Skip to content
The Humane League at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

The Humane League

We exist to end the abuse of animals raised for food.

$4.3M
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
10
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Animals$993kCivil Rights$90kEducation$50kFood & Nutrition$6kArts & Culture$6k
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 11 grants below total $345,000, the rows itemized in this filing. The $4,261,891 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $3,916,891 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k10 grants · $295k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$30,000
Median grant
10
States reached
$27M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ANIMAL ACTIVIST LEGAL DEFENSE PROJECT VIA UNIVERSITY OF DENVER$50,000
HUMANE ACTION PENNSYLVANIA$45,000
CHILIS ON WHEELS VIA A WELL-FED WORLD$45,000
NORTHWEST ANIMAL RIGHTS NETWORK (NARN)$41,000
DC VOTERS FOR ANIMALS EDUCATION FUND$38,000
MISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR ANIMAL LEGISLATION$30,000
VOTERS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS$30,000
ANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO$20,000
SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INSECTS$18,000
COMPASSIONATE ACTION FOR ANIMALS$18,000
SOCIAL COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION$10,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY21–21, $100k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 10%RETHINK PRIORITIES: $100k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
NY
OR
PA
CA
CO
MO
VA
NM
DC

Grants abroad, by region: $3.8M on the FY2025 return

Schedule F, as filed: 6 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$2.6M · 67% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATION SUPPORT IN FURTHERANCE OF CORPORATE CAGE FREE CAMPAIGN WORK

Sub-Saharan Africa$500k · 13% · 7 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATION SUPPORT IN FURTHERANCE OF CORPORATE CAGE FREE CAMPAIGN WORK

South America$444k · 12% · 5 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATION SUPPORT IN FURTHERANCE OF CORPORATE CAGE FREE CAMPAIGN WORK

East Asia and the Pacific$149k · 4% · 2 grants

Stated purpose: OPERATION SUPPORT IN FURTHERANCE OF CORPORATE CAGE FREE CAMPAIGN WORK

Middle East and North Africa$100k · 3% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: SUPPORT FOR CORPORATE CAMPAIGN WORK AS WELL AS GENERAL OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

South Asia$70k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: OPERATION SUPPORT IN FURTHERANCE OF CORPORATE CAGE FREE CAMPAIGN WORK

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

69%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$788k · 8 repeat orgs$357k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +11% since the first grant, against -22% for those funded once.

8 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2025, 2 since wound down; 5 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

8
4

Total granted

$788k
$192k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+11%
-22%

Still filing today

75%
75%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 52% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $165k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’21’22’23’24’25
AnimalsFood & NutritionHuman ServicesEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • HA
    Humane Action Pittsburgh
    2× · 2022–2025 · $120k · revenue +12%
  • AP
    ANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO
    3× · 2022–2025 · $111k · revenue +11%
  • MA
    MISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR ANIMAL LEGISLATION
    3× · 2022–2025 · $100k · revenue +58%

Funded once

  • RP
    Rethink Prioritiesgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +261%
  • AW
    A Well-Fed World
    one grant, 2022 · $80k · revenue -22%
  • PI
    PROVEG INTERNATIONAL INC
    one grant, 2023 · $6k · revenue -22%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Global Animal Partnership
Animals
2
Animal Protection and Rescue League Inc

Exposing and eliminating animal cruelty.

Animals
3
Humane World for Animals International

HUMANE WORLD FOR ANIMALS INTERNATIONAL, FKA HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (HSI), works around the globe to promote the human-animal bond, rescue and protect dogs and cats, improve farm animal welfare, protect wildlife, promote animal-free…

Animals
4
Animal Alliance Asia

Our mission is to build and mobilize a community of local animal justice and vegan advocates across Asia to create waves of impactful actions for a better world for farmed animals.

Animals
5
Environmental and Animal Defense

At Environmental and Animal Defense, our mission is to provide Colorado with access to affordable legal services for environmental and animal issues, in addition to protecting wildlife and their habitats through enforcement of the law. No…

Crime & Legal
6
Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit dba Caru Spca

The Animal Legal Defense Fund Cruelty Prevention Unit's primary mission is to prevent cruelty to animals.

Human Services
7
Alliance for Arizona Animal Protection

Prevention of animal cruelty and intervention on behalf of animals being abused.

Animals
8
Animal Wellness Action

To prevent cruelty to animals, we promote enacting and enforcing good public policies. enacting good laws depends upon electing good lawmakers, and we remind voters which candidates care about and support animal issues.

Human Services
9
Humane World Action Fund

To pass animal protection laws, educate the public, and support humane candidates for office.

Animals
10
Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law and Policy Inc
Philanthropy
11
Last Chance for Animals

Dedicated to ending animal abuse and exploitation through education, public outreach and investigations.

Animals
12
The Animal Welfare Foundation
—
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Dc Voters for Animals Education Fund Inc; the most unlike its peers is Society for the Protection of Insects. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 17 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

2
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
4
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
7/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

Voters for Animal Rights Inc: $130,000 · AnimalsVoters for Animal Rights IncHumane Action Pittsburgh: $120,000 · AnimalsHumane Action PittsburghANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO: $110,700 · AnimalsANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICODC VOTERS FOR ANIMALS INC: $80,800 · AnimalsDC VOTERS FOR ANIMALS INCSOCIAL COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION: $80,000 · AnimalsSOCIAL COMPASSION IN LEGISLATIONNorthwest Animal Rights Network: $41,000 · AnimalsNorthwest Animal Rights NetworkDC VOTERS FOR ANIMALS EDUCATION FUND INC: $38,000 · AnimalsDC VOTERS FOR ANIMALS EDUCATION FUND INC+2 more: $36,000 · Animals+2 moreMISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR ANIMAL LEGISLATION: $100,000 · OtherMISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR ANIMA…Prevent Cruelty California a Humane Society Committee: $90,000 · OtherPrevent Cruelty California …CHILIS ON WHEELS VIA A WELL-FED WORLD: $76,000 · OtherCHILIS ON WHEELS VIA A WELL…+2 more: $11,500 · OtherRethink Priorities: $100,000 · Human ServicesRethink P…A Well-Fed World: $80,000 · Food & NutritionUNIVERSITY OF DENVER: $50,000 · Education
Animals$636,500Other$277,500Human Services$100,000Food & Nutrition$80,000Education$50,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$100k$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetVoters for Animal Rights Inc: $130,000 over 3y, 39% of budgetHumane Action Pittsburgh: $120,000 over 2y, 25% of budgetANIMAL PROTECTION NEW MEXICO: $110,700 over 3y, 2.5% of budgetRethink Priorities: $100,000 over 1y, 1.8% of budgetMISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR ANIMAL LEGISLATION: $100,000 over 3y, 16% of budgetPrevent Cruelty California a Humane Society Committee: $90,000 over 2y, 0.4% of budgetA Well-Fed World: $80,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetSOCIAL COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION: $80,000 over 2y, 1.9% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF DENVER: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetDC VOTERS FOR ANIMALS EDUCATION FUND INC: $38,000 over 1y, 23% of budgetSOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INSECTS: $18,000 over 1y, 32% of budgetPROVEG INTERNATIONAL INC: $6,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Karuna FoundationAnimal Charity Evalua…The Quinn FoundationEffective Ventures Fo…Vegfund IncVanguard Charitable E…Network for GoodAmerican Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …Donor Advised Charita…Amazonsmile Foundation
Karuna FoundationCO17.8× affinity6 shared granteesties to 10 of 10Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Karuna Foundation · Animal Charity Evaluators · The Quinn Foundation · Effective Ventures Foundation USA Inc · Vegfund Inc · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · Network for Good · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization The Humane League funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from The Humane League. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 10%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    1get no government money at all
    1report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 17 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Humane League’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home