International Council for Animal Welfare
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994617541
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6106089177
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Alliance/Advocacy Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,587,395
- Expenses
- $1,894,774
- Assets
- $2,997,990
- Liabilities
- $39,090
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Christopher Liptrot (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Katie Schloer (Secretary/COO): $128,324 total reported compensation
- Christopher Liptrot (President): $128,241 total reported compensation
- Chelsie Schadt (Head of Global Policy): $118,897 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
ICAW is a global force for advancing animal welfare within industries worldwide. We collaborate with leaders at multinational corporations and inspire public action to drive meaningful change for animals everywhere. Guided by science and a commitment to transparency, we advocate for transformative policies that prioritize humane practices and elevate welfare standards across the supply chain, creating a world where compassion and responsibility are at the heart of every institution.
What it reported doing in 2025
Global cage free campaign: Focused on advancing institutional animal welfare in key geographies globally. Through this program, ICAW has engaged with decision-makers at large multinational companies as well as the general public to raise awareness about evidence-based animal welfare priorities, specifically cage-free initiatives for hens.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 93
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $52.29 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 39.4%; rating input score 39; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -19.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 32.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 169.3% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -24% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 49.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 58/100.