ACE’s Response to John Halstead

Introduction

Hello! I’m Toni, ACE’s new di­rec­tor of re­search. I’ve worked in ACE’s re­search de­part­ment for two and a half years, but I just stepped into the di­rec­tor role on July 31.

On be­half of ACE, I’d like to thank John Halstead for en­gag­ing so thought­fully with our work and for his ded­i­ca­tion to im­prov­ing the field of an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy re­search. We value hon­est feed­back, which is pre­cisely why, sev­eral months ago, we in­vited Mr. Halstead and six other in­di­vi­d­u­als to act as con­sul­tants dur­ing our char­ity eval­u­a­tion pro­cess this year. I’d also like to note my ap­pre­ci­a­tion that Mr. Halstead shared his post with us prior to pub­lish­ing it, which gave us the op­por­tu­nity to con­sider his points and to draft this re­sponse for si­mul­ta­neous pub­li­ca­tion.

ACE would like to take this op­por­tu­nity for a pub­lic ex­change about our work to:

  1. ex­plain our po­si­tion on our older in­ter­ven­tion re­search,

  2. clar­ify the re­la­tion­ship be­tween our cost-effec­tive­ness es­ti­mates (CEEs) and our “all things con­sid­ered” point of view,

  3. clar­ify the re­la­tion­ship be­tween our in­ter­ven­tion re­ports and our char­ity re­views, and

  4. out­line some of our re­search pri­ori­ties for next year.

My goal in this piece is not to ad­dress ev­ery point that Mr. Halstead raises,[1] but rather to ad­dress what I be­lieve is the un­der­ly­ing is­sue. It seems to me that Mr. Halstead’s cri­tique is largely based on: (i) a fun­da­men­tal dis­agree­ment with ACE about the role that our CEEs should play in our de­ci­sions, and (ii) a mi­s­un­der­stand­ing about the role that our CEEs do play in our de­ci­sions. While we be­lieve that our CEEs should (and do) play a very small role in our de­ci­sions, Mr. Halstead seems to be­lieve that our CEEs should (and do) play a cen­tral role in our de­ci­sions. As a re­sult, Mr. Halstead un­der­stand­ably has a very differ­ent idea than we do about which ar­eas of our re­search we should pri­ori­tize.

Our Po­si­tion on our Older In­ter­ven­tion Research

We are aware of some limi­ta­tions of our older in­ter­ven­tion re­search, and we agree with Mr. Halstead that ACE’s 2014-2016 re­ports on cor­po­rate out­reach, un­der­cover in­ves­ti­ga­tions, hu­mane ed­u­ca­tion, and on­line ads are not up to our cur­rent stan­dards. We rec­og­nize, for in­stance, that our pre­vi­ous use of “pes­simistic,” “re­al­is­tic,” and “op­ti­mistic” la­bels for our quan­ti­ta­tive es­ti­mates was not ideal, and we did not suffi­ciently ex­plain how we made or used those es­ti­mates. (In early 2017, we re­placed our la­bel­ing strat­egy with the use of 90% sub­jec­tive con­fi­dence in­ter­vals.) We are also aware that new re­search has be­come available since the pub­li­ca­tion of some of our older in­ter­ven­tion re­ports. As such, they are in need of up­dat­ing.

One ques­tion that’s been on my mind since I be­came ACE’s di­rec­tor of re­search (about five weeks ago) is whether or not we should archive some of our older in­ter­ven­tion re­ports un­til we are able to up­date them. Since ACE’s re­search de­part­ment is cur­rently hard at work on our char­ity re­views, my ini­tial plan was to wait un­til our re­views are pub­lished in Novem­ber be­fore mak­ing any ma­jor de­ci­sions about our in­ter­ven­tion work. How­ever, Mr. Halstead’s post has led us to con­sider the value of our older re­ports sooner than planned, and we’ve ex­pe­d­ited our de­ci­sion. We will be archiv­ing our cor­po­rate out­reach, un­der­cover in­ves­ti­ga­tion, hu­mane ed­u­ca­tion, and on­line ads re­ports on Septem­ber 14. This will al­low in­ter­ested read­ers to refer­ence them eas­ily for the next week—though even when they are archived, the re­ports will re­main available on our site via the search tool.

We were glad to learn that Mr. Halstead agrees that our 2017 leaflet­ing in­ter­ven­tion re­port was of good stan­dard, and I’d add that our 2017 protest in­ter­ven­tion re­port is of a similar stan­dard. Th­ese are our two most re­cent in­ter­ven­tion re­ports, and they both uti­lize the new in­ter­ven­tion re­search method­ol­ogy that we offi­cially in­tro­duced last Novem­ber. Our new method­ol­ogy in­cludes a more sys­tem­atic liter­a­ture search, fa­cil­i­tates more trans­par­ent com­mu­ni­ca­tion about our rea­son­ing, and al­lows for more rigor­ous statis­ti­cal anal­y­sis, when ap­pro­pri­ate. We will en­sure that all of our fu­ture in­ter­ven­tion work is as rigor­ous as our leaflet­ing and protest re­ports, if not more so.

The Role of Cost-Effec­tive­ness Es­ti­mates in our Work

Mr. Halstead is cor­rect that we have mul­ti­ple plat­forms in which we pre­sent our views. He di­vides these plat­forms into three cat­e­gories: (i) in­ter­ven­tion re­ports, (ii) CEEs, and (iii) the “all things con­sid­ered” views ex­pressed in our char­ity re­views. In fact—in our in­ter­ven­tion re­ports as well as in our char­ity re­views—we pre­sent (i) CEEs and (ii) “all things con­sid­ered” views.

Mr. Halstead is also cor­rect that the views ex­pressed on these differ­ent plat­forms some­times differ. “For ex­am­ple,” he writes, “the view ex­pressed in the in­ter­ven­tion re­port on in­ves­ti­ga­tions is differ­ent to the view ex­pressed in the cost-effec­tive­ness analy­ses of in­ves­ti­ga­tions.” Ac­tu­ally, I’d sug­gest that the views ex­pressed in our in­ter­ven­tion re­ports are of­ten quite differ­ent from the views ex­pressed in our char­ity re­views. Ad­di­tion­ally—in both our in­ter­ven­tion re­ports and our char­ity re­views—our cost-effec­tive­ness es­ti­mates are of­ten quite differ­ent from our over­all (or “all things con­sid­ered”) views. Th­ese differ­ences are in­ten­tional and jus­tified, as I’ll ex­plain be­low.

The Re­la­tion­ship Between the Cost-Effec­tive­ness Es­ti­mates and the Over­all Views Ex­pressed in our In­ter­ven­tion Reports

Our over­all views of an in­ter­ven­tion are in­formed by a num­ber of fac­tors other than our best es­ti­mate of the av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness of that in­ter­ven­tion. After all, prac­ti­cal de­ci­sions about whether or not to de­vote fur­ther re­sources to an in­ter­ven­tion should be made based on the in­ter­ven­tion’s marginal cost-effec­tive­ness, and our CEEs es­ti­mate the in­ter­ven­tion’s av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness.

In or­der to de­velop a sense of an in­ter­ven­tion’s marginal cost-effec­tive­ness, we con­sider how its av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness might change over time de­pend­ing on the amount of re­sources in­vested in it, its in­ter­ac­tions with other in­ter­ven­tions, shifts in pub­lic opinion or poli­ti­cal con­text, and so on. Even if we be­lieve an in­ter­ven­tion is cur­rently highly cost-effec­tive, we might think that in­vest­ing fur­ther in it would have diminish­ing re­turns. Similarly, we con­sider whether an in­ter­ven­tion might be nec­es­sary for the suc­cess of the an­i­mal ad­vo­cacy move­ment. If so, we may recom­mend in­vest­ing fur­ther in that in­ter­ven­tion even if it doesn’t cur­rently seem to be ac­com­plish­ing many tan­gible benefits. And of course, there are always costs and benefits of in­ter­ven­tions that we sim­ply don’t in­clude in our CEEs be­cause they can’t be quan­tified with any helpful de­gree of pre­ci­sion, though we dis­cuss such costs and benefits el­se­where in our re­ports and they do fac­tor into our over­all views.

Mr. Halstead re­peat­edly claims that our “all things con­sid­ered” view is that most forms of grass­roots ad­vo­cacy have “close to zero effect.” That’s not our view, and it’s also not how we think about whether or not to recom­mend in­ter­ven­tions. As quoted, we wrote in our THL re­view that “there is lit­tle ev­i­dence available” for the effects of the grass­roots out­reach that THL con­ducts, such as “leaflet­ing, on­line ads, and ed­u­ca­tion.” We also wrote that we “do not cur­rently recom­mend the use of leaflet­ing or on­line ads as we sus­pect that they are not as effec­tive as some other means of pub­lic out­reach.” It does not fol­low from these claims that our over­all view is that grass­roots ad­vo­cacy has close to no effect. As we ex­plain in the pre­ced­ing para­graph of THL’s re­view, “we still think it’s im­por­tant for the an­i­mal move­ment to tar­get some out­reach to­ward in­di­vi­d­u­als, as a shift in pub­lic at­ti­tudes could lead to greater sup­port for new an­i­mal-friendly poli­cies. Public out­reach might even be a nec­es­sary pre­cur­sor to achiev­ing in­sti­tu­tional change.” In other words, be­cause of the pos­si­ble ne­ces­sity of grass­roots out­reach and be­cause of its in­ter­ac­tions with other in­ter­ven­tions, our over­all view of grass­roots out­reach is dis­tinct from our CEEs for leaflet­ing, on­line ads, and hu­mane ed­u­ca­tion.

The Re­la­tion­ship Between the Cost-Effec­tive­ness Es­ti­mates and Over­all Views Ex­pressed in our Char­ity Reviews

The CEEs in­cluded in our char­ity re­views are very rough es­ti­mates of a char­ity’s av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness. We em­pha­size strongly (with bold let­ters) that they should not be taken as our over­all view of a char­ity’s effec­tive­ness. Our over­all view of each char­ity is in­formed by all seven of our crite­ria.

Mr. Halstead seems to be­lieve that our CEEs are the most im­por­tant fac­tor in our recom­men­da­tion de­ci­sions. When we re­minded him in con­ver­sa­tion about our six other crite­ria, he ar­gued that we wouldn’t value fac­tors like strong lead­er­ship or track record in a char­ity that wasn’t cost-effec­tive, and that there­fore our CEEs must play a cen­tral role in our recom­men­da­tion de­ci­sions. That seems like a fair as­sump­tion to make about an effec­tive al­tru­ist or­ga­ni­za­tion. Once again, though, our CEEs are es­ti­mates of the av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness of the char­ity over the past year, and we make our recom­men­da­tion de­ci­sions based on our be­liefs about the marginal cost-effec­tive­ness of each char­ity. We con­sider all seven of our crite­ria to be largely in­de­pen­dent in­di­ca­tions of marginal cost-effec­tive­ness, as I’ll ex­plain be­low.

Sup­pose we learn that the di­rec­tor of a char­ity we’re eval­u­at­ing has been em­bez­zling money (though this has never hap­pened). Even if we be­lieve the char­ity has a high av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness in its work for an­i­mals, we might be­lieve that dona­tions to the char­ity have low marginal cost-effec­tive­ness be­cause the char­ity is about to lose its di­rec­tor to prison. There­fore, we con­sider strong lead­er­ship to be an in­di­ca­tion of a char­ity’s marginal cost-effec­tive­ness in­de­pen­dently of the char­ity’s av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness. Similarly, sup­pose we re­view a char­ity’s track record and find that it ac­com­plishes more ev­ery year on the same bud­get. Even if its av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness is cur­rently low, we might be op­ti­mistic about the marginal cost-effec­tive­ness of dona­tions to that char­ity. There­fore, we con­sider track record to be an in­di­ca­tion of a char­ity’s marginal cost-effec­tive­ness in­de­pen­dently of the char­ity’s av­er­age cost-effec­tive­ness.

Mr. Halstead high­lights some prob­lems with our older in­ter­ven­tion re­search and con­cludes that: “con­se­quently ACE’s re­search does not provide much rea­son to be­lieve that their recom­mended char­i­ties ac­tu­ally im­prove an­i­mal welfare.” If he had said that our cost-effec­tive­ness es­ti­mates (on their own) don’t provide much rea­son to be­lieve that our recom­mended char­i­ties ac­tu­ally im­prove an­i­mal welfare, I might have agreed with him. How­ever, as we ex­plain in our re­views, we put limited weight on those es­ti­mates. Our re­search pro­vides many rea­sons to be­lieve that our recom­mended char­i­ties help an­i­mals. Those rea­sons can be found in all seven sec­tions of our re­views.

The Re­la­tion­ship Between our In­ter­ven­tion Re­search and our Char­ity Reviews

Mr. Halstead notes some ap­par­ent in­con­sis­ten­cies be­tween our in­ter­ven­tion re­search and our char­ity re­views. For ex­am­ple, he points out that: “[ACE’s] view as of Au­gust 2018 is that grass­roots ad­vo­cacy has close to no effect, though ACE does es­ti­mate that THL’s on­line out­reach is benefi­cial.” As men­tioned, we feel this is a mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of our over­all view of grass­roots out­reach. How­ever, the point I’d like to make now is that there are some­times good rea­sons why our over­all view of an in­ter­ven­tion might differ from our as­sess­ment of that in­ter­ven­tion as it is im­ple­mented by a par­tic­u­lar char­ity.

Any given in­ter­ven­tion can vary widely in its cost-effec­tive­ness de­pend­ing on how it is im­ple­mented. When we model the cost-effec­tive­ness of an in­ter­ven­tion, we have to make cer­tain as­sump­tions about how that in­ter­ven­tion is im­ple­mented. For ex­am­ple, in our protest re­port, we mod­eled the cost-effec­tive­ness of the types of protests im­ple­mented by THL. If we were writ­ing a char­ity re­view for a group like Anony­mous for the Voice­less, which uses a very differ­ent kind of protest, our model of the cost-effec­tive­ness of their protests might look very differ­ent from the model in our protest re­port.

Read­ers may be won­der­ing: what is the value of our in­ter­ven­tion re­ports if they aren’t nec­es­sar­ily the ba­sis for the CEEs in our char­ity re­views? Our an­swer is two-fold. First, our over­all views of each in­ter­ven­tion do play some role in our re­views, par­tic­u­larly in Cri­te­rion 2 (“Does the char­ity en­gage in pro­grams that seem likely to be highly im­pact­ful?”). Se­cond, our new method­ol­ogy for our in­ter­ven­tion re­search was de­signed to make our in­ter­ven­tion re­ports use­ful in other ways. For in­stance, we ex­am­ine fac­tors that might make an in­ter­ven­tion more or less cost-effec­tive, which we hope will be of use to other char­i­ties.

Fur­ther Thoughts on the Role of Cost-Effec­tive­ness Es­ti­mates in our Char­ity Reviews

A dis­cus­sion of the role of our CEEs in our char­ity re­views may ap­pear to be tan­gen­tial to the points that Mr. Halstead has raised. Be­cause Mr. Halstead be­lieves that our CEEs both should be and are the most im­por­tant fac­tor in our recom­men­da­tion de­ci­sions, he may not per­ceive there to be any prob­lem with the role that our CEEs play in our re­views and there­fore didn’t dis­cuss it in his post. How­ever, the role of our CEEs in our re­views is ac­tu­ally a key point in this ex­change. It is the im­plicit as­sump­tion that al­lows Mr. Halstead to in­fer from the flaws in our cor­po­rate out­reach re­port that our char­ity eval­u­a­tion re­search “does not provide much rea­son to be­lieve that their recom­mended char­i­ties ac­tu­ally im­prove an­i­mal welfare.”

Mr. Halstead’s chain of rea­son­ing seems to be:

  1. ACE’s cor­po­rate out­reach in­ter­ven­tion re­port is flawed.

  2. Cor­po­rate out­reach ac­counts for 90% of THL’s and An­i­mal Equal­ity’s CEEs.

  3. Each char­ity’s CEE is the pri­mary piece of ev­i­dence that the char­ity im­proves an­i­mal welfare.

There­fore,

4. ACE does not provide much rea­son to be­lieve that their recom­mended char­i­ties im­prove an­i­mal welfare.

Even if we grant (1) and (2),[2] we’ve now ex­plained that premise (3) is false, and there­fore Mr. Halstead’s con­clu­sion does not fol­low.

Our Plans for ACE’s Re­search Department

ACE’s spe­cific re­search plans for next year have not yet been set; we have an­nual strate­gic plan­ning ses­sions in De­cem­ber or Jan­uary, af­ter our char­ity re­views are re­leased. How­ever, as ACE’s new di­rec­tor of re­search, I can make the fol­low­ing pub­lic com­mit­ments about our fu­ture work:

  1. We will archive our out­dated in­ter­ven­tion re­ports on Septem­ber 14, 2018.

  2. After our re­views are pub­lished in Novem­ber (and we there­fore have more time), we will con­sider whether we should add any of the prob­lems raised by Mr. Halstead to our pub­lic mis­takes page.

  3. Our fu­ture in­ter­ven­tion re­ports will meet or ex­ceed the stan­dards set by our protest and leaflet­ing re­ports.

  4. We will con­tinue work­ing to clearly de­scribe the role that CEEs play in our char­ity re­views, since this has con­tinu­ally caused con­fu­sion among our com­mu­nity.

  5. In our 2018 re­views, we are no longer us­ing our on­line ads re­port in our CEEs.

  6. We will make ev­ery effort to keep our read­ers ap­prised of our most cur­rent views on our re­search.

Up­dat­ing our cor­po­rate out­reach re­port is of par­tic­u­larly high pri­or­ity for us, and Mr. Halstead is cor­rect that this was also true in 2017. I spent the ma­jor­ity of my time this year work­ing on an up­dated re­port, but my pri­ori­ties shifted when I moved into my new po­si­tion. When our char­ity re­views are com­plete, I will ei­ther finish up the re­port or pass it on to an­other team mem­ber.

We are con­sid­er­ing fur­ther up­dat­ing our in­ter­ven­tion re­search method­ol­ogy by break­ing our re­ports into smaller pieces that can be pub­lished in­di­vi­d­u­ally. That way, we would be able to pub­lish or up­date some pieces of the re­ports more quickly than we are cur­rently able to pub­lish or up­date full re­ports.

As Mr. Halstead points out, we have not yet con­ducted much origi­nal re­search on the im­pact of var­i­ous welfare re­forms. We’ve gen­er­ally left this work to other groups. How­ever, we are con­sid­er­ing do­ing more welfare re­search in the fu­ture. In fact, we have a re­port on fish welfare that is cur­rently be­ing copy ed­ited for pub­li­ca­tion. One of our goals is to bet­ter an­ti­ci­pate which welfare re­forms char­i­ties will pur­sue each year so that we can re­search the effects of those re­forms in­de­pen­dently and be­fore we eval­u­ate the char­i­ties, rather than by rely­ing on oth­ers’ work while we eval­u­ate char­i­ties. We think this will both im­prove our char­ity eval­u­a­tions and al­low us to be more use­ful to char­i­ties that are con­sid­er­ing which re­forms to pur­sue.

Com­ments on Some Mis­cel­la­neous Claims

“Cor­po­rate out­reach ac­counts for the ma­jor­ity of the mod­el­led im­pact of both char­i­ties in the cost-effec­tive­ness analy­ses of THL and An­i­mal Equal­ity: for THL, ~90% of the mod­el­led im­pact is from cor­po­rate out­reach, and ~10% from on­line out­reach; and for An­i­mal Equal­ity, >90% of the mod­el­led im­pact is from cor­po­rate out­reach.”

Our team is un­sure how Mr. Halstead ar­rived at these per­centages, though we shared with him in con­ver­sa­tion that we be­lieve they are in­cor­rect. We as­sume that when Mr. Halstead refers to the por­tion of the “mod­eled im­pact” of cor­po­rate out­reach, he means the por­tion of the char­ity’s mod­eled im­pact that is due to cor­po­rate out­reach weighted by the por­tion of the char­ity’s bud­get that sup­ports cor­po­rate out­reach. By our calcu­la­tions, cor­po­rate out­reach ac­counts for about 63% of THL’s 2017 CEE and about 36% of An­i­mal Equal­ity’s 2017 CEE.[3]

“When I asked ACE about this in 2017, they said that the ba­sis for the figure was an­other page on the im­pacts of me­dia cov­er­age on meat de­mand, which is not linked to or refer­enced at that point on the cost-effec­tive­ness anal­y­sis of un­der­cover in­ves­ti­ga­tions.”

We should have made this refer­ence much clearer, though for what it’s worth, the page on the im­pacts of me­dia cov­er­age on meat de­mand is linked in Sec­tion V.3 and the figure Mr. Halstead is refer­enc­ing ap­pears in Sec­tion V.3.1.

“ACE does not have up to date re­search of suffi­cient qual­ity on the welfare effects of cor­po­rate cam­paigns.”

It’s true that we have not con­ducted much origi­nal re­search on the im­pact of var­i­ous cor­po­rate cam­paigns on an­i­mal welfare. How­ever, we do not just rely on our own re­search when we es­ti­mate the im­pact of these cam­paigns. We also rely on rele­vant re­search pro­duced by other groups (e.g., The Open Philan­thropy Pro­ject’s re­port on the welfare differ­ences be­tween cage and cage-free hous­ing).

“ACE also does not check whether their recom­mended char­i­ties are gen­uinely causally re­spon­si­ble for the cor­po­rate policy suc­cesses that they claim,” and “ACE does not check with third party news sources, ex­perts or with the com­pa­nies them­selves on whether the claims of the char­i­ties are ac­cu­rate.”

We do search on­line for ev­i­dence in the news of each char­ity’s achieve­ments. The prob­lem is: there usu­ally is no such ev­i­dence, par­tic­u­larly in the field of cor­po­rate out­reach. Of course, the ab­sence of ev­i­dence of a char­ity’s in­volve­ment in a cor­po­rate cam­paign is not ev­i­dence that the char­ity was not in­volved. We’ve also looked up cor­po­ra­tions’ press re­leases an­nounc­ing their com­mit­ments, but these gen­er­ally do not men­tion an­i­mal char­i­ties. (As far as I can re­mem­ber, I’ve never seen one that does.) We have lit­tle rea­son to be­lieve that a cor­po­ra­tion could or would share de­tailed in­for­ma­tion about their de­ci­sions with us if we asked them. I don’t know who Mr. Halstead has in mind when he men­tions check­ing with “ex­perts,” though we’ve cer­tainly spo­ken with many ex­perts in cor­po­rate cam­paign­ing, if that is what he means.

We are always look­ing for ways to bet­ter as­sess char­i­ties’ claims. In the mean­time, when we can’t cor­rob­o­rate a char­ity’s claims with a third party, we are care­ful to state in our re­views that the char­ity “re­ports” or “claims” to have achieved X or Y, rather than that they have done so.

Edited 9/​11/​18: Please see this com­ment ex­change be­tween Avi Norow­itz and me for some ad­di­tional de­tails re­gard­ing our eval­u­a­tion of the ex­tent to which char­i­ties cause some cor­po­rate policy com­mit­ment. I think that the above two para­graphs gen­er­ally hold, but there are some im­por­tant cases where it doesn’t. To be clear, there are a num­ber of cases where char­i­ties are named in the news as­so­ci­ated with a policy com­mit­ment, or in cor­po­ra­tion’s press re­lease as­so­ci­ated with a policy com­mit­ment, or in the policy com­mit­ment it­self.

“My in­ter­ac­tions with Ms Adle­berg and other mem­bers of ACE’s cur­rent re­search staff have been very pos­i­tive...”

Like­wise!

“Eval­u­at­ing the im­pact of an­i­mal char­i­ties is gen­er­ally more difficult than eval­u­at­ing the im­pact of char­i­ties car­ry­ing out di­rect health in­ter­ven­tions be­cause ev­i­dence is sparse and much hinges on difficult ques­tions about an­i­mal sen­tience.”

Agreed!


[1] We have re­viewed the en­tire con­tents of his post as a team.

[2] And we do grant (1), though (2) is false, as I dis­cuss in the fi­nal sec­tion of this piece.

[3] In THL’s 2017 CEE, we mod­eled three of their six pro­grams—cor­po­rate out­reach, grass­roots out­reach, and on­line out­reach—which ac­counts for a to­tal of about 78% of their bud­get. We weigh each es­ti­mate of pro­gram cost-effec­tive­ness by the pro­por­tion of the char­ity’ bud­get spent on that pro­gram. Cor­po­rate out­reach ac­counted for an es­ti­mated 49% of THL’s bud­get in 2017, which equates to 63% of the pro­grams we mod­eled, and thus 63% of the to­tal CEE. Fol­low­ing the same rea­son­ing, cor­po­rate out­reach ac­counted for just 36% of An­i­mal Equal­ity’s 2017 CEE.