Building on previous research, this report from Stray Dog Institute provides an updated overview of how funds are being allocated within the global animal advocacy movement. Data was gathered through an online survey and follow-up communications. A total of 211 organizations from 50 countries participated, reporting combined expenses of US$259.6 million dedicated to helping animals raised or caught for food.

The majority (73%) of organizations were headquartered in Northern America and Europe, highlighting the geographical concentration of the data. Most were small, with 65% employing fewer than 10 full-time staff members. Interestingly, 36% of organizations reported annual expenses of less than US$100,000, which accounted for only 1% of total spending. In contrast, those with expenses of US$5 million or more comprised just 8% of surveyed organizations, but dominated the financial landscape — contributing to 63% of total spending.

Expenses By Region And Country

Expenses were distributed across 114 countries, although most were focused on the United States (over US$120 million) and Europe (almost US$87 million). Furthermore, even when organizations spent money abroad, most of the funds originated from organizations within Northern America and Europe.

Expenses By Animal

A considerable 68% of spending — close to US$176 million — was directed towards terrestrial farmed animals. Terrestrial and aquatic farmed animals together received nearly 20 times more funds than their wild-caught counterparts.

Among terrestrial farmed animals, egg-laying and broiler chickens emerged as top recipients, accounting for a combined US$54 million. The least amount of money was spent on farmed insects, closely followed by buffaloes, geese, and ducks, with each receiving less than US$350,000.

Farmed fishes and cephalopods dominated aquatic farmed animal spending, receiving nearly US$4 million and over US$2 million, respectively. Although there were twice as many participating organizations in Northern America than in Europe, European organizations spent more than double the amount on aquatic farmed animals than Northern American organizations.

Expenses By Intervention

Interventions were categorized into several key areas:

• Public interventions: Activities that raise public awareness or encourage the public to take action (e.g., media outreach, protests)
• Government interventions: Activities that aim to influence the government (e.g., electioneering, food policy advocacy)
• Movement interventions: Activities that help to build capacity within the movement (e.g., networking, research, monitoring and evaluation)
• Animal interventions: Activities that provide assistance and direct care to animals (e.g., rescue, rehabilitation)
• Business interventions: Activities that aim to influence businesses (e.g., product labeling and certification, animal welfare improvements)

Spending across these categories was relatively balanced, with public interventions receiving 26% of the funds, business interventions 24%, movement interventions 22%, and government interventions 22%. However, animal interventions only accounted for 3% of total expenses.

The most notable intervention was corporate engagement for animal welfare improvements, which received over US$26 million. Two movement-focused interventions, network-building and research, both ranked among the top 10 interventions overall, indicating growth in this area compared to earlier research.

Organizations in Oceania showcased a higher proportion of spending — nearly 50% — on direct animal care and rescue. Organizations with the smallest expenses spent more money on interventions targeting the public, while those with the largest expenses allocated more funds towards government interventions.

Expenses By Intended Outcome

Improving animal welfare standards emerged as a significant area of focus, accounting for 32% of all expenses. Decreasing animal product consumption, which received 18% of total spending, was also a key priority. However, there were notable regional differences. Organizations in Asia and Northern Africa allocated more expenses towards increasing engagement in animal advocacy, while those in Oceania concentrated their funds on direct help for animals.

There was also variation based on organization size. Larger organizations allocated higher proportions of their expenses to improving animal welfare standards and increasing the availability of animal-free products. On the other hand, smaller organizations focused their expenses on decreasing animal product consumption. The report suggests that this may also explain why smaller organizations showed a greater emphasis on public outreach.

Future Outlook

It’s worth noting that the report had a number of limitations. Perhaps most significantly, the survey’s reliance on the English language and recruitment strategies may have made participation more accessible in Northern America and Europe. This could have weighted the results towards organizations in these regions.

This research will be conducted annually to improve geographic representation and create year-over-year comparability. Feedback and participation from underrepresented regions are key priorities for future surveys to help fill gaps in the data and improve movement-wide accuracy.