ACE evaluates charities using multiple criteria, in an effort to identify the most cost-effective animal advocacy charities and programs for donors to support. Some of our criteria—such as cost-effectiveness calculations and room for additional funding—address factors that have a clear, direct influence on how effective we would expect additional donations to be. Because of the significant uncertainty involved in our evaluations of these criteria, we also use criteria that are less direct indicators of cost-effectiveness.

While we’ve selected the above focus areas because they seem most important given the available evidence (discussed below) and our goals for the evaluation, we don’t want to miss the opportunity to comment on other factors which may be especially relevant or noticeable for a particular charity:

  • The charity’s mission emphasizes reducing suffering/helping animals effectively.
  • The strategy of the charity supports the growth of the effective animal advocacy movement as a whole.
  • The charity’s board is composed of individuals from a diverse set of occupational backgrounds who have had diverse experiences.
  • The board of the charity participates regularly in formal strategic planning on behalf of the charity, and involves other stakeholders (e.g., staff, donors, and beneficiaries) in that process.

As noted above, there is a significant body of evidence suggesting that teams composed of individuals with different roles, tasks, or occupations are likely to be more successful than those which are more homogeneous. Increased diversity by demographic factors such as race and gender has more mixed effects in the literature, but gains through having a diverse team seem to be possible for organizations which view diversity as a resource (using different personal backgrounds and experiences to improve decision making) rather than solely a neutral or justice-oriented practice.

Read the source article at Animal Charity Evaluators