Animal Legal Defense Fund

Legal name: Animal Legal Defense Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942681680
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
7077952533
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,716,926
Expenses
$17,525,202
Assets
$24,792,077
Liabilities
$1,719,425

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS GREEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENDRA MELROSE (CHIEF PROGRAMS OFF (THRU 7/10/24)): $338,791 total reported compensation
  • CHRIS GREEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $316,913 total reported compensation
  • JOHN SEBER (GENERAL COUNSEL): $232,164 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s mission is to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. The Animal Legal Defense Fund accomplishes this mission by filing high-impact lawsuits to protect animals from harm, providing free legal assistance and training to prosecutors to assure that animal abusers are held accountable for their crimes, supporting tough animal protection legislation and fighting legislation harmful to animals, and providing resources and opportunities to law students and professionals to advance the emerging field of animal law. Founded in 1979 by attorneys active in shaping the emerging field of animal law, the Animal Legal Defense Fund has.

What it reported doing in 2024

Animal law programthe animal legal defense fund's animal law program works closely with law students and law professionals to advance the emerging field of animal law. Working to expand animal law into the curriculum of every law school in the country, the animal law program collaborates with students, faculty, and school administrations to facilitate the development of animal law courses and assists students in forming animal legal defense fund student chapters. As part of the animal legal defense fund's animal law program, the organization makes grants available to various organizations, legal institutions, individuals, and animal legal defense fund student chapters at law schools across the country to support the efforts to inform, educate, and take action for animal protection laws. The animal legal defense fund grants are critical to encouraging the next generation of animal lawyers.pro bono programthe animal legal defense fund's pro bono program is the nation's largest legal pro bono network for animal protection. The program partners with attorneys and pro bono coordinators across the u.s. To expand the practice of animal law. Collectively, legal professionals donate thousands of hours to the animal legal defense fund cases annually. The donated value of services for 07/01/2024 to 06/30/2025, included in the total expenses of the pro bono program was $2,719,342. The program also works to increase the understanding of animal law in the legal community by educating professionals at law firms and bar association events and keeping volunteers engaged and up to date on the latest developments in the field.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.7%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 70.2%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.1%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.41; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 68.7% of revenue deployed · 70.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $12.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $339K · 26 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $213K reported
  • Consistency: 42 of 43 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 11 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.