You care deeply about animals, yet when it comes time to donate, hesitation arises. You wonder whether your money will actually make a difference, whether the organizations you support are effective, and whether your contribution matters at all. So you give less than you might—or not at all. That uncertainty is understandable. It is also solvable.
Most people assume that donations naturally flow to where suffering is greatest. In animal advocacy, the opposite is largely true. Roughly 80 percent of all charitable giving for animals in the United States goes to dog and cat shelters. These organizations do important work, but dogs and cats account for only a tiny fraction—about 1 percent—of animals killed each year. By contrast, approximately 98 percent of animal suffering and killing occurs in animal agriculture, yet only about 2 percent of donations are directed toward reducing that harm. The disparity reveals less about need than about familiarity and emotion. We donate to animals we live with and love, even as we overlook billions of equally sentient beings whose suffering is largely hidden from view.
This imbalance matters because the impact of a donation is not uniform. A dollar given to one organization may spare a handful of animals; a dollar given elsewhere may affect thousands. Effectiveness varies dramatically across strategies—whether through corporate policy change, plant-based food innovation, legislative reform, public education, or investigative work. If the goal is to reduce the greatest amount of suffering, then how and where we give deserves far more scrutiny than it typically receives.
That scrutiny often stops, however, at an organization’s finances. Donors fixate on overhead ratios, salaries, or reserves, assuming that lower pay and leaner budgets necessarily signal virtue. This instinct is understandable—and often misguided. In a well-known TED Talk, Dan Pallotta argues that the nonprofit sector undermines itself by insisting that talent work for less, as though moral commitment should substitute for expertise. When we demand that nonprofit leaders, researchers, technologists, lawyers, and organizers accept below-market compensation, we narrow the pool of people willing—or able—to do the work.
The animal advocacy movement, like any effort confronting a massive, entrenched system, competes against industries with enormous resources. Progress depends on ideas, strategy, innovation, and execution. That means attracting people who can design scalable food technologies, negotiate with multinational corporations, draft legislation, tell compelling stories, analyze data, and move public opinion. Competitive salaries are not a sign of mission drift; they can be a sign of seriousness. Compared with a corporate landscape in which chief executives earn hundreds of times more than their workers, six-figure nonprofit salaries are modest. The more relevant question is not how much people are paid, but what their work accomplishes.
For donors who want their money to matter, the focus should be on impact. Does an organization clearly articulate its goals and theory of change? Can it point to concrete outcomes—policies changed, animals spared, industries shifted, technologies developed, or behaviors altered? Does it track results, evaluate what works, and adapt when strategies fall short? Is it transparent about its finances, priorities, and decision-making? Effective organizations tend to welcome these questions, not deflect them.
It is also worth remembering that the animal advocacy sector is chronically underfunded. In the United States, charitable giving amounts to about 2 percent of GDP. Roughly a third of that goes to religious organizations. Only about 5 percent of that already small slice is directed toward animal charities. For advocates who feel urgency about reducing suffering, that gap between concern and contribution is consequential. Greater impact often requires not just smarter giving, but more of it.
Before donating, it is reasonable—and responsible—to ask how an organization spends its budget, how it measures success, what it has achieved, and what it aims to do next. Look for evidence of strategic thinking rather than vague ambition. Seek signs of learning and adaptation rather than rigid adherence to tradition. Independent evaluations, staff culture, and long-term planning all offer clues about whether an organization is positioned to do meaningful work.
The uncomfortable truth is that much of our charitable giving is driven by habit, sentiment, and visibility rather than by outcomes. In animal advocacy, that tendency leads us to fund the most familiar causes, not the most consequential ones. If the aim is to reduce suffering at scale, then directing resources toward farmed animal advocacy—where harm is greatest and funding is scarcest—offers an opportunity for outsized impact. Donating thoughtfully does not require cynicism or detachment. It requires aligning compassion with evidence, and emotion with effectiveness. When we do that, our generosity has a far better chance of becoming the force for change we hope it will be.
Kirschner's Korner 
Very informative article. Thank you, Andrew!
Thank you Sharon. I appreciate your feedback.
It was a very thought-provoking exercise to study this topic. I began the exploration of it thinking it’s best to donate to organizations that need money the most. My views evolved into believing that we should donate to the organizations that are doing the most good for animals with the money we donate. Simply because an organization is small or doesn’t have a lot of money doesn’t mean it’s the best place to donate. They may be doing fantastic work, but if we’re aiming to save the most lives possible, it may not always be the best decision.
Donating is often an emotional issue driven by seeing an animal suffering. People will rally to donate $2,000 to save one dog in a shelter not realizing that same amount of money can save approximately 9,500 farm animals if donated to a farm animal advocacy organization. The latter is more abstract because we’re saving animals from being born into a life of abuse, confinement, suffering, and killing so it’s less likely to gain support but no less significant.
I hope my findings help readers to think critically about how to maximize their donations.
Hi so which agriculture animal sanctuary should I invest in ? Please can u tell me ? I’ve always donated to all kinds of animal causes over 32 years and want to put my money where it counts the most ! Thank you
I’ve been saying that for years!! If we could close down factory farms ( hopefully when clean meat hits the market) that would stop probably 90% of animal suffering. Peta is up in arms about the LSU tiger in captivity when there are 54 billion factory farm animals that would give their right paw for that 11,000 square feet!
can you recommend or tell your favorite animal charities Andrew ?? I would think Mercy For Animals is up there …thanks –
Hi Marco,
Thank you for your question and for your interest in donating to support animal charities. My recommendations come via my $5 Friday picks. If you subscribe to my blog, you can receive them via e-mail every Friday.
Nice article. Has always been a frustrating aspect. In enviro circles, the CEO’s of groups like WWF or National Wildlife Fund make big huge bucks. Yet when you peel the layers back, their effectiveness or actually being part of the problem(umm, WWF & Palm oil, big game hunting) are mind boggling. Same critique can exist for health fund raising, like Susan G Komen foundation, etc. “Earth For Sale” by Brian Tokar illustrated this fairly well on big ten enviro groups not solving problems to keep a seat at the political table. Thing I like about this article, the critical analysis and posing questions.
Thank you Steve. You raise very important points. We agree it’s counterproductive to pay someone a lot of money if their impact doesn’t justify it.
One of the reasons I wrote the article is to inspire people to question the status quo. Do we have it right? I don’t know. Should we adopt a different salary structure? Perhaps. I try to make the case for why it may help us achieve more progress.
I appreciate that you look at these issues through a critical lens. Thank you for sharing your insightful thoughts.
I no longer support WWF for another reason – they support companies that use fur items & so support the heinous fur industry. As for Susan G. Komen, I have nothing against finding a cure, just don’t fund animal testing to do it. There are a ton of health charities that do their work with compassion and respect for animals; & who have received the PCRM Humane Seal of Approval. Check out my blog, Charity Watch for more info. If they can do it, so can others.
Hi Andrew/others,
thanks for your article!
have you heard of ‘animal charity evaluators’?
It is an organisation that is set up especially to evaluate the effectiveness of animal charities
http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/recommendations/top-charities/
Rosa 🙂
Hi Rosa,
Thank you for your feedback.
Yes, I hyperlinked ACE in the article and the chart graphic in the article is from the ACE website. They provide valuable insight.
In fairness to organizations not featured by ACE, however, it’s important to recognize that no evaluation metrics are perfect and results can vary widely from one independent assessment to another. It is not an exact science.
Reblogged this on YBoris.
Great article on an important topic. Thanks.
Thank you Lori.
Although I do sign petitions for other causes, I hesitate to join, or contribute to those who do not consider Animal Agriculture as the biggest source of Animal suffering and exploitation. My mailbox is flooded with requests to contribute monetarily, but always examine where most of these causes stand regarding Animals as a whole and not only in a selective manner.
What percentage of the $5 goes to the sanctuary for the $5 Fridays? TIA 🙂
Hi Patricia,
Thank you for your question. All 100% of your donation goes to the sanctuary. If you click on the donate button, you will see that it takes you directly to the sanctuary website. I am a volunteer and do not make any money off of any of my advocacy work.
Thank you for your support!
Wow! You are a very special, kind hearted person. You’re amazing! Thank you for this awesome fund raiser!!!
I am not here to advocate for PETA, just to explain that I have been a donating member to them for many years. Why? Because PETA “found” me through their media presence and visibility at public events — and drew me further and further into animal rights via the news, education, and commentary from (and about) them. PETA also has organized demonstrations in my city, of which I have taken part.
I reason that, if PETA accelerated my immersion into animal welfare/rights (as well as related environmental and health issues), then it must be effective in doing this on a broad scale. And that’s something I want to support.
Little of this would matter if PETA weren’t applying a high percentage of contributions toward their programs (they do), or if their programs didn’t directly help animals (they do), or if they were successful in only a limited geography (they’re global).
My loyalty to PETA doesn’t preclude donations to other organizations. It’s just that it will be incumbent on me to reach out to them, research them, and determine if they are worthy.
I am open to (and welcome) criticism of my thinking on this matter.
PETA PUT ANIMAL RIGHTS ON THE MAP