The Humane League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043817491
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
8882115421
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal Protection and Welfare

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,145,897
Expenses
$21,682,964
Assets
$27,027,708
Liabilities
$1,608,783

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK MIDDLETON (INTERIM PRESIDENT (TO 5/25))
  • DANIEL SHANNON (CEO (AS OF 5/25))

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAWN BROWN (INTERIM EXECUTIVE VP): $218,032 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER BARCKLEY (SVP, MARKETING & COMMS): $196,690 total reported compensation
  • JUAN TAVERAS (SVP, PEOPLE AND OPS (TO 10/31)): $196,219 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

We exist to end the abuse of animals raised for food. This mission is executed by persuading companies and institutions to adopt animal welfare policies through negotiation and pressure campaigns, and then holding them accountable to their commitments. We mobilize volunteers and support and train a global network of organizations to end animal abuse worldwide.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, the humane league continued its commitment to fixing our broken food system, freeing farmed animals from cages, and ending the cruelest practices on factory farms.securing corporate commitments and driving industry-wide change thl's strategic campaigns and corporate engagement resulted in significant victories for animals this year. We secured brand new corporate commitments to end the use of cages in their supply chains that will spare 1.6 million hens around the world from the cruelty of extreme confinement. And thanks to decades of continuous effort, 46.4% of egg-laying hens in the us lived outside a cage for the first time, a historic high.through our global coalition, we secured 234 new corporate commitments for chickens around the world, with more than 60 of those commitments established in africa. Holding corporations accountable relentless campaigning pushed major brands to act. Our targeted efforts against subway resulted in the company committing to fully transition to 100% cage-free eggs in the us ahead of its original deadline, sparing nearly 340,000 hens annually. We also launched a massive pressure campaign against grocery giant ahold delhaize, sending over 321,000 messages to decision-makers demanding that they follow through on their public commitment to go cage-free. When hospitality giant best western hotels went silent on their cage-free commitment, international advocates from peru to poland joined forces to protest and petition until the company finally reported meaningful progress toward sparing hens.we partnered to release the world's largest investigation into industrialized egg farms, featuring footage from 37 countries. This investigation led to proactive progress reporting from compass group, the cheesecake factory, and walmart, as well as the permanent shutdown of a 45,000-hen cage farm in bulgaria. Overall, we pressured 131 companies to make progress toward their promises, impacting more than 160 million hens, and saw a 92% fulfillment rate for corporate cage-free commitments with deadlines of 2024 or earlier.defending and expanding animal protectionsin 2025, the animal policy alliance (apa) and thl fought to defend hard-won animal protections, and the apa expanded its reach to 31 members across 21 states and Washington, dc. We defended California's proposition 12 and Massachusetts' question 3 in the courts, and fought off attacks on cage-free laws in Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Michigan. At the federal level, we pushed back on the eats act and "save our bacon" act, securing opposition letters from 228 members of congress. Through $300k in grants to 12 apa member groups, we also supported 10 major legislative victories, including a foie gras sales ban in brookline, ma, and a 'plant-based by default' policy for government meetings in hennepin county, mn.building our movement our animal protection movement continued to expand globally through the open wing alliance (owa), which grew to 82 transformative organizations across 72 countries. To support this growing network, owa awarded over $2m in funding to 36 groups across 30 countries and 6 continents, including first-time grantees in australia, chile, colombia, hungary, indonesia, and italy. Our grassroots activism demonstrated impressive reach and impact, with over 6,180 actions taken by nearly 1,300 changemakers and over 1.48 million messages sent to decision-makers demanding change. The movement's strength was further demonstrated by over 56,000 donations from 15,400 generous supporters. This expanding coalition of activists, organizations, and supporters continues to strengthen our global movement for animal protection, creating lasting change for animals worldwide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
  • 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 the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Pass
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.2%; rating input score 98; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 16th 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: 2.1%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.25; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.7%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.1% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $520K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 18 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.