Animal Legal Defense Legislative Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 843412894
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7072006359
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $200,375
- Expenses
- $423,773
- Assets
- $712,310
- Liabilities
- $84,975
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRIS GREEN (PRESIDENT)
- KIM KELLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRIS GREEN (PRESIDENT): $316,913 total reported compensation
- KIM KELLY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $180,419 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 legislative fund works in legislatures across the country to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals by passing animal protection laws, supporting animal friendly candidates, and empowering grassroots advocates.
What it reported doing in 2024
Aldlf led and supported five state-level campaigns to prohibit the non-therapeutic declawing of cats. To advance these campaigns, aldlf built and engaged coalitions from both national and local organizations; actively lobbied bills and testified in favor of the legislation; deployed grassroots strategies to persuade legislators; and contracted with lobbyists to support the bills within the legislatures. Additionally, aldlf finalized language for a congressional resolution opposing non-therapeutic cat declawing for introduction in early 2026.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 65
- Sustainability: 23
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 95.3%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: $59.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -111.5%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.68; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 39.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -25.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $404K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $317K · 4 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.