SHARK’s video exposing Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3inYlGkFNv0
ACE’s response: https://animalcharityevaluators.org/transparency/criticisms/shark/
Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) recently released a video exposing Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE). ACE issued a response, one that ignored the major points of our video. Because we believe that there are serious ramifications to what ACE does, including that innumerable animal lives are at stake, we are continuing this discussion
1. ACE calls Ducks Unlimited (DU), a pro-hunting group that is responsible for slaughtering millions of animals, “General Animal Welfare” and “Wild Animal Rescue and Shelter.” That they did this is undeniable.
For ACE to say they rejected DU while leaving their name on their "All Charity Reviews” webpage, and therefore misleading people into thinking DU is a pro-animal group, is ludicrous. If we can’t trust ACE to do something as simple as to check and see if a group they are considering to review is anti-animal, why would we trust anything they put out?
Our point that ACE didn’t have the basic intelligence to do a simple Google search stands, and it shows that ACE's science and methods are extraordinarily flawed.
Put it this way…how did one of the leading pro-hunting groups in our nation make ACE's “considered" list instead of one of the tens of thousands of animal groups out there? We believe ACE padded the number of groups they claim to have reviewed in order to make it appear that they were working with a large amount of organizations, when the reality is they focused on their pre-selected groups.
2. ACE ignored that they put misleading information on their Guidestar page. In ACE’s response they state that they have a ”...combined total of over 100 reviews,”while on Guidestar they wrote that, in 2016 alone, they had, "Conducted evaluations of over 300 animal charities.” Such a vast discrepancy can’t be written off as a mistake.
Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) claims to do science-based evaluations of animal protection organizations, however, SHARK is exposing that as being false.
The problem is that ACE reviews - which are important because those who receive "top Charity" status can potential make millions in donations - appear to be biased in favor of one particular person, an activist named Nick Cooney. How is it possible that with over 20,000 animal organizations in the US alone, only organizations connected to Nick Cooney receive "Top Charity" status?
A commenter on the recent ANIMALS 24-7 article New SHARK CharityCops site exposes Animal Charity Evaluators, about our campaign to improve the truthfulness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of the animal rights movement, concluded that “It would be wise to be extremely careful how we publicly criticize well-known [animal advocacy] organizations lest we shoot ourselves in the foot, align ourselves with the likes of Richard Berman (Humane Watch) and end up fracturing the movement beyond repair.”
Fumed Hindi in April 2017,
“Contemporary animal protection organizations have devolved from entities of a compassionate social movement to an industry supported by mind-numbed donors.
“Laziness, incompetence, credit-grabbing, lying, and in many cases outright fraud have become commonplace among many supposed animal protection organizations,” Hindi wrote, “but no matter how many times some of these groups are exposed for bad performance and/or ethical lapses, supporters apparently incapable of independent thought continue to send money like hypnotized members of a religious cult.
For nearly 45 years I have done accountability reporting and donor education about nonprofit organizations. For more than 30 years I have done accountability reporting specifically focused on animal charities, including 25 years as editor of a series of annual reports initially titled “Who gets the money?”
The first edition covered two dozen major animal charities. Within five years it covered about 100. Retitled "The Watchdog Report on Animal Charities" in 1999, the report expanded up to the production of 15 editions of a handbook which reviewed the budgets, assets, spending patterns, programs, policies, leadership transitions, and any other controversial issues associated with more than 170 animal charities.
Producing such a comprehensive volume annually eventually became economically unviable, even with my wife Beth having done much of the preliminary research to produce an electronic edition that we could not complete.
Bluntly put, insufficient numbers of animal charity donors seemed to give enough of a damn where they throw their money to spend $25 a year making sure it really goes where their donations are most likely to achieve whatever it is they want most to accomplish.