive!). This is great for many reasons, but it also has some serious drawbacks: 1) I think online communities lead to fewer breakthroughs or bold approaches, due to less and more formal communication, and 2) online communities lead to less long-term identity formation—it’s hard to feel like you’re truly “in the trenches” with someone if the most you see them is 9-5 on Zoom. Perhaps I’m too much of a romantic about how I imagine past social movements, but it’s hard to imagine them succeeding with the speed or the magnitude that they sometimes did were they so heavily based as we are on remote knowledge workers.
Proposed Solution
One idea that could address these issues is an “Animal Advocacy Corps”. I’m modeling this heavily off of the US Peace Corps, which is a program that facilitates young US people spending 1-2 years working in-person, generally in a lower or middle income country, for a small stipend.
The Peace Corps has a few key features relevant for us here:
It gets young people to do something useful for the world, with the expectation that they give more than they materially (e.g. salary) get.
It is in-person, and the cultural and work immersion are an important part of the program.
Presumably, participants form some kind of identity that makes them more likely to engage in similar work later on.
If we were to run an Animal Advocacy Corps, I’d think to structure it in the following ways:
A 1-year, stipended, mostly in-person program, targeting recent grads (and recruiting from current student animal advocacy groups)
During this year, participants would be placed at between 2-4 different pro-animal entities for internships, each for 3-6 month periods. These entities could be NGOs, relevant companies (e.g. alt proteins), pro-animal policymaker offices, etc.
Note that I think the Reducetarian Fellowship and New Roots Leadership Academy already run similar programs that achieve a lot of the value I’m going for here. I still think it’d be worth having more projects in the space though because a) two orgs does not seem near enough to cover the gaps, and b) these two don’t seem to focus quite as much on in-person work as I’m proposing here.
As an example of what this could look like, take Henry the student. He’s in the AAC[1] 2026 cohort, along with 20 other recent graduates. His year looks like the following:
An initial 2-week in-person retreat, onboarding, and training for him and the rest of his class.
A four month internship in farmer advocacy with Fish Welfare Initiative in Eluru, India.
A four month internship in campaigns with the International Council for Animal Welfare in London.
A four month internship at an animal sanctuary in Brazil.
A final 2-week in-person wrapup retreat.
I would see the goals of the Animal Advocacy Corps as the following:
More young people, when polled, see animal advocacy as an important part of their lives. In practice, this breaks down to more movement staffers, more donors, more volunteers and activists, more pro-animal voters, etc.
More in-person organizing exists in the movement. Hopefully, this would lead to a better exchange of ideas—and with it, more rapid progress.
Possible Next Steps / A Call to Ownership
I myself am not interested in founding such a project or org right now (I’m quite happy at FWI). However, I’d love to see people engage with this idea further and, if it stands up to scrutiny, take it forward. I think that would look like:
Research: Conducting further research on whether an Animal Advocacy Corps would actually be worth creating. For instance, if I were to do this research, I’d likely spend some time talking with current movement leaders, as well as leaders from other past successful movements, to gain evidence on this question.
Founder: Whether this becomes a new org, or just a project at an existing one, the key barrier to actually getting it off the ground is 1-2 individuals who want to own it. If that’s you or someone you know, please do message me!
Funding and MVP: If the founder(s) and research are in place, the next step would be developing a minimum viable product (MVP), and then applying for funding to run it.
Uncertainties
As always, there’s many uncertainties! Here are my two main ones:
Enough in-person orgs?: For me, the in-person element is a critical component of this idea. However, most of our organizations nowadays seem to only function remotely (which, as discussed above, I think is a problem for other reasons). How many pro-animal organizations or companies a) have some viable in-person presence, and b) would be keen to take on interns like this? And if not, is there some other meaningful activity we could get large numbers of graduates do which would both be useful as well as identity-forming?
As a side note, identity-forming may IMO have actually been the greatest impact of all the vegan leafleting many activists did in the 2010’s: We may not have turned the world vegan, but we did seem to solidify the pro-animal identity of many important movement staffers today.
Counterfactual impact on students: Would we actually be able to recruit sufficient number of students over the years who wouldn’t have otherwise found their way into some form of animal advocacy? Or would such an Animal Advocacy Corps only be a leg up for those already likely headed towards a career or some other useful role in the movement?
A call for more data: As another side note, it’d be very helpful to have polling data on the number of people currently engaged in various pro-animal actions or beliefs (e.g. movement staffers, donors, voters, volunteers, etc.). Such data would directly inform the need for programs like this one. I’m not aware of any existing datasets like this, but there was a project introduced at the recent AVA Conference to start collecting such data.
That’s all. Just wanted to throw this idea out there to see what people think of it—would love to hear any feedback!
- ^
Yes Lauren/Animal Advocacy Careers, if we run this we will probably find a different name/acronym ;)
My immediate hesitation is whether fresh college graduates would be useful enough to hosting organizations to make this program sustainable.
Last I checked, Peace Corps invests 3 months of formal training into each applicant and requires a minimum 2-year commitment in a role (to allow people to grow into competency). But this version of Animal Advocacy Corps has college undergraduates rotate thru multiple organizations for much shorter periods without any training. And I’m not sure how much demand there is for that kind of worker in animal advocacy even if it’s provided for free.
(A bit disjointed)
This is a suggestion I found interesting and exciting. However, perhaps its implementation might be… too early? As you mentioned, there are few in-person orgs, and they don’t seem to be constrained by the amount of motivated individuals (though I might be wrong there, esp if people at the AASF were interested).
I was a bit surprised by the “steep dropoff after graduation” claim. I think this is very likely to be true, but this could give the—very false—impression that there are many motivated students in the movement, which is not what I’ve observed. At most animal advocacy protests I’ve attended (or other non-EA pro-animal in-person event), it’s very hard to find people under 25.
I’m actually the president of an animal ethics student org, which is part of a network that was created with the idea of filling that gap. It’s less ambitious for sure (and way less costly), but it has the perk of trying to motivate students to take more basic steps to join the movement or build a pro-animal identity, because in my understanding, people who would currently feel motivated to do such a fellowship after graduating are probably rare.
Tentative feedback: you cite other bottlenecks in animal advocacy, and I feel like they are likely to affect the impact of such a program were it too exist (too little funding, too few orgs). I’d also suggest that the “in-person” criteria is demanding and might be counter-productive (though I understand why you find it critical). If so much animal advocacy work is currently remote, it might be better to own up to it and see if there are some motivated individuals who can still give their all in remote jobs (hopefully with strong connections in other ways, such as having opportunities to attend conferences and retreats, go to sanctuaries, etc).
Though if the “in-person” part is crucial, it might be better, on the margin, to work on ways to strengthen the in-person aspects of animal advocacy (though I’m not sure of robust ways to do that, and I assume it could be very costly).
Overall, I think this post is particularly valuable for highlighting the sort of things the movement should be aiming for: I’d also be very interested in more data on how many individuals are currently involved in animal advocacy in any way, shape, or form.
Fair thoughts, thanks for the input! A few responses here:
>>I was a bit surprised by the “steep dropoff after graduation” claim. I think this is very likely to be true, but this could give the—very false—impression that there are many motivated students in the movement, which is not what I’ve observed.
I do think there are a lot of motivated students in the movement though, particularly in the US and UK (I’m less sure about other countries). Though perhaps to your point, even in these countries I think these students tend not to actually be getting out there that much, e.g. probably not attending protests, and are probably instead doing more insular activities on their campuses like discussion groups and vegan cooking. This was the case at least for my own student group.
Definitely would be helpful to have more data here! I’m just speaking off of impressions right now.
>>However, perhaps its implementation might be… too early?
Possibly. To push back on this though, I do think that sometimes a given campaign will always just seem too difficult/too early until it is done, and that we might as well just start working on it now.
Thanks for your organizing work! The network you describe sounds cool and I hope it’s going really well. I think you should consider writing more about it in an EA Forum post or something (or please link me to one if you’ve already done this!). I hadn’t heard of it before, and I think it’d be helpful for more people to be thinking about this sort of thing.
This is a fantastic idea!
I only feel that the fear about a lack of in-site organizations might not be realistic. If that was the case, most job offers would be remote and Animal Advocacy Careers’s reports have consistently covered that most jobs are not remote. The Good Food Institute reaches a similar conclusion, only this includes for-profit organisations. I wonder, where does this hunch (or knowledge) about organisations being remote come from? I would like to know more as I have been under the impression that I have to move all my life (again) for such a job since the remote options seem scarce.
I would add public institutions to the mix. Internships in regional / federal governments, or international organisations. They tend to have already good systems to run internships.
I hope I get to see this in real life!
Thanks for your input!
>>I would add public institutions to the mix. Internships in regional / federal governments, or international organisations. They tend to have already good systems to run internships.
Seems like a good idea! I’d particularly be keen to see interns placed with some animal-sympathetic politician for one of their placements, as that could build some pretty useful skills. Are there other potential placements here in the realm of public institutions that you see making sense?
>>I wonder, where does this hunch (or knowledge) about organisations being remote come from?
It’d be helpful for us to have data on this. When I did some quick GPT research here (link), particularly basing it off orgs recommended by ACE and additionally orgs whose openings are posted by Animal Advocacy Careers, it seems like about 75% of roles in the more EA side of the movement are now remote. Presumably you’re already looking at these openings though?
Hey Haven! Oh so much to discuss, I love it!
More ideas for internships and on-site experiences:
Actually, working for a politician is one particular idea I hadn´t thought of! Internships in political parties with a strong animal rights department would be a good option too.
A long shot, but maybe also universities, some young people might be thinking of whether academia and research is a good fit for them, and having a short period of time in a lab or following a researcher would be helpful. I will keep brainstorming.
Regarding remote jobs
I might have been looking for narrow type of jobs that offer remote options but only within a country, or a metropolitan area. For instance: most EU-related jobs (I am a lawyer specialised in EU law) lead to Brussels´s metropolitan area.
What I have also observed is that the tag “remote” on job offers is not as remote as it seems regardless of the branch (sales, marketing, compliance, operations). For instance, today in Tälist I found this remote job but only for Austria and Bavaria, or this 100% remote job in Poland. In the AAC´s job board today, this remote job only within Italy, or this job that once you go to the actual job post is Hybrid and based in New York. Of course I understand it´s hard for organizations managing job boards to check every single job post and remove “remote” for the jobs that aren´t so remote as they seem, or they might not want to limit the job results by asking the users to choose their country or city.
On the Alt-Proteins world, which is the other career path I have been considering during 2024: Tälist´s report summarizes this on page 14. “b. REMOTE POLICIES The job board data reveals that nearly 27% of job postings are hybrid roles. Fully remote positions, however, represent only 4.5% of the total postings. In contrast, on-site roles dominate the landscape, making up approximately 69% of all job listings, indicating a strong preference among employers for in-person work environments.” From: Tälist’s Alt. Protein Career & Hiring Report , Data-Driven Insights on the Global Talent and Job Market (Oct. 2024) . This report can be received per email after logging in to Tälist. I don´t like that it´s not easy to share, but here it goes if anyone needs the data or the source: https://altprotein.jobs/career-hiring-report?s=gfi .
In the handful of coaching and 1-to-1 advice sessions I have had with Animal advocacy charities one of the first questions has always been: are you open to relocate? But this might be changing quickly, and that will make me VERY happy.
Going back to the original worry:
I see how, on the one hand, an increase in remote jobs would support your fears or a fragmented movement. But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
→ Edition: Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game? Any historian who can help :) ?
Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
All makes sense!
>>But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
Some truth to this I’d say, but it’s just tradeoffs. Obviously the best thing is for there to be lots of fully remote roles, AND lots of in-person roles and, especially, in-person communities.
>>Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game?
This is why I’m skeptical of remotely driven movements haha. Because it seems to me like we don’t have many examples of this. The very modern age does provide some though—in particular, I’m thinking of Black Lives Matter and other more viral forms of activism in the US recently. However, I think a lot of these, including BLM, were more like a rapid upswell that quickly died off, without achieving many lasting results. And I expect a large part of this lack of results is because you really do need sustained, in-person community organizing in order to build lasting and cohesive public support that is able to change culture and institutions.
>>Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
Could be a good idea. My intuition is still that the bigger gap here is engaged college students dropping out of the movement, as opposed to professionals who can’t find a job for whatever reason. But I could be wrong! And would love to see data one way or the other.
And as usual, of course it’d be good to have both programs: We should have programs more programs targeting students, and we should also have more programs engaging working professionals and people at basically every other life and career stage. We’re going to need a much bigger, more dynamic, and more comprehensive movement if we’re going to bring about the fundamental change we seek!
Thanks a lot for writing this Haven and for the kind Hive shout out!
I see where you are coming from. When I started at Veganuary in my early twenties, it was my first online only job and it felt pretty surreal. Meeting with my colleagues once a month felt amazing, and we even did a few actions in person in London which was great. Apart from my personal experience, I also get that in-person movement building is valuable overall.
Having said that, as a non-profit founder, all I want is realiable hard-working people who are agentic, coachable and get things done for the work we need to get done right now. I feel like we still don’t have enough vetted people who someone can vouch for: really skilled generalists who get great work done on time. Some non-profits are ok with scrappy generalists, but some will need experience.
A hybrid of your approach (that could be logistically easier to implement) could be (for example): running a hiring round to select highly agentic and motivated scrappy generalist students, placing them in a non-profit that needs them to work online (because that’s where most of the work is), and then placing them in hubs for socialising in the movement and participating in the actions that are happening. They could take on a lead role in organising protests/Revolutionist nights and the like, while they are in the hub, while working 9-5 in an effective online charity. They don’t necessarily need to switch hubs due to cost and inconvenience.
A failure mode of this approach still is that there are probably people who are not graduates and have more experience, and will be more valuable to the non-profits.
>>A hybrid of your approach (that could be logistically easier to implement) could be (for example): running a hiring round to select highly agentic and motivated scrappy generalist students, placing them in a non-profit that needs them to work online (because that’s where most of the work is), and then placing them in hubs for socialising in the movement and participating in the actions that are happening. They could take on a lead role in organising protests/Revolutionist nights and the like, while they are in the hub, while working 9-5 in an effective online charity. They don’t necessarily need to switch hubs due to cost and inconvenience.
I like this suggestion! Also seems like a good way to MVP this idea more. Let’s think more about this
Amid the various claims re leadership gaps and animal welfare deficits, it may surprise many that animal protection has seen substantial increases in income over the past fifty years (since the first “animal liberation” article by Peter Singer in 1983. The report on the growth in animal philanthropy on the Animal Grantmakers website tracks some of the animal protection funding developments since the founding of the affinity group in 1999. However, it is not just funding that has grown. In 1980, there were no university-based animal protection programs. Today, there is an undergraduate degree in animal protection (Eastern Kentucky University) and several masters degree programs (Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy, Canisius College) and multiple animal protection centers at universities around the US (Tufts, UPenn, Canisius, UC Davis, Colorado State, Washington State, University of Tennessee, Arizona State and a number of others). Animal protection is thriving and students are flocking to animal advocacy courses across the USA. In my estimation, animal protection currently spends around $8 billion annually on various aspects of animal advocacy. The movement is not struggling. It is growing rapidly. The only question in my mind is how much further can the movement grow? In Colorado, animal advocacy organizations raise $18 per capita. At the low end, there are state animal advocacy movements that are raising “only” around $3 per capita. Animal advocacy income growth since the turn of the century has increased 3-4 fold in a number of states.
I have not looked at the issue but I suspect that many animal advocacy organizations offer multiple internships to students already. They could probably do more but the challenge is growing such opportunities, not creating a whole new structure.
Andrew Rowan
Thanks for your comment. A few points/pushback:
1 - The animal movement has grown a lot, but that doesn’t mean it has grown enough. I think about this in the same way I think about efforts to eradicate extreme poverty: Such poverty has diminished significantly over the past few decades, but it still probably needs more (and cleverer) allocation of resources to truly be eradicated. Animal welfare, IMO, is in a much earlier stage still (but that’s not to say we haven’t made progress!).
2 - Various orgs do offer student internships (which is great), but I don’t think this is at all sufficient to build the much larger movement of active NGO staffers, donors, etc. that we need. As discussed above, I also think there aren’t enough in-person opportunities, and that that is a problem.
Very interesting idea that could improve the worldwide interconnectedness of the movement. I like it very much.