Legal Impact for Chickens

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
871596873
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
8885818797
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,917,001
Expenses
$511,134
Assets
$2,214,196
Liabilities
$5,346

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alene Anello (President and Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alene Anello (President and Executive Director): $90,486 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Legal Impact For Chickens' (LIC's) mission is to protect the welfare of farmed animals (livestock and poultry) through the use of the legal system. We primarily strive to achieve this goal through civil litigation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legal impact for chickens (lic) sent its suit against kfc-supplier case farms to the North Carolina court of appeals. Lic is suing case farms for the poultry company's pattern of gross mismanagement and cruelty toward chicks and chickens. On january 30, 2024, lic filed a notice of appeal to the North Carolina court of appeals. On september 3, 2024, lic filed our opening appellate brief. Since then, farming groups, veterinarians, and a North Carolina animal rescue served as amici on lic's side, weighing in to stand up for birds. Lic filed our appellate reply brief on november 21, 2024. On july 30, 2024, lic sent a cease-and-desist letter to dc butcher shop harvey's market on behalf of lic's client, animal outlook (ao) for labeling foie gras as humane. Harvey's market stated that it had no plans to change anything. So, on october 15, 2024, lic filed a lawsuit against harvey's market in the superior court of the district of columbia. The ao v. Harvey's market complaint alleges that this type of misleading advertising violates dc law. The lawsuit had an immediate impact, as harvey's market reported in its answer to lic's complaint that it had discontinued the sale of foie gras once notice of the lawsuit was received. On september 30, 2024, lic filed an animal-cruelty suit against alexandre family farm for pouring salt into cows' eyes, dragging disabled animals across concrete, starving cattle, and more. Lic filed its complaint in humboldt county superior court, seeking an injunction to protect alexandre's cattle. Lic commissioned an undercover investigation of foster farms, California's largest poultry producer. The organization we hired, ao, released the investigation on october 7, 2024. The investigator caught foster farms driving forklifts over chickens, throwing them, and kicking them. Cruelty is a crime, so ao has presented the video and legal analysis to the fresno county district attorney's office. On october 11, 2024, the fresno bee reported that local detectives launched an investigation, which has remained an ongoing case. Foster farms also reportedly released a statement that, as a result of the lic-sponsored investigation, foster farms has implemented new animal-welfare procedures, including increased animal welfare audits. In december 2024, legal impact for chickens sent an official books-and-records request to tyson's board on behalf of a shareholder. Our tyson shareholder client is demanding more information about tyson's treatment of chickens and of workers. Lic then communicated with attorneys for tyson's board regarding the documents to which our client is entitled. Lic spoke at berkeley law, american university law, Oklahoma university law, brooklyn law, lewis and clark law, university of South Carolina law, effective altruism global, and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.4%; rating input score 18
  • Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $97.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.3%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.33; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 58.7% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 55.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.4% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $324K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.