Case Study: National Council for Animal Protection

Since 2003, HRC has worked closely with the National Council for Animal Protection (NCAP) to conduct multiple research studies. NCAP is a coalition of U.S. based animal protection organizations working together to help build movement capacity and effectiveness. As part of this effort, NCAP and HRC have conducted research on the state of public opinion regarding animal protection groups and individual advocates. The research included a large public opinion survey and focus groups to explore a range of related motivations and barriers.

U.S. Public Opinion of the Animal Protection Movement

IMPORTANT NOTE: This document is provided exclusively to animal advocates and for informational purposes only. The information remains the sole property of the National Council for Animal Protection and may not be used for any reason. No authorization is granted to share or reproduce any of the content herein. If you have any questions about this policy, please contact the Humane Research Council at (206) 905-9887 or info@humaneresearch.org.

Background and Approach

NCAP's primary objective was to understand how people think about animal advocates and their tactics, a complex and multifaceted subject. HRC employed several methods to collect data, including an initial round of secondary research followed by both qualitative and quantitative primary research. This allowed NCAP members to gain an understanding of public perception that was both representative of all adults (quantitative) and explorative regarding how they think about the animal protection movement (qualitative). The survey results were used to segment U.S. adults based on their level of support for animal protection, resulting in groups of people designated as "supporters" and "detractors." The focus groups conducted by HRC then helped to describe why people support (or oppose) the animal protection movement.

Solution and Results

Results from NCAP research are available exclusively to current NCAP member organizations. However, the initial research phase conducted by HRC was based on 23 secondary studies that are publicly available. Following is the executive summary from the report on these studies (a link to the full document is below).

General Awareness of and Concern for Animal Protection Issues

• Although AP groups have made significant strides in recent decades in the arena of public opinion, this analysis confirms earlier findings that animal protection issues are clearly not "top-of-mind" for the majority of the public (see HSUS's State of the Animals: 2001).
• General awareness of AP organizations and the impact they have on public policy is also low. In 2001, 47% of the public replied "don't know" when asked to name the animal protection group that does the most to protect animals. The animal rights movement was also perceived to have less of an impact on public policy than all other social movements considered in a Gallup Poll conducted in 2000.

Image, Credibility, and Respect of the Animal Protection Movement

• Going back nearly fifteen years, a study in 1990 asked respondents about the respect they have for animal rights activists and the positions they take. Seven in ten respondents said "some respect" or "a great deal of respect." But in the same study, nine in ten respondents characterized the movement as "well-meaning," while still disagreeing with its positions.
• A 1994 study of 3,800 U.S. adults found that a full two-thirds of the public has a "favorable" overall opinion of the animal rights movement. A similar question asked of female adults in 1998 found that only 47% of women had a "favorable" impression of animal rights groups. However, this is explained in part because more than four times as many respondents in the latter study had "no opinion" (18% vs. 4%).
• The AP movement seems to lack credibility as a source of information for animal welfare relative to other sources, but has a reasonable amount of credibility when considered in isolation. In 2002, half of the public had a "great deal" or "moderate amount of" confidence in animal-rights activists as a source of animal welfare information.
• Overall, it appears that the public has some respect for and a generally favorable impression of AP groups. However, there appears to be a core group who oppose AP in any form, both in general and as it relates to specific animal issues.

Agreement or Disagreement with Animal Protection Goals and Objectives

• The public seems to agree with the perceived, high-level goals of the AP movement, including protecting animals and keeping them from harm, avoiding unnecessary suffering, and other abstract terms used to characterize animal protection. A 2000 Gallup Poll found that 72% of the public claims to agree with the goals of the "animal rights movement."
• When pressed to ban activities that harm animals, however, a majority of the public balks, and most people think humane laws are adequate or even go too far. A 1995 study found that six of ten respondents felt this way, while three in ten felt that humane laws do not go far enough.

• Self-reported volunteerism with AP groups appears to have risen slightly over the past decade, though it is difficult to measure given the data available. Self-reported monetary contributions to AP groups seem to have remained flat over the same period.

Source: Understanding the Public Image of the U.S. Animal Protection Movement, March 2004. Click to see the full citation and download the report.

Outcomes and Next Steps

In addition to the base reports describing results from each phase of research, HRC also produced supplemental reports covering specific issues such as differences by income and geography. NCAP members have used the research results in numerous ways, including evaluating their own campaigns and materials in light of their increased understanding of public perception. NCAP is currently considering several options to expand upon this research and address the specific needs of its member organizations.

More Information

Client: National Council for Animal Protection (NCAP)

Author: Humane Research Council (HRC)

Date of Original Research Study: Multiple studies, 2004-2006

Contact Person: Che Green, HRC; (206) 905-9887; cgreen@humaneresearch.org