Executive summary: Animal Charity Evaluators has launched Better for Animals, a living resource synthesizing evidence on nearly 30 animal advocacy interventions, aiming to improve strategy and grantmaking while helping advocates, funders, and researchers navigate an expanding but fragmented evidence base; the resource is updated regularly, incorporates feedback, and highlights both strengths and limitations of current knowledge.
Key points:
Better for Animals responds to the challenge of evaluating diverse advocacy strategies amid limited, fragmented, and sometimes contradictory evidence.
ACE developed a structured research protocol, collaborated with peer organizations, and incorporated internal and external reviews to ensure rigor.
The resource provides nuanced assessments of interventions, avoiding simple “good/bad” labels and emphasizing context, risks, and conditions for effectiveness.
Reviews are updated several times per year to integrate new research, identified mainly through ACE’s monthly Research Digest.
Major limitations include lack of full systematic reviews, publication bias, overrepresentation of short-term and Western studies, and reliance on lower-quality or adjacent evidence for some interventions.
ACE invites feedback and hopes the resource will guide advocates’ strategies, inform funders’ priorities, and inspire researchers to fill critical evidence gaps.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: Animal Charity Evaluators has launched Better for Animals, a living resource synthesizing evidence on nearly 30 animal advocacy interventions, aiming to improve strategy and grantmaking while helping advocates, funders, and researchers navigate an expanding but fragmented evidence base; the resource is updated regularly, incorporates feedback, and highlights both strengths and limitations of current knowledge.
Key points:
Better for Animals responds to the challenge of evaluating diverse advocacy strategies amid limited, fragmented, and sometimes contradictory evidence.
ACE developed a structured research protocol, collaborated with peer organizations, and incorporated internal and external reviews to ensure rigor.
The resource provides nuanced assessments of interventions, avoiding simple “good/bad” labels and emphasizing context, risks, and conditions for effectiveness.
Reviews are updated several times per year to integrate new research, identified mainly through ACE’s monthly Research Digest.
Major limitations include lack of full systematic reviews, publication bias, overrepresentation of short-term and Western studies, and reliance on lower-quality or adjacent evidence for some interventions.
ACE invites feedback and hopes the resource will guide advocates’ strategies, inform funders’ priorities, and inspire researchers to fill critical evidence gaps.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.